However, there remain several misunderstandings about group coaching, the most common of which is that there is one way to do it, for example, that there should always be a certain number of members, they should always meet at a certain time, coaching always has to be done a certain way, and certain roles always have to be followed a certain way.

No, there isn’t one specific design or model that is always best.  The design depends on the desired outcomes for the organization that is implementing a group coaching program.  Hopefully, the organization has verified that the desired outcomes will indeed benefit the organization.  If, instead, the group coaching program is being organized by a coach, e.g., to further help her clients, then the design depends on the desired outcomes that the coach believes will further benefit her clients.

There are at least 10 different outcomes from group coaching programs and each suggests a slightly different design.  Progressive organizations and coaches might recognize that the best desired outcomes for each group member will emerge during the unfolding and supportive nature of the coaching within the group.  Thus, outcomes can change.

Whether for an organization or an individual coach, the considerations for success of the coaching in a group happen well before the members get together, e.g., what are the desired outcomes, how will outcomes be measured and evaluated, what cultural considerations are needed, how will the program be marketed, what technologies and facilities will be needed, how will the coaching be done, what kind of members should be in the group, how will they be trained on their roles, how will members’ learning be captured, etc.?

If all of the members will be working on the same project (an intact team format of group coaching), then that type has special considerations, e.g., how can members be supported to be most open and honest with each other, what is the role of the project manager with the group, how will confidentially be maintained, etc.?

Also, with an intact team, there are certain design factors that precede the coaching in the groups, too.  For example, what is the purpose of the team, what are its deliverables and any deadlines, who does the team report to and how will that person understand the role of team coaching, does the team have sufficient resources to do its job, what has been the team’s performance in the past, etc.?

A good coaching program should be able to accommodate more than one model of coaching.  The design should follow from the organization’s and coach’s desired outcomes, not the other way around.  A good program design should never insist on one particular way of doing things.  It should adapt from the learning as the program is being implemented.

While all of this might seem intimidating, it doesn’t have to be.  Many organizational personnel and coaches have already designed some aspects of programs, e.g., a weight-loss program, training program or one-on-one coaching program.

We have designed very successful group/team coaching programs around the world since 1995 and witnessed the thrill of watching people realize their own wisdom, of watching people count on each other to accomplish significant break-throughs in their lives. There are few experiences like that.

For more information, see What is Group Coaching? Part 1 of 2.

To add group/team coaching to your toolbox, see the virtual workshop Facilitating and Developing Group Coaching Programs.

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD, Action Learning Source.

The post What is the One Best Model of Group Coaching? appeared first on Coaching and Action Learning.

Here’s a handy tip that we all used in a three-day, peer coaching group workshop in the Kansas Leadership Center, and it helped to clear up confusion during the entire workshop.  (You might remember when we all did that, Teresa J

When two people are talking about peer learning:

If they’re talking outcomes, what type are they talking about?

• Short-term outcomes (new knowledge)?
• Intermediate outcomes (new skills)?
• Long-term outcomes (new abilities, conditions, perceptions)?

Are both talking about the same type of outcomes?

If they’re talking about activities or outcomes, what level is each talking about?

• Organizational?
• Program?
• Group?
• Individual?

Are they talking about the same level?

It might be interesting to notice this during your own conversations

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD, co-founder of Action Learning Source.

The post How to Avoid Confusion in Conversations About Learning and Development appeared first on Coaching and Action Learning.

1. The most important initial consideration, by far, is not whether a program is for group coaching or team coaching. It is answering the question, “What ultimate outcome(s) should the program help the members to achieve?” The answer to that question will drive all aspects of a program.

2. The conditions for the success of whatever you want to call it (team or group coaching) occur in the program design, well before the members even meet each other. Too often, the literature writes as if the members have already been selected and are coming together.

3. There are at least 9 different formats of the group or team: where 1, some or all get coached, or where 1, some or all do the coaching. It is not always a professional coach doing the coaching The format (the structure) is determined by the desired outcome.

4. The vast majority of the considerations that the literature asserts are different between group and team coaching are actually much more in common between the two, for example: Is the program for solving problems for each person or for the entire group? Will members be from the same organization or different? Will the members’ supervisors support their involvement?  Who will do the coaching and who will get coached? Will coaching be only questions or include advice, brainstorming and materials? How will trust be built between members? Will the program be integrated with other programs?  How will the program be marketed?  How will it be evaluated?

5. Approaching a program initially with the question “Is it team or group coaching?” can too often impose a binary framework that can detract us from initially focusing on the ultimate outcome and it also can blind us from appreciating a variety of secondary outcomes.

6. When designing a program in an organization, there usually is not nearly the freedom of design, agenda and flow of the process that the literature suggests. It’s far better to start out very specifically, and change it later on (if the client permits

? What have you learned about group or team coaching?

Also see:

• What is Group Coaching?
• What is the One Best Model of Group Coaching?
• Facilitating and Developing Peer, Group, Team and Organizational Coaching Programs

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD, is a co-founder of Action Learning Source.

The post Reflections on the Question: “Is it Group or Team Coaching?” appeared first on Coaching and Action Learning.

However, at least in those days, it was often a struggle to get SPAL set members to continue attending meetings, especially after the 1st and 2nd meetings, much less to even have them self-facilitate.

So in the early 1990s, I started experimenting with having every set member be the presenter in every meeting and the other members posing generative questions to the presenter.  I wondered if individual attention to each member would further enrich the Action Learning experience and sustain attendance.  I began referring to this as multi-project Action Learning (MPAL).  (I don’t know if I invented that phrase or if someone else … whatever.)

I realized that, rather than the deep dive of clarifying and framing that comes from focusing on one presenter in one meeting (SPAL), the framing in MPAL would have to come from repeated framing over subsequent, but well-attended, meetings.

To my surprise I found that, if each member got, e.g., 30 minutes to be questioned by other members (I now refer to that questioning as getting coached) about a current and real problem, then those members still got some framing during that time – and sustained, strong framing occurred over subsequent meetings.

The process basically used laser coaching to guide each member through a format somewhat like the GROW model of coaching, including to select realistic actions to take between meetings.  Learning comes from continual reflection on the questions and the actions that were taken.

The MPAL process includes six elements:

1. a set/group of 4-8 members
2. each works on a current and real problem (or priority)
3. facilitation (a set of tasks, rather than a certain role)
4. coaching (this is our preferred term, rather than questioning)
5. commitments to actions
6. commitments to learning

Since then, we’ve had an increasing number of clients spawning new groups from around the world – many of them have been with us for several years and some for almost a decade.  Most of our groups are done virtually.

The tool of the SPAL model of Action Learning is particularly useful for a deep dive of powerful framing on a complex problem, and is very powerful for solving a complex problem (rather quickly, at times), team building and various forms of leadership development.

The MPAL model is particularly useful for solving concurrent problems (taking longer than SPAL), teaching coaching skills, cultivating strong networks, sharing support and ensuring transfer of training.  It’s also very useful for cultivating self-facilitating and highly sustainable sets.

There are standard outcomes from the SPAL and MPAL formats, including skills in listening, presenting, questioning, problem solving, innovating, facilitating and systems thinking.

The selection of the problems that MPAL members work on, the nature of the coaching, the membership of groups and their frequency of meetings, and the types of actions taken between meetings depend very much on the particular purpose of the MPAL.

As with any field or profession, there will likely be strong opinions about which format is best and which is the “true” Action learning or not.  I’ve learned over the years, to let the clients decide that matter.

What do you think?

Written by Carter McNamara, Action Learning Source.

The post Single-Project and Multi-Project Formats of Action Learning appeared first on Coaching and Action Learning.

Basic Considerations in Designing Group Coaching

It is very important to customize the design of group coaching to the specific way that you want to use it.  There are many considerations to be made during the design.  For example:

1. What is the primary purpose of the groups?
2. Who will be in the groups?
3. Will they be from the same organization or different?
4. Will each work on the same topic or each work on different?
5. How will they be trained?
6. What resources will they need?
7. How will they be facilitated?
8. How will they be evaluated during and after the groups?
9. How many meetings will there be and for how long?
10. How will they communicate?
11. Who will primarily be responsible for the groups?
12. Is there a special coaching model that should be used?
13. Will the model need to be acculturated somehow?
14. Will they be integrated with other development methods?

Basic Guidelines for Some Common Applications of Group Coaching

To Spread Low-Cost, Core Coaching Skills

The organization should clearly specify the benefits of the groups for the organization and for each of its employees.  Specific people should be assigned responsibility for the groups.  Plans should be made for quickly starting and spreading the groups across the organization, for example, to have each group member go on to facilitate a new group (sometimes referred to as cascading groups).   It will be less expensive if groups can be self-facilitated, so they might need to be trained for that.  The supervisors of each of the group members will need to support their employees in the groups.  Practical methods will need to be developed to evaluate the groups during and after their sequence of meetings.

To Ensure That Students Apply Content from Trainings

The members of the group should be from the same training program, and the scheduling of the groups will need to match the scheduling of the trainings.  The trainers will need to know about the groups and the role of the groups in the program.  The group’s coaching process will need to be designed around applying the content of the trainings.  Members will need to reference straightforward materials from the trainings.  Evaluations of the groups and training should be complementary and not overwhelming.

To Develop and Strengthen a Team

The team will need a clear purpose or charter from the organization.  The supervisors of the group members will need to support the members’ time in meetings.  The team will need clear procedures for membership, making decisions and generating recommendations.  They might need a budget and timeline for their work, as well.  If all members are from the same organization, then ground rules and facilitation will need to minimize any inhibitions from members working for the same supervisor.

To Cultivate Deep Networks

The members of the group should feel a strong bond among each other, but have complementary resources and skills.  For example, they each might be from a different business unit or organizations.  Still, they should feel that they have a lot in common and could benefit from each other.  The group process should include each member clarifying what he or she needs, and should ensure that his or her needs are always met in their meetings.  Otherwise, the member will not continue to attend the meetings.

—

For more information, see All About Coaching.

—

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD, is a faculty member of ActionLearningSource, which specializes in customizing high-quality Action Learning and group coaching programs for a wide variety of outcomes and applications.  The firm also conducts a variety of low-cost, virtual trainings about Action Learning and group coaching.

The post What is Group Coaching? How Do You Develop It? (Part 2 of 2) appeared first on Coaching and Action Learning.

The Action Learning framework and the field of personal and professional coaching both focus on personal, professional and organizational development, especially by including thoughtful questions among participants to clarify current priorities, select relevant strategies to address them, and take realistic actions to implement those strategies.  The fields focus on guiding and supporting participants to reflect on the questioning and the actions that they take, in order to cultivate deep learning for the participants.

(There are many different views of Action Learning and how it should be done.  To understand those differences, see the video Different Perspectives on Action Learning.)

Here are links to extensive, free, practical resources for these activities.

All About Action Learning

One of the world’s largest collections of free, well-organized information about Action Learning, including different definitions and models of Action Learning, various theories, examples of applications, and resources for each of the typical elements in the process.  It also references numerous, free practical videos about all aspects of planning, developing, implementing, evaluating and troubleshooting Action Learning program

All About Coaching

Also one of the world’s largest collections of free, well-organized information — this time about personal and professional coaching, including different definitions, types of coaching, many benefits, hiring a coach, getting coached, doing coaching — and much more.

All About Facilitation

Includes free resources about typical tasks of facilitators, their values, how they often work, good versus not so good facilitation, group theories and dynamics, different types of groups, tools and techniques — and much more.

All About Questioning

Includes different types of questions and when to use each, traits of useful and not so useful questions, and many examples of useful questions.

Inquiry and Reflection

Includes definitions, the process of reflection, balancing inquiry and advocacy, tools to cultivate reflection, capturing learning, etc.

All About Learning and Development

Includes extensive, free resources about understanding learning and development, different types of L&D, types of activities for L&D and when to use each, designing informal and formal learning activities, etc.

—

The post Extensive, Free, Practical Online Resources for Action Learners, Facilitators and Coaches appeared first on Coaching and Action Learning.

Group coaching is used much more often now because it often can achieve more impact, more quickly and at lower cost. Group coaching leverages the untapped wisdom, support and networking among clients, employees and peers.  But what do we mean by “group coaching”?

First, What is Coaching?

The International Coach Federation has a definition for personal and professional coaching that is widely accepted:

“… coaching as partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential, which is particularly important in today’s uncertain and complex environment. Coaches honor the client as the expert in his or her life and work and believe every client is creative, resourceful and whole. Standing on this foundation, the coach’s responsibility is to:

• Discover, clarify, and align with what the client wants to achieve
• Encourage client self-discovery
• Elicit client-generated solutions and strategies
• Hold the client responsible and accountable

This process helps clients dramatically improve their outlook on work and life, while improving their leadership skills and unlocking their potential.”

So What is Group Coaching?

Simply put, group coaching is coaching in a group.  However, there are many different formats for how that can be done.  You could have one, some or all of the members of the group do the coaching to one, some or all of the group members.  For example, a professional coach might coach each of the members of the group or the group members might coach each other.

Coaching could be done in one or several group meetings.  It can also be done face-to-face or by means of telecommunications, for example, over the phone or Internet.  Groups can be “externally” facilitated, that is, by someone who does not do the coaching or who does not get coached.  In contrast, groups can self-facilitate, where one, some or all of the members are responsible for the facilitation.

Some people distinguish between group coaching and team coaching.  They might define a team to be a group of people whose members all have the same purpose and goals, and work together in the same organization.

Powerful Applications for Group Coaching

Group coaching is very popular because it can be used for a wide variety of results and applications.  Here are some of the most popular:

Problem solving among members

Coaching is great for solving complex problems because it guides and supports group members to closely clarify the problems, identify powerful strategies to solve them, and specify relevant and realistic actions to implement those strategies.  Members can share support and accountabilities to take those actions.

Guarantee transfer of training

That same support and accountabilities can be used to ensure that group members actually apply the content that they got from some form of training, for example, from lectures, book studies and podcasts.

Team building

The close engagement among members and their strong focus on helping each other can quickly form a close and confidential bond in which members come to rely on each other to achieve the goal of the team.

Deep networking

Because members completely count on each other, they feel free to share more than business cards – they share their needs, open and honest feedback, and useful and practical resources among each other.

Quickly spreading, low-cost core coaching skills

Coaching has been proven to be a powerful means to cultivate change in people.  Organizational change, including cultural change, requires change in people as well.  In some formats of group coaching, the members not only get coached, but they practice coaching.  The groups can be low-cost because the members do much of the work in the groups.

Engagement of all employees

We are learning that, unless a change effort has the complete buy-in, participation and commitment of employees, then the change effort is not likely to be successful.  That engagement has to start with the employees being authentic – open, honest and direct about what they are experiencing.  They need to feel listened to — and respected.  That can occur in these groups.

Support and renewal groups

Research shows increasing burnout and cynicism among employees.  Burnout is not necessarily caused by a person’s workload.  It can be caused by the person’s perspective on their workload.  Coaching can clarify that perspective and what can be done about it

Core Leadership Skills

There are many skills that group members will develop, regardless of the purpose of the group.  For example, they will build skills in presenting to a group, asking for and accepting help, listening, asking good questions, action planning and learning from reflection.  A good group will also cultivate authenticity, engagement and accountability among members.  All of these skills are critical to good leadership.

(In the upcoming Part 2, we will describe some basic considerations in developing a group coaching application.)

—

For more information, see All About Coaching.

The post What is Group Coaching? How Do You Develop It ? (Part 1 of 2) appeared first on Coaching and Action Learning.

There seems to be a mistaken impression that there is already this kind of independent organization that grants Action Learning certification for the field of Action Learning. Actually, there is not — and that should not confuse current and new Action Learners. (There is an organization that claims to be the official certifier of Action Learning, but it concurrently sells its own proprietary model of Action Learning.)

Increasing Need for Independent Action Learning Certification Organization?

I believe there is a strong need for an independent organization that offers an optional certification for Action Learning training programs and facilitators. My reasons are:

1. There are variations that refer to themselves as “Action Learning” and mention Revans, yet dramatically differ from Revans’ core process. They might center on outdoors activities with journaling, group discussions or not include actions. Even Revans was loathe to define Action Learning, but at what point is a process not the group-based, problem-solving Action Learning process?
2. There is a misunderstanding that there already is the certification organization for the field of Action Learning. I have been asked if our (Authenticity Consulting’s and Acton Learning Source’s) trainings “are certified” or “approved” by that organization. If there already was a certifier, then ideally there would have been an apparent consensus about that among Action Learning training programs.  There is not consensus, at all.

Major Benefit of an Action Learning Certification Organization Now?

A certification organization might help to address these issues by supporting the clarity, integrity and legitimacy of the field by suggesting certain standards and competencies. Those would be optional to those in the field, of course. Other prominent fields and professions have benefited from such a strategy, for example, the International Coach Federation, Human Resource Certification Institute, ASTD Certification Institute, and Project Management Institute.

What Would the Action Learning Certification Organization Do?

1. It would be widely respected as influencing standards, accreditation and competencies in the trainings and practices of group-based Action Learning.
2. It would provide its accreditation to training programs and certification to practitioners, along with suggesting standards of ethics in the practice of Action Learning.
3. Its standards, accreditation and certifications would not be mandatory; rather they would apply to whatever organizations and practitioners that seek them.
4. It could be a new organization or a program of an already established, independent organization, such as the International Federation for Action Learning.
5. It would be an independent body like that in other prominent fields or professions.
   NOTE:  It would not concurrently sell or train its own model of Action learning that it has also certified.

Proposed Next Steps to Consider Action Learning Certification Organization

I propose that the consideration of this organization, include:

1. Dialogues about whether such an organization should exist now.
2. Then, based on indications from the dialogues, a council of representatives from various Action Learning centers would be convened.
3. It would suggest considerations and recommendations about such an organization.
4. If the Council, or some other organization or group of committed personnel concluded the need for the organization, it could be developed over time.

Proposed Question for a Dialogue Now

“Should there be an independent certification organization that suggests standards, accreditation and competencies for the field of Action Learning, to which training programs and practitioners have the option to follow?”

Feedback?

What do you think?

—

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD, is a Principal in ActionLearningSource.com

The post Action Learning Certification — There is No Independent Certifying Body (Should There Be?) appeared first on Coaching and Action Learning.

My hope is that Action Learning practitioners throughout the world will fully embrace the passion for discovery and active experimentation—the pillars on which our practice is built.  Both are essential factors in adapting Action Learning to the evolving needs of our clients.  My purpose as an Action Learning educator and practitioner is to encourage the importance of a flexible approach to the practice of Action Learning, and to suggest the need to adapt our practices to the evolving challenges and opportunities our clients are facing.  This intention is at the heart of Action Learning Source—an organization I founded with Dr. Carter McNamara and Teri McNamara of Authenticity Consulting.  (www.actionlearningsource.com)

The Importance of Learning in Survival

It goes without saying that that the global rate of change continues to accelerate.  Reg Revans—a physicist at Cambridge University and the founder of Action Learning—observed that if organizations don’t learn faster than the rate of change, they will not survive.   This chilling reality no doubt contributed to his approach to generating new knowledge—insights to supplement knowledge of experts.  This new knowledge, in his concept, came from powerful questions asked by a small group of people dedicated to solve emerging challenges.  Team members learned from their actions and took new actions based on their learning.

Learning from Experience

Revans, in effect, was one of the pioneers in experiential learning.   We know from research that the vast majority of learning comes from experience—from actions we take.  The second most important means is the coaching we get from managers, mentors, peers, and trained coaches.   Action Learning combines both learning from experience and coaching into an intentional, disciplined, and repeatable problem-solving and learning method.

Unfortunately, research tells us that most people are only getting a fraction of the value of learning from their experiences.  Our ability to leverage experience depends to a great extent on fostering “learning agility.”   Mastering learning agility requires the development of what Dr. Steve Terrell calls “learning mindset” and “learning practices.”  (www.aspireconsulting.net)

Understanding — and Cultivating — Mindset in Learning

Research by Dr. Carol Dweck and Dr. Steve Terrell has shown the benefit to leaders whose attitude or mindset toward learning embodies (a) a belief in their own learning and growth potential; (b) openness to experience; (c) motivation, willingness, and desire to learn; (d) curiosity about others and how they do what they do; (e) an attitude of discovery and exploration; and (f) the intention and willingness to gain something positive from experience.  These leaders experience more growth and contribution to organizational success than leaders who do not have these attitudes toward learning.

The learning mindset facilitates the use of key practices that leverage learning from experience including (a) taking responsibility for your own learning and development; (b) approaching new assignments/opportunities with openness to experience and positive intention to learn; (c) seeking and using feedback; (d) developing a clear understanding of your strengths and areas for development;  (e) asking great questions; (f) actively reflecting; (g) experimenting with new approaches; and (h) observing and learning from others.

Action Learning Accelerates the Development of Learning Mindset and Learning Practices

A learning mindset and learning practices are no strangers to experienced Action Learning practitioners; both are common outcomes for participants in Action Learning programs.  So what is it that Action Learning does to increase the likelihood of learning from experience?   If we look at the many approaches to Action Learning around the world, there are certain elements that are common to all that foster a learning mindset and learning practices.     Action Learning is an intentional process in which a small, diverse group of people is committed to addressing a real challenge faced by at least one member of the group and learning from their experience together.  They do this through the use of powerful questions to both frame and solve the challenge.  The taking of action and the reflection on the action taken are integral parts of the process.  In many cases, there is a facilitator or coach involved who guides the group’s search for clarity and learning; in some cases, the groups can be successful in self facilitating as well.

Many Factors to Consider When Customizing Action Learning

Major differences of approach arise in 4 key areas:  (a) the role and participation of the coach/facilitator; (b) the specific ground rules that govern the process; (c) the level of diversity of the Action Learning team and (d) the use of specific learning and problem solving tools and techniques.  For example, in some models, the Action Learning coach (or facilitator) is a very passive participant—intervening only to help the group gain clarity and to facilitate learning. In another model, the Action Learning coach is an active participant in the group.   For another example, in one model, there is a very prescriptive set of steps taken with tools provided for each step.  In another model, there is a very loose set of steps and minimal tools provided by the coach to facilitate addressing the challenge and learning.  Here is a concise depiction of many of the parameters that must be considered when customizing Action Learning.

Success of Action Learning Starts Before Groups Meet

I have had the benefit of great mentors and colleagues including Dr. Mike Marquardt and Dr. Cindy Phillips.  I have learned the hard way that a one-size-fits-all approach does not necessarily result in learning from experience.  More recently I have partnered with Dr. Carter McNamara of Authenticity Consulting.  Carter and his wife Teri, have opened my eyes to ways of thinking about Action Learning.

What I have learned is that the first principle of accelerating the impact of learning through experience is to tailor the process to the needs of the organization and the needs of the team.  It sounds obvious, yet the underlying assumption that you have a flexible process that can be adapted is not true in many approaches to Action Learning.  I have concluded that as much as 80 percent of the success of learning from experience in Action Learning comes from what is done to create the conditions of success before the very first team meeting.

—

Chuck Appleby, PhD, is founder of Appleby & Associates, and is a leadership and organization development consultant with over 30 years of management, consulting, and coaching experience in government, industry, and non-profits.

The post Many Faces of Action Learning: A Key to Learning from Experience appeared first on Coaching and Action Learning.

1. Are you your own worst enemy? Reflect on these questions:
• Do you take on things to be liked?
• Are you a perfectionist?
• Is taking on a challenge stimulating?
• Do you not know how to say no?
• Are you competitive?
All of these things can influence you to take on too much. Be clear about what is important to you and then set boundaries to stay in alignment.

2. Know what is expected of you. Be sure to clarify with your manager what the priorities are, timelines and how you will be measured. Is it expected that you work overtime and on weekends – or is this a self imposed expectation?

3. Stop mental job creep. Even if you don’t bring work home physically, you may tend to become preoccupied with work situations during your personal life. Here is a tip – use your travel home time to decompress work issues. Then create mental boundary to not let work walk into the door with you.

4. Don’t say “yes” right away. Make a boundary to give yourself time to decide. Then you can evaluate how something new will or will not fit.

5. Know how to negotiate. If your work culture will not accept “no” for answer, try to counter offer a request. Here are some negotiating ideas to help you keep your boundaries intact:
• defer the start until you finish other priorities
• download parts to others
• delay or dump something that is currently on your plate

How do you manage overwhelm using boundaries?

Pam Solberg-Tapper MHSA, PCC – I spark entrepreneurial business leaders to set strategy, take action, and get results. How can I help you? Contact me at Pam@CoachForSuccess.com ~ Linkedin ~ 218-340-3330.

The post How to Manage Overwhelm by Setting Boundaries appeared first on Coaching and Action Learning.