A Theory of Team Coaching

Author(s): J. Richard Hackman and Ruth Wageman

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 269-287
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159119 .
Accessed: 30/04/2012 20:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.

http://www.jstor.org
?
Academy ofManagement Review
2005,Vol. 30,No. 2, 269-287.

? THEORYOF TEAMCOACHING
J.RICHARD HACKMAN
Harvard University

RUTHW?GEMAN
Dartmouth College

After briefly reviewing the existing literature on team coaching, we propose a new
model with three distinguishing features. The model (1) focuses on the functions that

coaching serves for a team, rather than on either specific leader behaviors or lead

ership styles, (2) identifies the specific times in the task performance process when

coaching interventions are most likely to have their intended effects, and (3) expli
cates the conditions under which team-focused coaching is and is not likely to
facilitate performance.

Coaches help people perform tasks. Coaching TEAM COACHING

is pervasive throughout the life course, from
Team coaching is an act of leadership, but it is
childhood (e.g., a parent helping a child learn to
not the only one or necessarily the most conse
ride a tricycle), through schooling (e.g., a teacher
quential one. Team leaders engage inmany dif
coaching a in the proper conduct of a
student
ferent kinds of behaviors intended to foster team
chemistry experiment), and into adulthood (e.g.,
effectiveness, including structuring the team
a fitness coach helping with an exercise regime
and establishing its purposes, arranging for the
or a supervisor coaching an employee in im
resources a team needs for its work and remov
proving his or her job performance). The main
ing organizational roadblocks that impede the
body of research about coaching is found in the
work, helping individual members strengthen
training literature, and it focuses almost entirely
on individual their personal contributions to the team, and
skill acquisition (Fournies, 1978).
working with the team as a whole to help mem
Except for the many popular books and articles
that extract lessons for team leaders from the bers use their collective resources well in pur

experiences of athletic coaches, little suing team purposes.

relatively
has been published that specifically addresses Leaders vary in how they allocate their time
the coaching of task-performing teams. and attention across these activities, depending
Here we propose a theory of team coaching on their own preferences; what they believe the
cor team most needs; and the team's own level of
that is amenable to empirical testing and
rection. The theory has three distinguishing fea authority, initiative, and maturity. Only the last
tures. One, it focuses on the functions that two sets of activities (helping individual mem
serves fora team, rather than on either bers strengthen personal contributions and
coaching
leader behaviors or leadership working with the team to help use resources
specific styles.
Two, it explicitly addresses the specific times in well) are coaching behaviors, however, focusing
the task performance on individual team members and
process when coaching respectively
interventions are most likely to "take" and have on the team as a whole. In this paper we deal
their intended effects. Three, it explicitly identi exclusively with the fourth?team coaching?
fies the conditions under which team-focused which we define as direct interaction with a
coaching is most likely to facilitate perfor team intended to help members make coordi
mance. Overall, we show that the impact of nated and task-appropriate use of their collec
team coaching?whether provided by a formal tive resources in accomplishing the team's work.
team leader or by fellow group members? Although team coaching is a distinct and of
depends directly and substantially on the de ten consequential aspect of team leadership, re
gree towhich the proper coaching functions are cent evidence suggests that leaders focus their
fulfilled competently at appropriate times and behavior less on team coaching than on other
in appropriate circumstances. aspects of the team leadership portfolio. In a
269
 270 Academy of Management Review April

study of 268 task-performing teams in 88 organi Wilson, 1991). Although varied, these models
zations, we Hackman, & Lehman, specify ways that team leaders can develop
(Wageman,
2004) asked team leaders and members to rank members' interpersonal skills, define members'
the amount of attention the team leader gave to roles and expectations, deal with conflict and
activities in each of the four categories listed interpersonal frictions, and help a team achieve
above (with a rank of "1" signifying the greatest a level of "maturity" that lessens the team's de
attention). For both leader and member reports, pendence on its leader (Eden, 1985; Fischer, 1993;
coaching the team as a whole came in last (the Geber, 1992; Manz & Sims, 1987; Patten, 1981;
combined mean ranks were as follows: structur Rees, 1991; Torres & Spiegel, 2000; Woodman &

ing the team and itswork, 1.75; running external Sherwood, 1980).
interference, 2.16; coaching individuals, 2.88;
and coaching the team, 3.02).
Process Consultation
The lesser attention given to team coaching
could simply mean that leaders underestimate The process consultation approach developed
the potential benefits of providing coaching as by Schein (1969, 1988)posits that competent in
sistance to their teams. More likely, perhaps, is terpersonal relations are essential for effective
that leaders do not coach their teams because task performance and that group members

they do not know how to do so, or they have themselves must be intimately involved in ana
ventured a coaching intervention or two that did lyzing and improving those relationships. The
not help and thereafter focused their behavior consultant engages team members in analyzing
on seemingly more promising team leadership group processes on two levels simultaneously:

strategies. By using existing research and the (1) the substantive level?to analyze how human
to of leader be are work on a specific organ
ory identify the kinds coaching processes affecting
haviors that do help teams operate more effec izational problem?and (2) the internal level?to
here not only to advance basic better understand the team's own interaction
tively, we seek
understanding aboutteam coaching but also to processes and the ways that team processes

provide practitioners with some of what they foster or impede effective group functioning
need to know to coach their teams competently. (Schein, 1988: 11-12). Decidedly clinical in orien
tation, this type of coaching requires the process
consultant first to directly observe the group as
EXISTING APPROACHES
itworks on a substantive organizational prob
In a review of existing research and theory, lem and then, once the group is ready, to intro
we identified three conceptually driven ap duce systematic or confrontive interventions in
to team coaching and one eclectic ap tended to help the team deal with its problems
proaches
proach that is largely atheoretical. These four and exploit previously unrecognized opportuni
approaches, described below, point the way to ties.

ward a more research-based

comprehensive
model of team coaching, and we draw on them
Behavioral Models
in developing propositions for the present the
Two distinct models of team coaching are
ory.
based on theories of individual behavior: (1) the
application of Argyris's (1982, 1993) theory of in
Eclectic Interventions
tervention to team-focused coaching by Schwarz
Eclecticcoaching interventions are activities (1994) and (2) applications of op?rant condition
that derive from no theoretical per ing to the modification of team behavior, nota
particular
but have considerable face validity bly those of Komaki (1986, 1998) and her col
spective
nonetheless, in that a lay person would be likely leagues.
to assume that they would help a team perform In his approach, Schwarz posits that coaches
well. Eclectic models are found mainly in the should provide feedback to a team in ways that
literature as codifications of the les help members learn new and more effective
practitioner
sons learned consultants team behaviors, especially in how they give and
by management
whose includes team facilitation receive feedback. The coaching process in
practice (e.g.,
Fischer, 1993; Kinlaw, 1991; Wellins, Byham, & volves three phases. First is observing actual
 2005 Hackman and Wageman 271

group both to note behaviors

behavior that are identify the issues the team needs to deal with
impeding the group's work and to identify be next. The focus of learning sessions for newly
haviors not presently exhibited that might facil formed or "novice" groups (whose members are
itate group work. Second is describing to the mainly occupied with social issues of inclusion
group what has been observed and testing in and acceptance and task issues having to do
ferences about the meanings of those behaviors. with team goals and with member skills and
And third is helping group members decide roles) differs from that formore mature or "ex
whether they wish to change their behaviors pert" groups (whose members have become
and, if so, how they might do so. The model ready to learn strategies for self-regulation,
specifies several specific ground rules both for such as how best to detect and correct errors and
the facilitators' behaviors and for team mem how best to adapt to changing external de
bers' behaviors, such as providing specific be mands). Because teams are unlikely to be able
havioral examples for points made, publicly to process intensive interventions when task de
testing assumptions and inferences, and explic mands are also high, learning sessions are re
itly inviting questions and challenges. served for periods of relatively low cognitive
The op?rant conditioning approach to team demand. During intensive work periods, devel
coaching is based on the well-established prin opmental coaches focus mainly on gathering
ciple of individual learning that behavior is a data about behavior and performance for use
function of its consequences. Applied to teams, guiding subsequent interventions. When task
op?rant coaching involves three kinds of coach demands diminish, active coaching resumes.
ing behaviors: (1) providing instructions about
how to behave, (2)monitoring the team's perfor
mance, and Summary
(3) providing performance-contin
gent consequences to the team (Komaki, 1986; Most of the approaches to team coaching just
Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979). Because the op?r summarized are based on well-established psy
ant approach to team coaching does not specify chological principles and findings about human
any particular patterns of team interaction that learning and performance. Moreover, research
facilitate effectiveness across different types of conducted within each tradition has been infor
teams and tasks, team coaches must have ex mative and, especially for the op?rant and de
tensive task knowledge so that they can issue velopmental approaches, has generated empir
proper instructions about desirable behaviors ical findings that enrich our understanding
and reinforce the team when it does well about coaching processes and outcomes. None
(Komaki, 1998; Komaki, Deselles, & Bowman, of the existing approaches, however, is sup
1989;Komaki & Minnich, 2002; Smoll & Smith, ported by evidence that addresses all links in
1989). the coaching intervention-team process-team
performance sequence. We seek here to provide
a conceptual model that does explicate all links
Developmental Coaching in that sequence, that takes explicit account of
The distinguishing feature of the developmen teams' temporal and organizational contexts,
tal approach to coaching is the central role and that provides a sound basis for generating
given to time and timing. Two premises on guidance for team coaching practice.
which this approach is based are (1) that teams
need help with different issues at different
DOMAIN
stages of their development and (2) that there
are times in the life cycles of groups when they We begin by specifying what we mean by a
are more and less open to intervention (Kozlow work team and what we mean by performance
ski, Gully, McHugh, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, effectiveness, which together bound the domain
1996; Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, of our model.
1996).
A key coaching intervention in the develop
Work Teams
mental approach is the "learning session," in
which the coach and team members review the We focus only on full-fledged teams that per
team's purpose, assess its progress thus far, and form tasks in social system contexts. Such teams
 272 Academy of Management Review April

have three features. First, they are real groups. Because we believe that these dimensions also
That is, they are intact social systems, complete are consequential for any team's long-term or
with boundaries, interdependence among mem ganizational performance, we define team effec
bers, and differentiated member roles (Alderfer, tiveness using the following three-dimensional
1977). Members of real groups can be distin conception (adapted from Hackman, 1987).
guished reliably from nonmembers, they are in
terdependent for some common
purpose, and 1. The productive output of the team (i.e., its
roles within product, service, or decision) meets or ex
they invariably develop specialized
ceeds the standards of quantity, quality,
the group. Real groups can be either small or
and timeliness of the team's clients?the
large and either temporary or long-lived. people who receive, review, and/or use the
Second, work teams have one or more group output. It is the clients' standards and as
tasks to perform. They produce some outcome for sessments that count in assessing team

which members bear collective products?not those of the team itself (ex
responsibility
in rare cases where the team is the
and for which acceptability is potentially as cept
client of its own work) or those of the team's
sessable. The kind of outcome produced is not
manager (who only rarely is the person who
critical?it could be a physical product, a ser receives and uses a team's
actually output).
vice, a decision, a performance, or a written 2. The social processes the team uses in car

report. Nor is it necessary that the outcome ac rying out the work enhance members' capa

all that is required is that the bility of working together interdependently

tually be assessed; in the future. Effective teams become adept
group produce an outcome that can be identified at detecting and correcting errors before se
as its product and that it be theoretically possi rious damage is done and at noticing and
ble to evaluate that product. Social groups and exploiting emerging opportunities. They are
other collectives that generate no identifiable more capable performing units when they
our finish a piece of work than when they be
product fall outside domain.
gan.
Finally, work teams operate in a social system
3. The group experience contributes positively
context. The team as a collective manages rela to the learning and personal well-being of
tionships with other individuals or groups in individual team members. Work teams can

some larger social this social serve as sites for personal learning and can
system. Usually
spawn relation
system is the parent organization that created satisfying interpersonal
ships, but they also can deskill, frustrate,
the team, but it can be people or groups outside and alienate their members. We do not
that organization as well, such as opponents for count as effective any team forwhich the net
an athletic team or customers for a service impact of the group experience on members'

team. What is critical is that team learning and well-being is more negative
providing
than positive.
members be collectively responsible formanag
ing consequential transactions with other indi
Although the three criteria vary in importance
viduals and/or groups.
in different circumstances, effective teams bal
ance them over time, never completely sacrific
ing any one to achieve the others. In the pages
Team Performance Effectiveness that follow, we identify the coaching functions,
the temporal imperatives, and the contextual
Criterion measures in empirical research on
circumstances that affect the degree to which
team performance often consist
of whatever
coaching behaviors can help a work team
quantitative indicators happen to be available
achieve and sustain a high standing on all three
or are easy to obtain (e.g., production figures for of the criteria.
industrial workgroups or number of correct re
sponses for teams studied in experimental lab
oratories). Such criteria of convenience do not
FUNCTIONS
address other outcome dimensions, such as cli
ent assessments of a team's work, the degree to Over four decades ago, McGrath first sug
which a team becomes stronger as a performing gested that "[The leader's] main job is to do, or
unit over time, or the extent towhich individual get done, whatever is not being adequately han
members become more knowledgeable or dled for group needs" (1962: 5). If a leader man
skilled as a result of their team experiences. ages, by whatever means, to ensure that all
 2005 Hackman and Wageman 273

functions critical to group performance are cient effort, use inappropriate strategies, and/or
taken care of, the leader has done his or her job apply inadequate talent in their work?are
well. Thus, a functional approach to leadership likely to fall short in one or more of the effective
leaves room for an indefinite number of ways to ness criteria.

get key group functions

accomplished, and Associated with each of the three performance
avoids the necessity of delineating all the spe processes are both a characteristic "process
cific behaviors or styles a leader should exhibit loss" (Steiner, 1972) and an opportunity for pos
in given circumstances?a trap into which it is itive synergy, which we call a "process gain."
easy for leadership theorists to fall. That is, members may interact in ways that de
What functions are most critical for team per the team's effort, the appropriateness of its
press
formance effectiveness? Functions whose ac
strategy, and/or the utilization of member talent;
complishment are critical for group decision their interaction may enhance col
alternatively,
making have been identified by Hirokawa and lective effort, generate uniquely appropriate
Orlitzky (Hirokawa, 1985; Orlitzky & Hirokawa, and/or actively members'
strategies, develop
2001), and those that bear on other aspects of and skills.
knowledge
group behavior have been comprehensively re are those interventions
functions
Coaching
viewed by Hollingshead et al. (in press). For our that inhibit process losses and foster process
specific and delimited purposes?that is, iden for each of the three
gains performance pro
tification of the most critical functions served by cesses. Coaching that addresses effort is mofi
those who coach work teams?we focus on three vationalin character; its functions are to mini
aspects of group interaction that have been mize free riding or "social loafing" and to build
shown to be especially potent in shaping group shared commitment to the group and its work.
performance outcomes (Hackman & Morris, 1975;
Coaching that addresses performance strategy
Hackman & Walton, 1986). is consultative in character; its functions are to
Specifically, we posit that team effectiveness
minimize mindless adoption or execution of task
is a joint function of three performance pro
performance routines in uncertain or changing
cesses: (1) the level of effort group members col
task environments and to foster the invention of
lectively expend carrying out task work, (2) the
ways of proceeding with the work that are espe
appropriateness to the task of the performance
cially well aligned with task requirements.
strategies the group uses in its work,1 and (3) the
Coaching that addresses knowledge and skill is
amount of knowledge and skill members bring educational in character; its functions are to
to bear on the task. Any team that expends suf
minimize suboptimal weighting of members'
ficient effort in its work, deploys a task
contributions (i.e., when the weight given to in
appropriate performance strategy, and brings
dividual members' contributions is at variance
ample talent to bear on itswork is quite likely to
with their actual talents) and to foster the devel
achieve a high standing in the three criteria of
opment of members' knowledge and skill.
work team effectiveness specified earlier. By the
The three coaching functions specifically and
same token, teams that operate in ways that
exclusively address a team's task performance
leave one or more of these functions unful
processes?not members' rela
filled?that is, where members expend insuffi interpersonal

tionships. This focus distinguishes our model

from the great majority of writing and practice
about team coaching, especially in the eclectic
1
A team's strategy is the set of choices members make tradition, which posits (sometimes explicitly but
about how to carry out the work. For example, a manufac more often implicitly) that coaching interven
turing team might decide to divide itself into three sub
tions should primarily address the quality of
groups, each of which would produce one subassembly, with
the final product to be assembled later. Or a basketball team members' interpersonal relationships.
might decide to use modified zone defense, with one player The pervasive emphasis on interpersonal pro
assigned to guard the opposing team's best shooter. Or a cesses in the team performance literature re
team performing a task that requires a creative solution
flects a logical fallacy about the role of those
might choose to free associate about possible solutions in
the first meeting, reflect for a week processes in shaping performance outcomes. To
about the ideas that
came up, and then reconvene to draft the product. All of illustrate, consider a team that is having perfor
these are choices about task performance strategy. mance problems. Such teams often exhibit inter
 274 Academy of Management Review April

personal difficulties, such as communications former to significantly outperform the latter

breakdowns, conflict among members, leader (Kernaghan & Cooke, 1990; Woolley, 1998).2
ship struggles, and so on. Because both lay per
Proposition 1: Coaching interventions
sons and scholars implicitly rely on an input that focus specifically on team effort,
process-output framework in analyzing group and skill fa
strategy, and knowledge
dynamics, it is natural to infer that the observed cilitate team effectiveness more than
interpersonal troubles are causing the perfor do interventions that focus on mem
mance problems and, therefore, that a good way bers' interpersonal relationships.
to improve team performance would be to fix
them. As reasonable as this inference may
nor
TIMING
seem, it is neither logical correct. Although
serious interpersonal conflicts sometimes do un The
efficacy of coaching interventions de
dermine team
performance (Jehn & Mannix, pends not just on their focus, as discussed
2001), not necessarily
it does follow that the above, but also on the time in the group's life

proper coaching intervention in such cases is to cycle when they are made. Regularities in group
members their rela life cycles have been explored empirically for
help improve interpersonal
tionships. many decades, beginning with Bales and Strodt
In fact, research that, in some cir beck's (1951) classic study of phases in group
suggests
arrow points in the op problem solving. In a number of conceptual
cumstances, the causal
direction?that is, drives in frameworks, scholars have sought to summarize
posite performance
research findings about group development, the
terpersonal processes (or, at least, perceptions
most prominent being the "forming-storming
of those processes), rather than vice versa. For
Staw norming-performing" model proposed by Tuck
example, (1975) gave task-performing
man (1965). Almost all of these frameworks have
teams false feedback about their performance
treated group development as following a fixed
and then asked members to provide "objective" set of stages, with each successive stage being
descriptions of how members had interacted.
contingent on successful completion of the prior
Teams randomly to the high perfor
assigned one.
mance condition reported more harmonious and
In recent years, research on temporal issues in
better communications, among other differ has raised doubt about the gen
group behavior
ences, than did groups assigned to the low per
erality and validity of stage models (Ancona &
formance condition (see also Guzzo, Wagner, 1999; Gersick, 1988; Ginnett, 1993;
Chong,
Maguire, Herr, & Hawley, 1986). McGrath & Kelly, 1986; Moreland & Levine, 1988;
Doubt also is cast on interpersonal ap for a recent attempt to reconcile alternative tem
to coaching by action research that see Chang, Bordia, & Duck, 2003).
proaches poral models,
seeks to improve team performance by improv Gersick's findings are particularly relevant for
ing the quality of members' interactions. Some our purposes. In a field study of the life histories
of these studies use interventions based on the of a number of project teams whose performance
process consultation approach to coaching re periods ranged from several days to several
viewed earlier; others employ a broader set of months, Gersick (1988) found that each of the
interventions that generally are referred to as groups she tracked developed a distinctive ap
team building or group development activities. proach toward its task as soon as it commenced
interventions that address members' work, and stayed with that approach
each until
Although
between its first and
relationships and interaction can be quite en precisely halfway meeting
and do affect members' its project deadline. At the midpoint of their
gaging attitudes, they
do not reliably improve team performance (for
reviews, see Kaplan, 1979; Salas, Rozell, Mullen,
& Driskell, 1999; Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas, 2Woolley's main effect finding was significantly condi
tioned by the timing of the intervention, and the Kernaghan
1992; Woodman & Sherwood, 1980). Moreover,
and Cook finding was obtained only for groups composed of
those experimental studies that have directly with ample task-relevant abilities. We discuss the
members
compared teams given task-focused and inter moderating effects of timing and of group design on the

personally focused interventions have found the impact of coaching interventions later.
 2005 Hackman and Wageman 275

lives, almost all teams underwent a major tran likely to be helpful if they are provided at a time
sition. In a concentrated burst of changes, they in the life cycle when the team is not ready for
dropped old patterns of behavior, reengaged them. Indeed, ill-timed interventions may actu
with outside supervisors, and adopted new per ally do more harm than good by distracting or
spectives on their work.3 Following the midpoint diverting a team from other issues that do re
transition, groups entered a period of focused quire members' attention at that time. We next
task execution, which persisted until very near discuss the kinds of interventions that are most
the project deadline, at which time a new set of appropriate at the beginnings, midpoints, and
issues having to do with termination processes ends of work team life cycles.
arose and captured members' attention. Gersick
(1989) subsequently replicated these findings in
the experimental for that all Beginnings
laboratory groups
had the same amount of time to complete their When team members first come together to
task (foralternative views of temporal dynamics perform a piece of work, the most pressing piece
in task-performing groups, see Seers & Woo of business, both formembers and for the team
druff, 1997, and Waller, Zellmer-Bruhn, & Giam as a whole, is for them to get oriented to one
batista, 2002). another and to the task in preparation for the
Gersick's findings about the natural develop start of actual work. This involves establishing
mental processes of task-performing groups the boundary that distinguishes members from
raise the possibility, consistent with both the nonmembers, starting to differentiate roles and
process consultation and developmental ap formulate norms about how members will work
proaches to team coaching previously summa together, and engaging with (and,inevitably,
rized, that the readiness of work teams for coach redefining) the group task. These activities,
ing interventions changes systematically across which involve simultaneous engagement with
their life cycles. By "readiness for coaching" we the interpersonal and task issues that dominate
mean (1) the degree to which the issues to be the start-up of any social system, create a high
addressed are among those naturally on team state of readiness foranything that shows prom
members' minds at the time of the intervention, ise of reducing members' uncertainties and
coupled with (2) the degree towhich the team as helping them get off to a good start. A coaching
a whole is not at that time preoccupied with intervention that helps a group have a good
more pressing or compelling matters. "launch," therefore, can significantly enhance
We posit that coaching interventions are more members' commitment to the team and the task,
effective when they address issues a team is and thereby enhance their motivation to perform
ready for at the time they are made and, more the work of the team as well as they can.
over, that readiness varies systematically The power and persistence of coaching be
across the team life cycle. In contrast, even com haviors at the launch of a task-performing team
petently administered interventions are un are affirmed by Ginnett's (1993) study of the be
havior of airline captains during the first few
3
minutes of a newly formed crew's life. The struc
In Gersick's research itwas not clear whether the mid
tural "shell" within which cockpit crews work is
point transition was prompted externally (i.e., by reference
to a clock or calendar) or internally sense quite detailed: the aircraft to be flown, where it
(i.e., by members'
that about half their allotted time had elapsed). Mann (2001) is to be flown, the roles of each crew member,
investigated this question experimentally by having groups basic work procedures such as checklists, and
work in a room with a clock that ran normally, in one where much more all are prespecified and well under
the clock ran one-third faster than normal (i.e., when thirty stood by all crewmembers. Therefore, a new
minutes had passed, the clock showed that forty minutes
or in one where
crew should be able to proceed with its work
had elapsed), the clock ran one-third slower
than normal (i.e., at the thirty-minute mark it showed twenty
without spending time getting organized, which
minutes). Groups with the normal clock experienced a single is, in fact, what happens if a captain does not
midpoint transition, replicating earlier findings. But groups conduct a launch briefing when the crew first
with the faster and slower clocks exhibited two such transi
meets.
tions?one at the midpoint indicated by the clock and the
other at the actual midpoint of the allotted
Consistent with Gersick's results, Ginnett
time?showing
that groups pace their work in response to both internal and (1993) found that what happened in the first few
external cues about elapsed time. minutes of crewmembers' time together carried
 276 Academy of Management Review April

forward throughout a significant portion of the groups did better than the "discuss your strat
crew's life. Crews led by captains who merely egy first" groups on the version of the task for
took the time in their preflight briefings to affirm which the obvious way of proceeding was the
the positive features of the crew shell fared bet optimum strategy, and the reverse was true
ter than those whose captains gave no briefing when the obvious way of proceeding was sub
at all or those whose captains undermined the optimal.
standard shell. Best of all were crews whose Perhaps the most significant finding of the
captains went beyond mere affirmation and ac study, however, is buried in the discussion sec
tively elaborated the shell?identifying, com tion of the research report?namely, that itwas
menting on, and engaging their crews in a dis nearly impossibleto get the experimental
cussion of the unique circumstances of the trip groups have a discussion
to actually of perfor
that was about to begin. These captains trans mance strategy at the start of the work period.
formed a highly competent set of individual pi Only by structuring the strategy intervention as
lots into a motivated flight crew. a "preliminary task" and explicitly requiring the
Because most work teams do not have struc team to check off each step as itwas completed
tures as detailed and elaborate as those of cock could the experimental groups be induced to
pit crews, what happens as members come to have more than a perfunctory discussion of their
gether and come to terms with their work should performance strategy at the beginning of the
shape their trajectories even more profoundly work period. Beginnings are not a good time for
than was the case for Ginnett's crews. Begin strategy discussions, but, as will be seen next,
nings provide a unique opportunity formotiva midpoints are.
tional coaching interventions that breathe life
into a team's structural shell?no matter how
or how elaborate that shell may Midpoints
rudimentary
be?and thereby help get a team off to a good A second window for coaching interventions
start with high motivational engagement by all opens around the midpoint of the team's work.
members. At that point the team has logged some experi
In contrast, and perhaps surprisingly, begin ence with the task, providing data formembers
nings are not good times to help teams formu to use in assessing what is working well and
late work strategy. When they are just starting poorly. Moreover, the team is likely to have ex
out, teams are not yet ready to address ques perienced an upheaval, driven in part by mem
tions of strategy, as Hackman, Brousseau, and bers' anxieties about the amount of work they
Weiss (1976) inadvertently discovered in an ex have accomplished relative to the time they
perimental study of team performance. These have remaining, that opens the possibility of
researchers asked a subset of participating significant change in how the team operates
teams to take a few minutes to reflect on their (Gersick, 1988, 1989). For these reasons, readi
performance strategy?that is, to consider vari ness for a strategy-focused coaching interven
ous ways of carrying out the task?before actu tion is high at the temporal midpoint of a team's
ally starting work on it. The investigators hy work.

pothesized that these teams would perform We posit that ongoing teams having no dead
better than teams that were encouraged to line, and therefore no temporal midpoint, also
plunge immediately into the work?but only on experience increased readiness for strategy
tasks for which the most obvious and natural focused interventions when they are about half
way of proceeding was not the optimum task way finished with example, when
the work?for
strategy. they have consumed half of their available re
performance
To test their hypothesis, the researchers struc sources, have progressed halfway to their goal,
tured their experimental task in two different or have arrived at some other natural break
ways. In one version of the task, the most obvi point in the work. At that time members are
ous and natural way of proceeding was, in fact, more likely than previously to welcome and be
optimum for team performance; in a second ver helped by interventions that encourage them to
sion, that way of proceeding would introduce assess their work progress, to review how they
inefficiencies and result in suboptimal perfor are applying members' efforts and talents to the
mance. As expected, the "plunge right in" work, and to consider how they might want to
 2005 Hackman and Wageman Til

alter their task performance strategies to better how best to proceed with their work. This con
align them with external requirements and in clusion deals specifically with the timing of ex
ternal resources. ternal interventions intended to foster team
The increased receptivity to coaching inter strategy planning. When work teams spontane
ventions that encourage reflection on team work ously engage in planning activities in their ini
strategies by teams that have logged some ex tial team meetings, process management norms

perience, relative to those that are just starting sometimes emerge that are
subsequently help
out, is a tenet of developmental theories of team ful in pacing and coordinating team activities
coaching (e.g., Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, Salas, (Janicik & Bartel, 2003).
& Cannon-Bowers, 1996) and is empirically sup In both the Woolley (1998) study and the ex
ported by the findings of Woolley (1998), men periment by Hackman et al. (1976) described ear
tioned earlier. Woolley created an experimental lier, itwas difficult but possible to introduce a
version of an architectural task that involved strategy-focused intervention at the beginning
constructing a model of a college residence hall of a task cycle. In other cases it is impossible to
out of LEGO? bricks. Groups were informed in do so. Total quality management programs, for
advance how the structures they created would example, involve use of such techniques as Pa
be evaluated (criteria included sturdiness, aes reto analyses, control charts, and cost-of-quality
thetics, and various technical indices). She de analyses to develop improved production strat
vised two coaching-type interventions?one in egies (for details, see Hackman & Wageman,
tended to improve members' interpersonal 1995). These techniques simply cannot be used
relationships and one that provided assistance until a record of experience with existing strat
to the team in developing a task-appropriate egies has been amassed?once again affirming
performance strategy. Each team received only that consultative coaching is more appropri
one intervention, administered either at the be ately provided around the middle of a task cycle
ginning or at the midpoint of its work period. than at its beginning.
Woolley's findings, shown in Figure 1, confirm
that strategy interventions are especially help Ends
ful when they come near the midpoint of a
team's work cycle. When the strategy interven The third special opportunity for coaching oc
tion was provided at the beginning of the work curs at the end of a performance period, when
period, it did not help, further affirming that the work is finished or a significant subtask has
members need to log some experience before been accomplished (Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, &
they are ready to have a useful discussion of Cannon-Bowers, 1996). The end of a task cycle is

FIGURE 1
Woolley's Findings About the Focus and Timing of Coaching
- - -
8 -:-
j--- -1

Beginning Midpoint Beginning Midpoint

Interpersonal intervention Strategy intervention

Adapted fromWoolley (1998).

 278 Academy of Management Review April

the time when a team has as much

data as it is can resultin having leaders assigned a dispro
likely to get for members to use
in exploring portionate share of the credit for team successes
what can be learned from the collective work and minority members a disproportionate share
just completed. Moreover, a team is likely to be of the blame for team
failures (Smith & Berg,
far more ready at this point than previously to 1987: Chapter 4). Competent, well-timed coach
capture and internalize the lessons that can be ing can help members work through such im
learned from their work experiences, for several pulses and generate collective learning that
reasons. The anxieties surface in
that invariably strengthens the team's capabilities as a task
getting a piece of work organized, executed, and performing unit.
finished on time dissipate once that work is
completed?significant, because people do not
learn well when brimming with anxieties (Ed Summary
mondson, 1999; Zajonc, 1965). Moreover, once the
We have seen that work teams are especially
task has been finished, there often is time for
open to coaching interventions at three times in
reflection, which typically is in short supply in the group life cycle: (1) at the beginning, when a
the rush to completion. The postperformance pe
group is engaging with its task; (2) at the mid
riod, therefore, is an especially inviting time for
point, when half the allotted time has passed
educational coaching interventions (see also
and/or half the work has been done; and (3) at
Blickensderfer, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 1997;
the end, when a piece of work has been finished.
Butler, 1993; Ellis, Mendel, Nir, & Davidi, 2002).
Moreover, each of the three coaching functions
Such interventions not only build the team's res
discussed in the previous section of this article
ervoir of talent, which increases its performance
is uniquely appropriate at one of those three
capabilities for subsequent tasks, but also con
times: motivational coaching at beginnings,
tribute directly to the personal learning of indi consultative coaching at midpoints, and educa
vidual team members.
tional coaching at ends.
Absent coaching interventions, team mem
The time dependence of the coaching func
bers are not likely to take initiatives after the
tions is summarized in our second proposition.
work has been completed to capture and inter
nalize the lessons that could be learned from 2: Each of the three coach
Proposition
their experiences. If the team has succeeded, functions has the greatest con
ing
members may be more interested in celebrating structive effect at specific times in the
than in reflecting, and if it has not, they may be team task cycle. Specifically, (a) moti
driven more to rationalize why the failure was vational is most
coaching helpful
not really their fault than to explore what might when provided at the beginning of a
be learned from it.Moreover, even ifmembers
performance period, (b) consultative
do take the time to reflect on possible explana is most
coaching helpful when pro
tions for the team's level of performance, coach vided at the midpoint of a perfor
ing may be required to bring those explanations mance period, and (c) educational
into alignment with reality. is most
coaching helpful when pro
In a field study of team attribution-making vided after performance activities
processes, Corn (2000) collected a diverse sam have been completed.
ple of task-performing teams in organizations,
some of which had performed well and some of This proposition could be viewed as suggest
which had not, and asked members of each ing that coaching is irrelevant or ineffectual
team to explain why the team had performed as during the great majority of a team's time?that
it did. The majority of those explanations fo is, in the extended periods that lie between its
cused on the behaviors or dispositions of indi beginning, midpoint, and end. It is true that
vidual members leader. This at
or of the team teams are remarkably impervious to interven
tributional bias diverts members' attention from tions, made during times of low readiness, that
the ways that less salient structural or contex seek to alter their established trajectories. Even
tual factors may have shaped their interaction so, it often is possible for coaching to make
and performance. Moreover, it invites the psy small but significant contributions to the team
chodynamic phenomenon of "splitting," which and its work during between-marker periods.
 2005 Hackman and Wageman 279

One such contribution is to help members co coaching interventions are abundant for such
ordinate their activities and thereby minimize teams, because they experience multiple begin
the risks of tacit coordination identified by Wit nings, midpoints, and ends.
tenbaum, Vaughan, and Stasser (1998). Leaders Still other teams operate continuously, with
who take on too much of the responsibility for out any official beginnings or ends whatsoever.
coordination do run the risk of becoming so in industrial production teams, for example,
Many
volved in the actual that they overlook
work keep on turning out the same products month
opportunities to help the team develop into an after month, into the future. Even
indefinitely
increasingly competent performing unit. And teams with continuous tasks, however, usually
team members may eventually abdicate to the have and ends. They
beginnings, midpoints,
leader their own responsibilities formanaging have them because the teams, or their manag
team performance processes. Still, when task ers, create them.

complexity is very high and/or when members There to be a human compulsion to

appears
are relatively inexperienced, helping members create even when no such
temporal markers,
coordinate their activities can be an appropriate markers are actually needed. In a semiconduc
and helpful coaching intervention. tormanufacturing that operated continu
plant
A second kind of between-marker coaching all for an annual
ously year (except holiday
that can be helpful to work teams is the use of the entire for
break when plant closed down),
op?rant techniques to reinforce constructive but
instance, production activities were
organized
infrequently observed team behaviors, such as
around six-week performance periods, and team
verbally reinforcing a team for exhibiting good
dynamics were highly responsive to the begin
work processes (Komaki et al., 1989). Consistent
nings, midpoints, and ends of these entirely ar
with the tenets of the op?rant model of team
bitrary temporal markers (Abramis, 1990; Hack
coaching summarized earlier, these initiatives
man, 2002). The creation of quarters to demark
can both increase the frequency of desirable
financial reporting periods and semesters (or
behaviors and decrease the frequency of unde
quarters) to organize educational activities in
sirable behaviors. However, such initiatives
schools have the same character: they are arbi
may be especially helpful for teams whose ba
in the
trary but nonetheless powerful shaping
sic performance processes?that is, their man
rhythm of collective activity.
agement of team effort, strategy, and talent?
are already and Temporal rhythms are deeply rooted in hu
strong. Even well-designed
man experience, and if temporal markers are
well-executed reinforcement of desirable team
not naturally provided (e.g., through human bi
behaviors cannot compensate for the absence of
well-timed motivational, consultative, and edu ology or seasonal cycles), we create them and
cational interventions.
then use them to pace our activities. Such mark
coaching
ers identify the beginnings, midpoints, and ends
Most of the research evidence supporting the
proposition that teams are especially open to of team life cycles, and they thereby create op
and educational in portunities for coaching interventions that oth
motivational, consultative,
terventions at their beginnings, and erwise would not exist.
midpoints,
ends comes from teams that have a single task
to complete by a specified deadline. The task
cycles of such teams are coincident with their CONDITIONS
life cycles, and, therefore, temporal markers are
The impact of motivational, consultative, and
easy to identify. For many work teams in orga
tasks and deadlines are not educational coaching depends not just on the
nizations, however,
so clear and well For example,
defined. some time in the task cycle at which interventions are
teams have multiple tasks to made but also on the degree towhich two other
perform, perform
the same task multiple times, or have work that conditions are in place. The first of these condi
to manage task cy tions is the degree to which
requires members multiple key performance
cles simultaneously in the service of larger per processes are externally constrained, and the
formance goals (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, second is the degree towhich the group itself is
2001). Opportunities for temporally appropriate a well-designed performing unit.
 280 Academy of Management Review April

Task and Organizational Constraints circumstances the relationship between the

team's utilization of member talent and team
Not all of the coaching functions specified
performance is severely restricted.
here are salient for all team tasks, since for
In some organizational circumstances all
some tasks only one or two of the three perfor
three of the performance processes are uncon
mance processes drive performance outcomes.
strained, and all three, therefore, are salient in
For an
arithmetic task with a self-confirming
affecting performance outcomes. Consider, for
answer, for example, the performance of a team
example, the work of product development
that has accepted and engaged with its task is
teams. The pace of the work is largely at the
almost entirely a function of the knowledge and
discretion of the team, performance procedures
skill its members apply in their work. In con
are mostly unprogrammed, and the work re
trast, on a pro
quires use of complex skills to deal with consid
performance simple, self-paced
duction task, such as moving materials from one
erable uncertainty in the environment. Motiva
place to another, is almost entirely a function of
tional, consultative, and educational coaching
the level of effort members expend. if competently all can
interventions, provided,
Thus, if one of the three performance pro in fostering the performance
be helpful effec
cesses (i.e., if variation
is constrained in that
tiveness of such teams.
process is controlled or limited by the task or the In other circumstances some performance pro
organization), then any attempts by members to cesses are constrained and others are not. Sur
manage that particular process will be ineffec teams are one B?h
gical example (Edmondson,
tual. If, however, a performance process is not
mer, & There is little constraint
Pisano, 2001).
constrained, then how well members manage the use of knowledge and skill by
regarding
that process can substantially affect their team members but moderate constraint on both
team's eventual are pro
performance. strategy (some but not all procedures
The salience of effort is constrained
by the and effort (some but not all task in
grammed)
towhich work inputs are under
external
degree puts derive from the nature of the surgical pro
control. When the arrival of the materials a team cedure and the response of the patient as the
processes is controlled externally (e.g., by cus operation progresses). Finally, there are some
tomer demand or machine pacing), a team can circumstances in which all three performance
only respond towhatever it receives and will be are constrained, as for a team work
processes
unable to increase
its output by working espe ing on a mechanized assembly line where in
cially hard. In such circumstances the relation are machine
puts paced, assembly procedures
ship between team effort and performance is are and performance
completely programmed,
severely restricted. operations are simple and predictable. A team
The salience of strategy is constrained by the such a task would be a team in name
assigned
degree towhich performance operations are ex since would so little
only, performance depend
ternally determined. When work procedures are on how members interacted.
completely prespecified (e.g., by mechanical re Teams can be helped interven
by coaching
quirements or by a manual that specifies ex tions that focus specifically on reducing process
actly how the work is to be done), a team has losses and/or on fostering process gains only for
little latitude to develop a new or better task those aspects of team performance processes
performance strategy. In such circumstances the that are relatively unconstrained. Coaching in
relationship between team performance strate terventions that address team processes that
gies and performance is severely restricted. are substantially constrained will be ineffec
Finally, the salience of knowledge and skill is tual, since they seek to improve team processes
constrained by the degree towhich performance that are not salient for how well the team per
operations are simple and predictable (versus forms. Such interventions can even compromise
complex and unpredictable). When task perfor performance because they consume members'
mance requires the use of skills that are well time and direct their attention away from more
learned in the general population on tasks that salient aspects of their interaction.
are well understood, a team is unable to im
prove its performance by bringing additional Proposition 3: Coaching interventions
knowledge or skill to bear on the work. In such are helpful only when they address
 2005 Hackman and Wageman 281

team performance processes that are (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985; Gersick,
salient for a given task; those that ad 1988), and they tend to remain in place until and
dress nonsalient processes are, at best, unless something fairly dramatic occurs to force
ineffectual. a rethinking about what behaviors are and are
not appropriate (Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Louis
& Sutton, 1991). When those upfront norms of
Group Design conduct actively promote continuous scanning
Certain features of a team's design, including of the performance situation and proactive plan
properties of the social system context within ning of how members will work together, they
which it operates, can negate the impact of facilitate the development of task performance
coaching interventions, even those that are well strategies that are appropriate for the team's
executed and that address appropriate team task and (Hackman et al., 1976; Wool
situation
performance processes. Moreover, design fea ley, 1998). The appropriateness of a team's per
tures can exacerbate the effects of good and formance strategies also depends, however, on
poor coaching on team effectiveness, heighten the degree towhich the organizational informa
ing the benefits of good coaching and making tion system makes available to the team what
even worse the problems brought about by poor ever data and projections members may need to
coaching. select or invent ways of proceeding that are well
Each of the three performance processes that tuned to their circumstances (Abramis, 1990; Bik
form the core of our model?the level of effort the son, Cohen, & Mankin, 1999).
team expends on its task, the appropriateness of The level of Jcnowiedge and skill a team
its performance strategies, and the amount of brings to bear on its work is influenced by the
knowledge and skill it applies to the work?is composition of the team (a structural feature)
shaped not only by coaching interventions but and by the organizational education system (a
also by how well a team is structured and by the contextual support). Well-composed teams have
level of contextual support provided (Hackman, members who bring to the group a rich array of
Wageman, Ruddy, & Ray, 2000). task-relevant knowledge and skills, and they
The effort a team expends on its work is influ are structured so that members' talents can be
enced by the design of its task (a structural drawn on readily in pursuing team purposes.
feature) and by the reward system of the orga Such teams are as small as possible, given the
nization in which the team operates (a contex work to be accomplished, they include members
tual support). A motivating team task is a whole who have appropriate skills, and they have a
and meaningful piece of work forwhich mem good mix of members?people who are neither
bers share responsibility and accountability so similar to one another that they are like peas
and one that is structured so that members re from the same pod nor so different that they risk
ceive regular and trustworthy data about how having difficulty communicating and coordinat
they are doing. Well-designed team tasks foster ing with one another (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992;
high, task-focused effort by team members Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Druskat, 1996;
(Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Team effort is en Goodman & Shah, 1992; Jackson, 1992).
hanced by organizational reward systems that Even well-composed teams, however, may not
recognize and reinforce team excellence?and have within their boundaries all of the talent
that avoid the common, if usually unintended, required for excellent performance. Organiza
problem of providing disincentives for collabo tional education systems can supplement inter
ration among team members by placing them in nal resources by making available to teams, at
competition with one another for individual re the teams' initiative, technical or educational
wards (Wageman, 1995). assistance for any aspects of the work forwhich
The task appropriateness of a team's perfor members are not already knowledgeable,
mance strategy is influenced by its core norms skilled, or experienced, including, if necessary,
of conduct (a structural feature) and by the or assistance honing members' skills in working
ganizational information system (a contextual together on collective tasks (Stevens & Yarish,
support). Collective expectations about accept 1999).
able behavior are either "imported" to the group Research evidence clearly establishes the pri
by members or established very early in its life ority of structural and contextual features over
 282 Academy of Management Review April

coaching behaviors as influences on team per When, then, can coaching make a constructive
formance processes and outcomes (Cohen, Led difference in team performance processes? We
ford, & Spreitzer, 1996). For example, Wageman propose that coaching makes relatively small
(2001) found, in a study of field service teams at adjustments to an already defined trajectory.
the Xerox Corporation, that team design fea When a team's performance situation is favor
tures, including those described just above, con able, competent coaching can be helpful to
trolled significantly more variance in both the members in minimizing process losses and cre
level of team self-management and in perfor ating process gains. When a team's structure is
mance effectiveness than did team leaders' flawed and/or its context is unsupportive, how
coaching For team self-management,
behaviors. ever, even competent process-focused coaching
design features controlled 42 percent of the vari may do more harm than good.
ance, compared to less than 10 percent formea
Proposition 4: Competent coaching in
sures that assessed the quality of leaders'
terventions (i.e., those that foster col
coaching activities; for team performance, de
lectiveeffort, task-appropriate perfor
sign controlled 37 percent of the variance, com
mance strategies, and good use of
pared to less than 1 percent for coaching. These
member knowledge and skill) are
findings are consistent with other evidence,
more beneficial for groups that are
cited earlier, showing that even highly compe
well structured and supported than for
tent process-focused coaching by team leaders those that are not; poor coaching in
or consultants rarely generates substantial or
terventions (i.e., those that subvert
enduring improvements in team processes or
team performance processes) are more
performance, and with the more general finding detrimental for teams that are poorly
that coaching cannot prevail against strong structured and supported than for
structural and contextual forces (Hackman,
those that are well designed.
1987). It is nearly impossible to coach a team to
greatness in a performance situation that under Further findings from the Wageman (2001)
mines rather than supports teamwork. study described above provide evidence in sup

FIGURE 2
How Team Design and Leader Coaching Jointly Affect Team Self-Management
Effective coaching Ineffective coaching

3 t-1 3

2.5 2.5 +
So Well-designed team
O)
? Well-designed team
ti
?
S
2+

o
>
o 1.5 1.5 +

Poorly designed team

Poorly designed team

Little Much Little Much

 2005 Hackman and Wageman 283

port of this proposition. As seen in the left panel CONCLUSION

of Figure 2, competent coaching (e.g., conduct In the present model we posit that team
ing a problem-solving process) helped well
can foster team effectiveness
teams exploit their favorable circum coaching only
designed when four conditions are present. Two of these
stances but made little difference for poorly
conditions have to do with organizational cir
designed teams. Poor coaching (e.g., identifying cumstances and two with coaches' actions.
a team's problems and telling members how
they should solve them), in contrast, was much
more deleterious forpoorly designed teams than 1. The group performance processes that are
to performance effectiveness
for those that had an enabling team structure key (i.e., effort,

and a context strategy, and knowledge and skill) are rela

supportive organizational (right task or organization
tively unconstrained by
panel of Figure 2). al requirements.
The interaction between a team's design and 2. The team is well designed and the organi
the efficacy of coaching interventions may help zational context within which it operates
re rather than team work.
explain the finding from "brainstorming" supports impedes
3. Coaching behaviors focus on salient task
search that the pooled ideas of individuals
performance processes rather than on mem
working alone generally exceed in both quan bers' or on pro
interpersonal relationships
tity and quality the product of interacting brain cesses that are not under the team's control.
4. Coaching interventions are made at times
storming groups (Taylor, Berry, & Block, 1957).
when the team is ready for them and able to
Studies of brainstorming typically use either ad
deal with them?that is, at the beginning for
hoc groups created
especially for research pur
effort-related (motivational) interventions,
poses (e.g., Cohen,
Whitmyre, & Funk, 1960) or near the midpoint for strategy-related (con
existing organizational groups whose members sultative) interventions, and at the end of a
are asked to take time from their regular work to task cycle for (educational) interventions
in the research that address knowledge and skill.
participate (e.g., Osborn, 1963).
On the one hand, if the participating teams'
design features are suboptimal?not unlikely When these four conditions are present, skill
for ad hoc or serendipitously obtained groups? fully provided coaching can yield substantial
it would not be surprising to find that brain and enduring improvements in team effective
storming fails to facilitate creative team perfor ness. Yet these conditions are not commonly
mance. For teams that have enabling structures found in traditionally designed and managed
and supportive contexts, on the other hand, this work organizations. Organizational work de
particular coaching intervention?as well as signs often constrain one or more
of the three
others that require teams to be able to use non performance processes that drive
team perfor
traditional and unfamiliar group process tools? mance; organizational systems do not provide
might well generate substantial performance the supports that work teams need; and coaches,
benefits. when trained at all, are taught the leadership
In sum, even competent coaching is unlikely styles preferred by trainers rather than helped
to be of much help to groups that have poor to learn how to provide well-timed and appro
structures and/or unsupportive organizational priately focused interventions using their own
contexts. Favorable performance situations, preferred styles (Hackman, 2002; Hackman &
however, can yield a double benefit: teams are Walton, 1986).
likely to have less need for coaching (because One could conclude, therefore, that few schol
they encounter fewer problems that lie beyond arly resources should be expended on research
their own capabilities), and the coaching that on team coaching because it is of so little con
they do receive is likely to be more helpful to sequence. Moreover, one could view the reports
them (because they are not preoccupied with from the field (cited in the introduction to this
more basic, structurally rooted difficulties). Over paper) that team leaders spend less time on
time, such teams may become skilled at coach team coaching than on any other category of
ing themselves and may even enter into a self leader behavior as a sign of team leaders' wis
fueling spiral of ever-increasing team capabil dom. Rather than spend time on an activity that
ity and performance effectiveness (Lindsley, so rarely makes a difference, leaders might be
Brass, & Thomas, 1995). better advised to focus on aspects of their lead
 284 Academy of Management Review April

ership portfolio forwhich there is a greater re organizational circumstances within which

turn from effort expended. their teams operate. It is highly doubtful that
We believe such conclusions would be too any single laboratory or field study could com
pessimistic?for scholars and practitioners prehensively assess all the propositions of the
alike. Scholars with an interest in senior execu present model. But studies that test individual
tive leadership have for many years debated propositions by creating specific coaching inter
just how much of a difference CEOs make in the ventions and documenting their effects in con
performance of their firms. These disputes, texts that are thoughtfully created or selected
which probably can never be resolved empiri can, over time, provide the knowledge required
cally, have now given way to a more tractable to correct and refine the model.
question?namely, under what conditions does The challenges for coaching practitioners are
senior leadership matter (Wasserman, Anand, & just as great as for scholars, and for the same
Nohria, 2001)? We suggest that a similar refrain reasons. than simply taking as given the
Rather
ing of research questions about team coaching circumstances in which their teams operate,
may be warranted. That is, instead of asking, practitioners who lead work teams should give
"How much difference does team coaching first priority to determining whether the basic
make?" scholars might more productively ex structural and contextual conditions that foster
pend resources in further research on the struc team effectiveness are in place (Hackman, 2002).
tural and contextual conditions under which If they are not, team leaders would be well ad
competent team
coaching does (and does
not) vised to exercise influence with their own peers
significantly affect team performance. and supervisors to create those conditions, and
The conduct of such research poses several thereby to make competent team coaching pos
significant challenges. For one thing, it is far sible. We hope the model of team coaching set
from straightforward to measure leader behav forth in this article is of some use to practition
iors and group processes reliably as they unfold ers in orienting and prioritizing such initiatives,
in real time in fluid organizational circum as well as to scholars in conducting informative
stances. And since the effects of team coaching research about work teams and the behaviors of
are determined jointly by factors that exist at those who lead them.
multiple levels of analysis (i.e., the organization
al, team, and individual levels), it is necessary REFERENCES
to locate or create research settings where there
Abramis, D.
J. 1990. Semiconductor manufacturing team. In
is ample variation at all three levels (Hackman,
J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that
2003). Studies of coaching effectiveness cannot don't): 449-470. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
simply take as given whatever structural and
Alderfer, C. P. 1977. Group and intergroup relations. In J.R.
contextual features are commonly found either Hackman & J. L. Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work:
in the experimental laboratory or in organiza 227-296. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
tional life. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Demography and
Indeed, it may be necessary in research on design: Predictors of new product team performance.

team coaching, as sometimes must be done in Organization Science, 3: 321-341.

other scientific fields, such as medical research Ancona, D. G., & Chong, C. L. 1999. Cycles and synchrony:

and subatomic to first create one's phe The temporal role of context in team behavior. In
physics,
R. Wageman (Ed.), Groups in context: 33-48. Stamford,
nomenon of interest before conducting research
CT: JAI Press.
on its dynamics (Argyris, 1969). Research in lab
Argyris, C. 1969. The
incompleteness of social psychological
oratory settings, for example, could involve the
theory: Examples from small group, cognitive consis
construction and administration of model
tency, and attribution research. American Psychologist,
specified coaching interventions at times either 24: 893-908.
consistent or inconsistent with the model's prop Argyris, C. 1982. Reasoning, learning, and action. San Fran
ositions and then assessment of the conse cisco: Jossey-Bass.
quences for group dynamics and performance.
Argyris, C. 1993. Education for leading-learning. Organiza
And action research in field settings could as tional Dynamics, 21(3): 5-17.
sess the impact of educational programs in
Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. 1951. Phases in group problem
tended to help team coaches design interven solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46:
tions specifically tailored to the task and 485-495.
 2005 Hackman and Wageman 285

Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J.K. 1985. The emergence of Geber, B. 1992. From manager into coach. Training, Febru
norms in competitive decision-making groups. Adminis ary: 25-31.
trative Science Quarterly, 30: 350-372.
Gersick, J.G.C.1988. Time and transition in work teams:
Bikson, T. K., Cohen, S. G., & Mankin, D. 1999. Information Toward a new model of group development. Academy of

technology and high-performance teams. In E. Sund Management Journal, 31:9-41.

strom (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness: 215
Gersick, C. J.G. 1989. Marking time: Predictable transitions
245. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 31:
Blickensderfer, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. 1997. 9-41.
Training teams to self-correct: An empirical investiga
Gersick, C. J.G., & Hackman, J.R. 1990. Habitual routines in
tion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the So
task-performing teams. Organizational Behavior and
ciety for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St.
Human Decision Processes, 47: 65-97.
Louis.
Ginnett, R. C.
1993. Crews as groups: Their formation and
Butler, R. E. 1993. LOFT: Full-mission simulation as crew
their
leadership. In E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L.
resource management training. In E. L. Wiener, B. G.
Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource management: 71-98.
Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource man
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
agement: 231-259. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Goodman, P. S., & Shah, S. 1992. Familiarity and work group
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J.,& Higgs, A. C. 1993. Relations
outcomes. In S. Worchel, W. Wood., & J. Simpson (Eds.),
between work group characteristics and effectiveness:
Group process and productivity: 276-298. London: Sage.
Implications for designing effective work groups. Per
sonnel Psychology, 46: 823-850. Guzzo, R. A., Wagner, D. B., Maguire, E., Herr, B., & Hawley, C.
1986. Implicit theories and the evaluation of group pro
Chang, A., Bordia, P., & Duck, J. 2003. Punctuated equilibrium
cess and performance. Organizational Behavior and Hu
and linear progression: Toward a new understanding of
man Decision Processes, 37: 279-295.
group development. Academy of Management Journal,
46: 106-117. Hackman, J.R. 1987. The design of work teams. In J.
W. Lorsch
(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior: 315-342.
Cohen, D., Whitmyre, J., & Funk, W. 1960. Effect of group
cohesiveness and creative Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
training upon thinking. Jour
nal ofApplied Psychology. 44: 319-322. Hackman, J.R. 2002. Leading teams: Creating conditions for
great performances. Boston: Harvard Business School
Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., Jr., &
Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. A
of self-managing team effective Press.
predictive model work
ness. Human Relations, 49: 643-676. Hackman, J. R. 2003. Learning more from crossing levels:

R. 2000. Why poor teams get poorer. Evidence from airplanes, orchestras, and hospitals.
Corn, The influence of
team effectiveness and design on the quality of Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 1-18.
quality
group diagnostic processes. Unpublished doctoral dis Hackman, J. R., Brousseau, K. R., & Weiss, J. A. 1976. The
sertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. interaction of task design and group performance strat

V. U. 1996. Team-level in superior egies in determining group effectiveness. Organiza

Druskat, competencies
work teams. Paper presented tional Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 350-365.
performing self-managing
at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Hackman, J. R., & Morris,
C. G. 1975. Group tasks, group
Cincinnati, OH. interaction and group performance effective
process,
D. 1985. Team A true field experiment at ness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz
Eden, development:
three levels of rigor. Journal of Applied 70: (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol.
Psychology,
94-100. 8: 45-99. New York: Academic Press.

Edmondson, A. E.
1999. Psychological safety and learning Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Read
behavior in workteams. Administrative Science Quar ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
terly, 44: 350-383. Hackman, J.R., & Wageman, R. 1995. Total quality manage
Edmondson, A. E., B?hmer,R. M., & Pisano, G. P. 2001. Dis ment: Empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. Ad
ministrative Science 40: 309-342.
rupted routines: Team learning and new technology im Quarterly,
plementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quar Hackman, R., Ruddy, T. M., & Ray, C. R. 2000.
J.R., Wageman,
terly, 46: 685-716. Team in theory and practice.
effectiveness In C. Cooper
Ellis, S., Mendel, R., Nir, M., & Davidi, I. 2002. After-event & E. A. Locke (Eds.), Industrial and organizational psy
reviews: Drawing lessons from successful vs. failed ex chology: Theory and practice: 109-129. Oxford: Black

perience. Working paper, Recanati Graduate School of well.

Business Administration, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
Hackman, J. R., & Walton, R. E. 1986. Leading groups in
Fischer, N.1993. Leading self-directed work teams: A guide to organizations. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effec

developing new team leadership skills. New York: tive work groups: 72-119. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McGraw-Hill.
Hirokawa, R. Y. 1985. Discussion procedures and decision
Fournies, F. F. 1978. Coaching for improved work perfor making performance: A test of a functional perspective.
mance. Bridgewater, NJ: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Human Communication Research, 12: 203-224.
 286 Academy of Management Review April

Hollingshead, A. B., Wittenbaum, G. M., Paulus, P. B., Hiro From habits of mind to active thinking. Human Rela
kawa, R. Y., Peterson, R. S., Jehn, K. A., & Yoon, K. In tions, 44: 55-76.
press. A look at groups from the functional perspective. for a change:
Mann, J.B. 2001. Time The role of internal and
In A. B. Hollingshead & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Theories of
external pacing mechanisms in prompting the midpoint
small groups: An interdisciplinary perspective. Thou
transition. Unpublished honors thesis, Department of
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Jackson, S. 1992. Team composition in organizations. In
Manz, C. O, & Sims, H. P. 1987. Leading workers to lead
S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J.Simpson (Eds.), Group process themselves: The external leadership of self-managing
and productivity: 138-173. London: Sage. work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 106?

Janicik, G. A., & Bartel, C. A. 2003. Talking about time: Effects 128.
of temporal planning and time awareness norms on M. A., Mathieu,
Marks, J.E., & Zaccaro, S. J.2001. A temporally
group coordination and performance. Group Dynamics, based framework and of team processes.
taxonomy
7(2): 122-134. Academy of Management Review, 26: 356-376.

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. 2001. The dynamic nature of McGrath, J.E. 1962. Leadership behavior: Some requirements
conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and for leadership DC: U.S. Civil Ser
training. Washington,
group performance. Academy of Management Journal, vice Commission.
44: 238-251.
McGrath, J. E., & Kelly, J.R. 1986. Time and human interac
Kaplan, R. E. 1979. The conspicuous absence of evidence that tion: Toward a social of time. New York:
psychology
process consultation enhances task performance. Jour Guilford Press.
nal of Applied Behavioral Science, 15: 346-360.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J.M. 1988. Group dynamics over
Kernaghan, J.A., & Cooke, R. A. 1990. Teamwork in planning time: Development and socialization in small groups. In
innovative projects: Improving group performance by J. E. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time: New
rational and interpersonal interventions in group pro perspectives: 151-181. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
cess. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Orlitzky, M., & Hirokawa, R. Y. 2001. To err is human, to
37: 109-116.
correct is divine: A meta-analysis of research testing the
Kinlaw, D. C. 1991. Developing superior work teams. San functional theory of group decision-making effective

Diego: Lexington Books. ness. Small Group Research, 32: 313-341.

Komaki, J. L. 1986. Toward effective supervision: An op?rant Osborn, A. 1963. Applied imagination (3rd ed.). New York:

analysis and comparison of managers at work. Journal Scribner.

of Applied Psychology, 71: 270-279. T. H.
Patten, 1981. Organizational development through
Komaki, J. L. 1998. Leadership from an team-building. New York: Wiley.
op?rant perspective.
New York: Routledge. F. 1991. How to lead work teams.
Rees, San Francisco: Jossey
Komaki, J.L., Deselles, M. L., & Bowman, E. D. 1989. Definitely Bass/Pfeiffer.
not a breeze: Extending an op?rant model of effective Salas, E., Rozell, D., Mullen, B., & Driskell, J.E. 1999. The effect
supervision to teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: of team building on performance: An integration. Small
522-529. Research, 30: 309-329.
Group
Komaki, J.L., & Minnich, M. R. 2002. Crosscurrents at sea: The Schein, E. H. 1969. Process consultation: Its role in organiza
ebb and flow of leaders in response to the shifting de tion development. MA:
Reading, Addison-Wesley.
mands of racing sailboats. Group and Organization
Schein, E. H. 1988. Process consultation, vol. 1. Reading, MA:
Management, 27: 113-141.
Addison-Wesley.
Kozlowski, S. W. J.,Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P., Salas, E., &
Schwarz, R. 1994. Team facilitation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Cannon-Bowers, J.A. 1996. A dynamic theory of leader Prentice-Hall.
ship and team effectiveness: Developmental and task

contingent leader roles. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), f?esearch in Seers, A., & Woodruff, S. 1997. Temporal pacing in task forc

and human resource vol. 14: es: Group development or deadline pressure. Journal of
personnel management,
Management, 23: 169-187.
253-305. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. 1987. Paradoxes of group life. San

Kozlowski, S. W. J.,Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers,
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
J.A.
1996. Team leadership and development: Theory,
principles, and guidelines for training leaders and Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. 1979. Coach effective
teams. In M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson, & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), ness A to en
training: cognitive-behavioral approach
Advances in studies of work teams: skills in youth
interdisciplinary hancing relationship sport coaches. Jour
Team leadership, vol. 3: 251-289. Greenwich, CT: JAI nal of Sport Psychology, 1: 59-75.
Press.
Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. 1989. Leader behaviors in sport: A
Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. 1995. Efficacy theoretical model and research paradigm. Journal of
performance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy Applied Social Psychology, 19: 1522-1551.
of Management Review, 20: 645-678.
Staw, B. M. 1975. Attribution of the "causes" of performance:
Louis, M. R., & Sutton, R. I. 1991. Switching cognitive gears: A general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional
 2005 Hackman and Wageman 287

research on organizations. Behavior and R., Hackman, J.R., & Lehman, E. V. 2004. Devel
Organizational Wageman,
Human Performance, 13: 414-432. opment of the Team Diagnostic Survey. Working paper,
Tuck School, Dartmoth College, Hanover, NH.
Steiner, I. D. 1972. Group process and productivity. New York:
Academic Press. Waller, M. J.,Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., & Giambatista, R. C. 2002.
Watching the clock: Group pacing behavior under dy
Stevens, M. J.,& Yarish, M. E. 1999. Training for team effec
namic deadlines. Academy of Management Journal, 45:
tiveness. In E. Sundstrom (Ed.), Supporting work team
1046-1055.
effectiveness: 126-156. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wasserman, N., Anand, B., & Nohria, N. 2001. When does
Tannenbaum, S. L., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. 1992. Team
leadership matter? The contingent opportunities view of
building and its influence on team effectiveness: An
CEO leadership. Working paper No. 01-063, Harvard
examination of conceptual and empirical develop Business School, Boston.
ments. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in
117-153. Amster Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C, & Wilson, J.M. 1991. Empowered
industrial/organizational psychology:
dam: Elsevier. teams: Creating self-managing working groups and the
improvement of productivity and participation. San
Taylor, D., Berry, P., & Block, C. 1957. Does group participa Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
tion when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit cre
Wittenbaum, G. M., Vaughan, S. I., & Stasser, G. 1998. Coor
ative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3:23-47.
dination in task-performing groups. In R. S. Tindale,
Torres, C, & Spiegel, J. 2000. Self-directed work teams: A & E. J.Posavac on
J.Edwards, (Eds.), Theory and research
primer. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. small groups: 177-204. New York: Plenum Press.

Tuckman, B. W. 1965. Developmental sequence in small R. W., & Sherwood,

Woodman, J. J. 1980. The role of team
groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63: 384-399. in organizational effectiveness: A critical
development
R. 1995. Interdependence and review. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 166-186.
Wageman, group effective
ness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 145-180. A. W. 1998. Effects of intervention content and tim
Woolley,
R. 2001. How leaders foster self-managing team ing on group task performance. Journal of Applied Be
Wageman,
vs. hands-on havioral Science, 34: 30-49.
effectiveness: Design choices coaching.
Organization Science, 12: 559-577. Zajonc, R. B. 1965. Social facilitation. Science, 149: 269-274.

J.Richard Hackman is professor of social and organizational psychology at Harvard

University. He received his bachelor's degree in mathematics from MacMurray Col
lege and his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Illinois. His research interests
include social influences on behavior in organizations and analysis of the conditions
that foster work team effectiveness.

Ruth Wageman is an associate professor at the Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth

College. She received her bachelor's degree in psychology from Columbia University
and her Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Harvard University. Her research
interests include power dynamics in teams, leader development and behavior, and
the performance of senior management teams.