Picture this...You're heading into a retreat designed to transform your newly formed leadership team into a true 'first team.

When you think about your 'first team', who comes to mind?

Is it the team you lead, your function, and your direct reports? Or is it the team you're a member of?

The most common response from coaching clients is the team that they lead. The problem with that, according to Patrick Lencioni in his work on Organisational Health, is that when the leadership team comes together, conversations are focused on lobbying and jockeying for power rather than making decisions in the best interest of the organisation. And it leaves functional teams arguing with each other over priorities.

Questions are one of the most powerful tools in our leadership toolkit, but as highlighted by Abraham Maslow in 1966, when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The ‘coaching trap’ isn’t the only pitfall to be aware of.

The ‘research rabbit hole’ shows up when leaders fear making the wrong decision, so they make no decision at all. They mask their fear by using questions as a delay tactic. Seemingly endless questions asked with no clear purpose risk leaving team members more confused and wondering why they bothered to consult in the first place. You’ll recognise the research rabbit hole when the response to a very direct, pointed question is...yes, you guessed it, another question.

The ‘grand inquisition’ tends to bombard our team members with questions, often while we try to show interest and engagement or attempt to demonstrate our intelligence. This can feel like too many questions, inappropriate questions, or both, often masking our own discomfort. A common example of the grand inquisition is a question (or three) that feels overly personal, intrusive, or asked at the wrong time.

The ‘hamster wheel’ is an endless cycle of exploring and choosing, as we pursue a (false) sense of control over a situation.  Often referred to as ‘analysis paralysis, this can look a lot like the coaching trap, and based on my observations of coaching leadership teams, they often co-exist. If you’ve ever presented a series of recommendations only to be asked, ‘but what about...?’ (after multiple revisions), then you’re probably experiencing the hamster wheel.

Last night was my first visit back to the gym. Wow! My strength had gone backwards. Not just a little bit. A lot. The phrase 'use it or lose it' clanged in my ears throughout the workout as I struggled to get close to the levels I had achieved before the flu took me out.

I began to wonder about how investment in building and speed of loss applies to team growth and development. When targeting physical strength, we know the muscle groups to focus on and the set of exercises to do it. But what about leading teams?

How do you ensure your team is building the right muscles to deliver your strategy? What happens if a critical muscle atrophies?

Last night was my first visit back to the gym. Wow! My strength had gone backwards. Not just a little bit. A lot. The phrase 'use it or lose it' clanged in my ears throughout the workout as I struggled to get close to the levels I had achieved before the flu took me out.

I began to wonder about how investment in building and speed of loss applies to team growth and development. When targeting physical strength, we know the muscle groups to focus on and the set of exercises to do it. But what about leading teams?

How do you ensure your team is building the right muscles to deliver your strategy? What happens if a critical muscle atrophies?

Trust isn't what we think it is. That was my #1 takeaway from listening to the world-renowned expert, Rachel Botsman, last week. How often have you asked yourself or one of your team a question about 'building trust'? Apparently, that's the wrong question.

Trust isn't built - it's earned or given.

By changing the framing from built to given, we're forced to ask ourselves a new question:

Is this person or situation worthy of my trust?

Coaching is one of those experiential things, so people often struggle to grasp the benefit fully unless they’ve tried it.

No matter how good my bio is, how well I explain the process, or how many sessions I’ve done for other people, sometimes it’s just about diving in and giving it a try.

If you are thinking about giving coaching a try (go on, you know you want to!), you might ask ‘Why Mel?’ or ‘What’s it like to work with her?’ You can check out some of my testimonials here if you’re curious about that.

To give you a sense of things…Over the last 17 years, I’ve coached executives, founders, researchers, clinicians, and technical leaders from all over the world. Many are navigating complexity, stepping into new leadership territory, or asking themselves:

Your team offsite won’t deliver sustainable team development.

There I’ve said it.

Yes, they’re typically scheduled and designed with best intentions. But let’s take a look at why a single (even if they are multi-day) session can’t possibly provide the fertile ground required for your team to flourish.

There is no “right time” for an offsite.

Creating self-managing, self-sustaining systems of work seems like a great idea doesn’t it?. Giving people freedom to be creative and solve problems makes sense for both the individual and the customers they serve. You’ll hear no argument from me about putting decision making as close as possible to the customer.

But here’s the thing….

not every individual, function or even organisation is ready for the level of autonomy that comes with holacracy.