{"id":{"repo_id":"oxford-brookes","oai_identifier":"tle:6efc4ca5-a455-493f-a8dd-486a6773c450:d6bd9758-527a-46cd-bfe2-c433766e8fca:1"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/oxford-brookes/tle:6efc4ca5-a455-493f-a8dd-486a6773c450:d6bd9758-527a-46cd-bfe2-c433766e8fca:1","repository":{"repo_id":"oxford-brookes","name":"Oxford Brookes University","base_url":"https://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/oai"},"display":{"title":"How do team members and team coaches perceive their sessions to be productive, and what influences perceptions of the most and least productive parts of their coaching sessions?","abstract":"Team coaching is a relatively new, but growing, practice which lacks the academic research base of dyadic coaching. It is dominated by practitioner literature informed by experience and opinions rather than rigorous research. This study, which explores the purpose of team coaching as enabling change, addresses some of the many unanswered questions including how team members and team coaches perceive that their coaching has been productive. This is important, because it is commonly assumed that coaching has been productive through the achievement of goals. However, the question is, which goals are being considered: the ones agreed upon at the original contracting stage, or new ones that are subsequently agreed when the team’s needs become clearer? Further, very little is known about what the team learned during the coaching that might serve them in future and other ways in which team coaching as a whole engagement might be productive. How individual team coaching sessions might have been perceived to be productive for teams and the factors influencing those perceptions are even less evident. The aim of this study is to explore these questions and shed light on how teams and team coaches have perceived individual sessions, and parts of those sessions, to be productive. This research involved interviews with five team members and twenty team coaches across twelve different countries and used constructivist grounded theory methodology to understand their perceptions of productive team coaching sessions. The study generated several key findings. Firstly, certain foundational conditions are identified as a minimum for sessions overall to be productive. Secondly, parts of sessions are perceived to be productive as team members work through a process of emergence, whereby they become aware of what is getting in their way, or the “elephants in the room”, and collectively make meaning from their new awareness. In doing so, team members might recognise the need to decide whether they wish to recontract for new goals and outcomes or move on to something else. The findings indicate the important role of the processes taking place during emergence in the perceptions of productive sessions. This contrasts with much of the existing literature which seeks to identify specific variables or “active ingredients” that will influence the perception of coaching through their impact on the outcomes. This study shows that the impact of such variables is dependent on the context and situation and their effect cannot be predicted with any certainty. The findings have implications for team coaching practitioners, particularly in providing a new framework for explaining the coaching process to teams and how it might unfold. This framework is also useful for coaches to consider in their own practice when coaching teams.","abstract_html":"Team coaching is a relatively new, but growing, practice which lacks the academic research base of dyadic coaching. It is dominated by practitioner literature informed by experience and opinions rather than rigorous research. This study, which explores the purpose of team coaching as enabling change, addresses some of the many unanswered questions including how team members and team coaches perceive that their coaching has been productive. This is important, because it is commonly assumed that coaching has been productive through the achievement of goals. However, the question is, which goals are being considered: the ones agreed upon at the original contracting stage, or new ones that are subsequently agreed when the team’s needs become clearer? Further, very little is known about what the team learned during the coaching that might serve them in future and other ways in which team coaching as a whole engagement might be productive. How individual team coaching sessions might have been perceived to be productive for teams and the factors influencing those perceptions are even less evident. The aim of this study is to explore these questions and shed light on how teams and team coaches have perceived individual sessions, and parts of those sessions, to be productive. This research involved interviews with five team members and twenty team coaches across twelve different countries and used constructivist grounded theory methodology to understand their perceptions of productive team coaching sessions. The study generated several key findings. Firstly, certain foundational conditions are identified as a minimum for sessions overall to be productive. Secondly, parts of sessions are perceived to be productive as team members work through a process of emergence, whereby they become aware of what is getting in their way, or the “elephants in the room”, and collectively make meaning from their new awareness. In doing so, team members might recognise the need to decide whether they wish to recontract for new goals and outcomes or move on to something else. The findings indicate the important role of the processes taking place during emergence in the perceptions of productive sessions. This contrasts with much of the existing literature which seeks to identify specific variables or “active ingredients” that will influence the perception of coaching through their impact on the outcomes. This study shows that the impact of such variables is dependent on the context and situation and their effect cannot be predicted with any certainty. The findings have implications for team coaching practitioners, particularly in providing a new framework for explaining the coaching process to teams and how it might unfold. This framework is also useful for coaches to consider in their own practice when coaching teams.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Fox, Sebastian"],"institution":"Oxford Brookes University","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Bachkirova, Tatiana"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":null,"date_issued":"","date_published":null,"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:42:38Z","subjects":[],"languages":["en"],"rights":["All rights reserved"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.24384/tya4-wb86","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Fox, Sebastian","Bachkirova, Tatiana"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Fox, Sebastian"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Oxford Brookes University"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["thesis"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["All rights reserved"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://doi.org/10.24384/tya4-wb86"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Team coaching is a relatively new, but growing, practice which lacks the academic research base of dyadic coaching. It is dominated by practitioner literature informed by experience and opinions rather than rigorous research. This study, which explores the purpose of team coaching as enabling change, addresses some of the many unanswered questions including how team members and team coaches perceive that their coaching has been productive. This is important, because it is commonly assumed that coaching has been productive through the achievement of goals. However, the question is, which goals are being considered: the ones agreed upon at the original contracting stage, or new ones that are subsequently agreed when the team’s needs become clearer? Further, very little is known about what the team learned during the coaching that might serve them in future and other ways in which team coaching as a whole engagement might be productive. How individual team coaching sessions might have been perceived to be productive for teams and the factors influencing those perceptions are even less evident. The aim of this study is to explore these questions and shed light on how teams and team coaches have perceived individual sessions, and parts of those sessions, to be productive. This research involved interviews with five team members and twenty team coaches across twelve different countries and used constructivist grounded theory methodology to understand their perceptions of productive team coaching sessions. The study generated several key findings. Firstly, certain foundational conditions are identified as a minimum for sessions overall to be productive. Secondly, parts of sessions are perceived to be productive as team members work through a process of emergence, whereby they become aware of what is getting in their way, or the “elephants in the room”, and collectively make meaning from their new awareness. In doing so, team members might recognise the need to decide whether they wish to recontract for new goals and outcomes or move on to something else. The findings indicate the important role of the processes taking place during emergence in the perceptions of productive sessions. This contrasts with much of the existing literature which seeks to identify specific variables or “active ingredients” that will influence the perception of coaching through their impact on the outcomes. This study shows that the impact of such variables is dependent on the context and situation and their effect cannot be predicted with any certainty. The findings have implications for team coaching practitioners, particularly in providing a new framework for explaining the coaching process to teams and how it might unfold. This framework is also useful for coaches to consider in their own practice when coaching teams."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["How do team members and team coaches perceive their sessions to be productive, and what influences perceptions of the most and least productive parts of their coaching sessions?"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Fox, Sebastian","Bachkirova, Tatiana"],"dc:creator":["Fox, Sebastian"],"dc:description":["Team coaching is a relatively new, but growing, practice which lacks the academic research base of dyadic coaching. It is dominated by practitioner literature informed by experience and opinions rather than rigorous research. This study, which explores the purpose of team coaching as enabling change, addresses some of the many unanswered questions including how team members and team coaches perceive that their coaching has been productive. This is important, because it is commonly assumed that coaching has been productive through the achievement of goals. However, the question is, which goals are being considered: the ones agreed upon at the original contracting stage, or new ones that are subsequently agreed when the team’s needs become clearer? Further, very little is known about what the team learned during the coaching that might serve them in future and other ways in which team coaching as a whole engagement might be productive. How individual team coaching sessions might have been perceived to be productive for teams and the factors influencing those perceptions are even less evident. The aim of this study is to explore these questions and shed light on how teams and team coaches have perceived individual sessions, and parts of those sessions, to be productive. This research involved interviews with five team members and twenty team coaches across twelve different countries and used constructivist grounded theory methodology to understand their perceptions of productive team coaching sessions. The study generated several key findings. Firstly, certain foundational conditions are identified as a minimum for sessions overall to be productive. Secondly, parts of sessions are perceived to be productive as team members work through a process of emergence, whereby they become aware of what is getting in their way, or the “elephants in the room”, and collectively make meaning from their new awareness. In doing so, team members might recognise the need to decide whether they wish to recontract for new goals and outcomes or move on to something else. The findings indicate the important role of the processes taking place during emergence in the perceptions of productive sessions. This contrasts with much of the existing literature which seeks to identify specific variables or “active ingredients” that will influence the perception of coaching through their impact on the outcomes. This study shows that the impact of such variables is dependent on the context and situation and their effect cannot be predicted with any certainty. The findings have implications for team coaching practitioners, particularly in providing a new framework for explaining the coaching process to teams and how it might unfold. This framework is also useful for coaches to consider in their own practice when coaching teams."],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["https://doi.org/10.24384/tya4-wb86"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:publisher":["Oxford Brookes University"],"dc:rights":["All rights reserved"],"dc:title":["How do team members and team coaches perceive their sessions to be productive, and what influences perceptions of the most and least productive parts of their coaching sessions?"],"dc:type":["thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:42:38Z"}