Lasting Change blog posts

After coaching for 20 years, I think it is safe to assume that the majority of leadership coaching engagements involve one-to-one coaching, or for larger engagements multiple mini-engagements of one-to-one coaching (if you have any data one this, please let me know!).

Over the past several years, organizations have become more aware that individual coaching can only go so far in helping teams work more effectively together. So, the number of team coaching programs and team coaches has expanded to meet this need. It's reasonable to think that if a team needs to work more effectively together (which seems to be true for many teams), the most efficient way to help the team is to work with the team.

However, what about issues that come up when two individuals are not working well together? If it is a two-person issue, wouldn't it make sense to address this at the level of the two people (a dyad)? So, what often happens instead?

Typical ways of dealing with conflict between two leaders at work

• Nothing changes, although this can mean a negative impact due to the opportunities that would have arisen had the two people worked effectively together, along with the potential negative affect on those around them
• A valuable (or potentially valuable) member of the organization chooses to leave or is forced out
• One person receives individual coaching and the coach receives only a partial view into the dynamics between both people and can only help that person (at best) deal with their side of the conflict
• Both people receive one-to-one coaching from different coaches who, due to (often) agreements / assumptions about confidentiality, cannot talk to each other or compare perspectives about the issues between both people
• Both people receive one-to-one coaching from the same person, who has a wider perspective on the issues, but who (often) is still limited in what they feel able to share between the individual clients
• The issue(s) are treated as a specific issue to be resolved through mediation, hopefully making progress with that issue, but without (often) improving the relationship between the two individuals

Why "Systemic" Dyad Coaching?

As systemic team coaches have learned, issues that are most visible at one level (e.g., between team members) might have their origin elsewhere. For example:

• Leaders higher up in the organization are not aligned, or even in competition with one another, leading to issues between leaders further down in the organization
• Goals, objectives and rewards are unclear or not aligned. Individuals might even be rewarded for performance that negatively impacts someone else in the organization
• Other sources of stress outside of the dyad (and sometimes outside of the organization) may be negatively impacting one or both individuals experiencing conflict

What can Systemic Dyad Coaching offer instead?

• One coach works with both individuals, often in a combination of one-on-one sessions with both participants
• The coach and participants negotiate what information can be shared by the coach with the other participant and how it should be shared (often, it is best for the information to be shared directly between the participants, with or without the coach's assistance). Building trust between the coach and both participants is key. It is also important that the coach doesn't become the "messenger", passing information that both participants need to be able to share with one another
• The coach and participants can explore whether it is possible to influence greater clarity and alignment of goals within their wider ecosystem (e.g., senior leadership or the board) or how best to work together despite misalignment or a lack of clarity

Why isn't Systemic Dyad Coaching better-known and offered more often?

I have some theories about this and am interested to hear any additional perspectives.

• Maybe it is better-known than I think. If so, I'd love to hear what resources you are aware of or have used.
• Mediation is better-known, so more likely to be considered (even if it might not address, in some cases, longer-term or future issues)
• Many coaches don't have appropriate training and/or an appetite for this sort of work (for similar reasons, there are many individual psychotherapists who prefer not to work with couples)
• Many couples therapists may have skills and experience that would be helpful in this work, but lack the corporate experience to adjust their approach to the workplace and/or to look for other potential systemic factors that might contribute to the issues that have led to coaching
• In cases where a boss is concerned that a direct report is not working effectively, it is relatively common for the boss to treat this as an issue for individual coaching for the direct report, without questioning whether they might also have a role in the performance issue they want to address - a two-person issue is treated as though it is a one-person issue (and, in some cases, it would have been more effective for the "one person" receiving coaching to have been the boss)

‍