As an Action Learning Coach how would you handle the following situation:

You ask the team – “how are we doing on a scale of 1 – 10”, and get a response “I think we could be blah blah blah …”

As an Action Learning Coach how would you handle the following situation:

Team members are coming and going as they please -either walking out to go to the toilet, or making phone calls. The rest of the members continue with the process. When you check in after each occurrence the team members indicate its ok.

An Action Learning Team has met for several full-day sessions over several months working on a problem that is critical and highly visible in the organization. After the most recent full-day meeting, the Team Lead (the organization assigned a Team Lead) shared with the coach that she is feeling very fatigued. Although there was excellent processing and learning at the end of the meeting, the team stormed and got off track quite a bit in the afternoon segment. She likes the AL approach and sees the benefits, but for certain activities, such as brainstorming, wishes there could be someone in a facilitator role.
I have just run a final action learning session (after 5 sessions) and experienced the Final Action Learning Session script to run like a series of focus group questions I found myself slipping into facilitation mode and lost the benefits of the AL questioning. I was wondering if anyone has any tips how to run a final session to maintain integrity as coach, yet still ask the many useful reflective questions to close.
I’m new to this and still in training, but am wondering what happens when after the early stage of the first session there is no real agreement on the problem. My initial response would be to ask the group if they wish to gain agreement before continuing. If it’s the first in a series of planned encounters, I would probably suggest to the stakeholders that if the problem is complex and not well understood, that a whole session be dedicated to defining the problem. This would mean that the issue presented is lack of clarity and agreement on the problem itself…but then I’m a researcher and have been trained to think that there needs to be clarity on the problem before you can go out and solve it, ie. you need to know what you’re solving. I would be interested in other views.

Over several sessions, one of the members has disappeared for long periods of time and/or is frequently on his blackberry. During a standard intervention (what are we doing well /what could we be doing better), he was vocal in stating that he wasn’t convinced about the AL approach. He said “We’re all professionals here and are used to solving problems. I’m aware of the deadline for our presentation and we could make more progress without this approach if we could just all freely state our thoughts.” Others in the group stated that they felt the approach was helping the team and that the organization had failed to solve this problem three times in the past. Other team members also thought the team could do better coming to consensus more quickly and they agreed on an approach to experiment with. However, the “disgruntled” team member’s behavior continues. After a recent session, just as she is leaving the room, the coach overhears a few members who have remained behind talking about how upset they are with this team member’s behavior.

The members were enthusiastic to help the problem presenter  and asked many good questions. However, the problem presenter commented it’s confidential info. and would not answer some of the questions. Members felt they were not able to help the problem presenter much if their questions were not answered and they could not see the value of action learning in this instance. But the problem presenter felt the session was useful to him in addressing his problem.  In this case, what should the coach do to help the team to move on…?
As an Action Learning Team Coach how would you handle the following situation: You have two problem owners for your project. You assume that the problem owners have coordinated the presentation of the problem for the kickoff session. As soon as one starts to present the problem the other interrupts with a very different view of the problem.