As an Action Learning Team Coach how would you handle the following situation:
The group has been processing particularly well, but it has been more than 30 minutes since the last intervention.
I would not intervene just for the sake of intervening. If learning is occurring, and the team has been processing well, I would continue to observe and only intervene when necessary.
Yes, I wonder what the advantage of intervening at this point would be?
It would be important to intervene before the end of the session to ask ” How have we been doing as a group?”, “What have been doing well?” in order to ensure that the learning is clearly identified by and embedded in the group.
If things are going well I would not intervene for the sake of intervening. There is no specific # minutes that requires an intervention. However, the question arises as to how much time has been allotted to the AL session and where the group is in their discussion.
If 1/2 hour represents half of the time available, and if the group is still in the problem solving stage; I would intervene and ask the question “How are we doing? and followed by is there consensus on the problem?” The group may not be aware that they have reached consensus and are ready to move on. It may be time to help move the group into the solution phase. On the other hand, if they have not reached consensus for the problem, the intervention may help them find their way.
I may intervene for a quick check to ask the team “How are we doing?” and if they feel they are doing well and making progress, I would remove myself and let them continue. If they are still framing the problem, I may also ask “Are we ready to define the problem statement?” If so, I will ask each member to write it down and then have each member read what he/she wrote to the team. Then, I would ask the team if we have similiarities or still need more time. I would excuse myself so the team could finalize the problem statement or continue working on the problem statement.
I agree that if the team is functioning well, no intervention would be appropriate. An intervention could disrupt the energy of the group and move them towards reflection when that may not be what they need to continue moving forward. Or worse, simply draw attention to the AL coach with no value add could stall the group.
I would consider intervening at this point if we are approaching the end of the allotted time. I might remind the team that I will be asking what action they plan to take in another ten minutes. Also, if they seem close to, but have not yet agreed on the problem, I might ask the standard, “What are we doing well?” followed by, “How could we gain consensus on the problem?”
While I agree with others that no intervention is required if the team is processing well, I do think there could be great value in catching the team functioning well, especially if they have previously struggled in that area. The opportunity to verbalize what they are doing well would solidify their learning. I think the coach would have to decide on a case by case basis whether the learning opportunity should be taken then, or at the end of the session.
I agree with the group: I wouldn’t want to disrupt a state of “flow” on the team without a good reason. That said, I think the question of whether to intervene also has to do with the history of the team. If the team had been struggling, it could be a real boost to them to have the coach intervene quickly for the sole purpose of helping them catch themselves doing great. I’d do a quick “How are we doing?” “What are we doing well?”
Timing an intervention is rather an art that may depend on the coach’s preference and experience. I prefer to interrupt the group only if really necessary. The role of a coach is the one of a catalyst who supports the group in solving the problem / opportunity.
There is no right or wrong. The timing of an intervention depends on many variables. Variables to consider may be the a) objectives of the current meeting, b) time constraints, and c) the group’s advancement in the problem solving process to emphasize a few.
If the coach is curious about the timing of learning intervention he/she could ask the team during the debriefing at the end if the team preferred more frequent interventions.
Great responses. There is no set time for when interventions happen other than the first one and leaving enough time for the last one. The first one 8 – 10 minutes into the session, and I like to leave at least 20 minutes for the last one. Unless the clock dictated giving them a time check – I would do nothing.
Gail Finger
| #
I would not intervene just for the sake of intervening. If learning is occurring, and the team has been processing well, I would continue to observe and only intervene when necessary.
Reply
Catherine Breathnach
| #
Yes, I wonder what the advantage of intervening at this point would be?
It would be important to intervene before the end of the session to ask ” How have we been doing as a group?”, “What have been doing well?” in order to ensure that the learning is clearly identified by and embedded in the group.
Reply
Phil Cohen
| #
If things are going well I would not intervene for the sake of intervening. There is no specific # minutes that requires an intervention. However, the question arises as to how much time has been allotted to the AL session and where the group is in their discussion.
If 1/2 hour represents half of the time available, and if the group is still in the problem solving stage; I would intervene and ask the question “How are we doing? and followed by is there consensus on the problem?” The group may not be aware that they have reached consensus and are ready to move on. It may be time to help move the group into the solution phase. On the other hand, if they have not reached consensus for the problem, the intervention may help them find their way.
Reply
Larry Voeller
| #
I agree with the notion that no intervention would be called for if they are “processing particularly well.”
Reply
Sharon Swinburn
| #
I may intervene for a quick check to ask the team “How are we doing?” and if they feel they are doing well and making progress, I would remove myself and let them continue. If they are still framing the problem, I may also ask “Are we ready to define the problem statement?” If so, I will ask each member to write it down and then have each member read what he/she wrote to the team. Then, I would ask the team if we have similiarities or still need more time. I would excuse myself so the team could finalize the problem statement or continue working on the problem statement.
Reply
Erik Mazziotta
| #
I agree that if the team is functioning well, no intervention would be appropriate. An intervention could disrupt the energy of the group and move them towards reflection when that may not be what they need to continue moving forward. Or worse, simply draw attention to the AL coach with no value add could stall the group.
Reply
charles jones
| #
Unless I’m getting paid by the intervention, no intervention.
Reply
Donna Christophersen
| #
I would consider intervening at this point if we are approaching the end of the allotted time. I might remind the team that I will be asking what action they plan to take in another ten minutes. Also, if they seem close to, but have not yet agreed on the problem, I might ask the standard, “What are we doing well?” followed by, “How could we gain consensus on the problem?”
While I agree with others that no intervention is required if the team is processing well, I do think there could be great value in catching the team functioning well, especially if they have previously struggled in that area. The opportunity to verbalize what they are doing well would solidify their learning. I think the coach would have to decide on a case by case basis whether the learning opportunity should be taken then, or at the end of the session.
Reply
Valerie Lingeman
| #
I agree with the group: I wouldn’t want to disrupt a state of “flow” on the team without a good reason. That said, I think the question of whether to intervene also has to do with the history of the team. If the team had been struggling, it could be a real boost to them to have the coach intervene quickly for the sole purpose of helping them catch themselves doing great. I’d do a quick “How are we doing?” “What are we doing well?”
Reply
Philipp Werenfels
| #
Timing an intervention is rather an art that may depend on the coach’s preference and experience. I prefer to interrupt the group only if really necessary. The role of a coach is the one of a catalyst who supports the group in solving the problem / opportunity.
There is no right or wrong. The timing of an intervention depends on many variables. Variables to consider may be the a) objectives of the current meeting, b) time constraints, and c) the group’s advancement in the problem solving process to emphasize a few.
If the coach is curious about the timing of learning intervention he/she could ask the team during the debriefing at the end if the team preferred more frequent interventions.
Reply
Dr Bea
| #
Great responses. There is no set time for when interventions happen other than the first one and leaving enough time for the last one. The first one 8 – 10 minutes into the session, and I like to leave at least 20 minutes for the last one. Unless the clock dictated giving them a time check – I would do nothing.
Reply