We have a team coach.
The leader has an individual coach.
Perhaps other team members have access to coaching too.
There is a sponsor.
There may be HR, Talent or Organizational Development practitioners involved.
And the coaches have supervision.
How do we connect all of this without creating a giant web of conversations about people who aren’t in the room?
We think the answer begins with distinguishing integration from information sharing.
They aren’t the same thing.
Integration doesn’t mean everyone knows everything
Imagine the team has been working on its ability to challenge one another and share leadership.
During the work, the formal leader recognizes how difficult they find it not to step in when uncertainty rises.
They take that awareness to individual coaching.
Does the individual coach need the transcript of the team session?
No.
Does the team coach need to know what the leader discusses privately?
No.
What matters is that the developmental architecture makes it possible for work to happen at the appropriate level or levels.
The team works with its collective pattern around authority and dependency.
The leader works with their own relationship with uncertainty, control and leadership.
If organizational decision structures are reinforcing the pattern, the team and sponsor may need to work there too.
Different work.
Different spaces.
Connected development.
What, then, gets integrated?
Purpose.
Why are we investing in this development?
Context.
What is happening in and around this team that makes development important now?
Desired capability.
What does the organization need this team and its members to become more capable of doing?
Roles.
Who is coaching whom—and who is the client in each relationship?
Boundaries.
What remains confidential? What can appropriately be shared? Who has agreed to that?
Outcomes.
How will we know development is making a difference?
These things can be coherent without coaches exchanging confidential content.
This requires meta-contracting: explicit agreement across the developmental system about purpose, roles, boundaries, outcomes, what may be shared, and how issues that require action elsewhere will be surfaced.
Someone also needs to hold the coherence of the architecture. That may be a sponsor, internal development lead or agreed governance process—not a control room for confidential content, but a clear place where purpose, roles, boundaries, outcomes and escalation pathways are stewarded.
The sponsor has a role too
Sponsors need enough visibility to steward the organizational investment.
But visibility does not require access to private coaching conversations.
A sponsor can understand the purpose of the work, broad developmental priorities, agreed outcomes and organizational conditions requiring attention without knowing what an individual said to their coach.
This distinction is particularly important when several levels of development are happening simultaneously.
Visibility can increase around purpose and outcomes while confidentiality remains strong around personal content.
For example, “The team is working on distributed authority and constructive challenge” may be an agreed developmental theme. “The leader is privately working on their need for control” is not something the sponsor is entitled to know unless that individual has explicitly agreed to share it.
And what about supervision?
Supervision offers another vantage point.
Not as a central control room where all the information about the client system is assembled.
The supervisor’s attention is on the coach in relationship with the system.
What are you noticing?
What are you being pulled towards?
Whose story are you beginning to believe?
Are you rescuing the leader?
Have you joined the team in blaming the organization?
Could you be carrying something on behalf of the team?
Are you holding something that needs to go back into the system rather than remain with you?
Supervision can help the coach notice power, parallel process, triangulation, competing loyalties and their own participation in what is unfolding.
It helps us work systemically without imagining that being systemic means personally holding every relationship.
A different architecture
Perhaps we need to stop imagining coaching as a collection of separate interventions:
Individual coaching
Team coaching
Leadership development
Organizational development
Mediation and relationship repair
HR and people practices
Strategy, structure and governance
Performance and reward systems
Wellbeing or therapeutic support where appropriate
and begin seeing a developmental ecosystem.
Individual development affects relationships.
Relationships shape teams.
Teams influence organizations.
Organizations create conditions that enable and constrain individuals and teams.
Movement can begin anywhere.
But no level exists independently.
That doesn’t mean every person needs a coach.
It doesn’t mean every team coaching engagement needs a parallel individual coaching program.
And it certainly doesn’t mean one coach should try to hold the whole system.
It means we design development knowing that the levels are connected.
For us, that leads to a principle:
Integrate the development. Differentiate the relationships.
Locate responsibility without locating blame.
Give the team somewhere to do team work.
Give individuals somewhere to do individual work when needed.
Allow relationships to receive attention when the work also needs to be addressed there.
Bring organizational issues to those with the authority to address them.
Contract clearly.
Protect confidentiality.
Use supervision.
And keep asking:
Where can this work be responsibly influenced—and who has the responsibility and authority to act?
Participation in a pattern is not the same as equal responsibility for it. Power changes responsibility.
Perhaps that is one of the developmental edges of becoming a team coach.
Not becoming better at diagnosing where the problem “really” lives.
Becoming more able to stay with complexity long enough to ask:
What can be worked with here?
What might also need attention elsewhere?
Who has the responsibility and authority to act there?
Because work rarely lives neatly at only one level.
Development in an individual changes what becomes possible in their relationships.
Changes in relationships affect the team.
The team influences—and is influenced by—the organization around it.
Development at one level changes the conditions at other levels.
Team coaching frequently reveals developmental work that may also require attention somewhere else.
And when we connect those developmental spaces well:
The content doesn’t need to travel. Capacity does.
This is Part Six of Where Does the Work Live?, our six-part series exploring individual coaching, team coaching and the developmental ecosystem around teams, by Sherry Matheson and Kerry Woodcock.
Read Part One, Why Individual Coaching Isn’t Team Coaching — and Why We Need Both.
Read Part Two, Where does the work belong?
Read Part Three, The Leader Is a Team Member. And They Aren’t.
Read Part Four, When Team Coaching Gets Personal.
Read Part Five, Should I Coach the Team AND the Leader?
If this series has prompted you to look differently at what it means to coach a team as a collective, Master the Art of Team Coaching is where we explore and practise this territory more deeply — developing the systemic presence, contracting, discernment and team coaching capability to work with what emerges when the team itself becomes the client.
Join the Waitlist to Get Information About The Next Master The Art of Team Coaching Cohort
You have Successfully Subscribed!
And Team Coaching Supervision offers a space to explore what you see, hold and miss in your work with teams — deepening your practice through reflection and dialogue.