Title: The timing and type of team coaching interventions
Description: This dissertation addresses two questions about the antecedents and consequences of team coaching: (a) How do team coaches' observational processes influence the timing and type of their coaching interventions? (Study 1) and (b) How does the timing and type of coaching intervention affect team processes and outcomes? (Study 2). Using a video case of an analytic team doing its work as a stimulus, Study 1 participants were asked to imagine they were coaching the video team and to write down their observations of the team's processes (both positive and negative) and what, if anything, they would do to intervene. Analyses of these comments showed that participants intervened early and often in response to perceived negative aspects of group process and typically did so in a directive style. Participants with more team coaching experience, however, tended to intervene later and were more likely to use a participative style than those with less experience. Qualitative analyses suggested that, even when more and less experienced participants diagnosed the same problems, more experienced participants recommended very different types of interventions and tended to suggest them later.

Study 2 investigated three issues regarding the effects of coaching interventions in group decision making: (a) how process interventions affected group decision making processes and outcomes; (b) how persistent these effects were, and (c) how the timing (earlier vs. later) and type (directive vs. participative) of process intervention moderated these effects. In this study, coaching interventions had immediate effects on critical group processes but did not significantly improve decision quality during the task in which the intervention was received. Surprisingly, post-intervention processes continued to improve and resulted in improved decisions in a subsequent task. This lagged effect was mediated by the degree to which groups aggregated unique information and avoided advocating for individual members' preferences. Directive interventions were more effective than participative interventions at reducing the amount group members advocated for their own preferences. Implications are discussed for research and practice of team leadership and coaching in organizations--especially in tasks requiring group information sharing and decision making.