| Course | LDR 726 The Dynamics of Group and Team Leadership (LDR/726) |
|---|---|
| Week | 6 |
| Paper type | Doctoral team coaching analysis |
| Length | about 1,160 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | DBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for LDR 726 Week 6
Coaching at the Base of the Tower: A Theory of Team Coaching Applied to Regional Supervisors of Wind Crews
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
LDR/726: The Dynamics of Group and Team Leadership
Week 6 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Prairie Gale Wind Services, its supervisors and its crews are composites written for a model paper.
The invented Prairie Gale company has been followed for five weeks as it works to strengthen about 70 wind crews spread across three states. The Week 5 program introduced role clarification, teamwork training and debriefs. Those interventions depend on regional supervisors, each responsible for 10 to 14 crews, who will facilitate sessions and support crews between them. Vice president Renee Castillo has noticed that supervisors visit crews mostly after incidents, repeat repairs or customer complaints, and that crews view visits as inspections. This paper examines team coaching research and assesses how supervisors could coach more effectively.
A Theory of Team Coaching
Hackman and Wageman (2005) proposed a theory of team coaching defined as direct interaction with a team intended to help members make coordinated and task-appropriate use of their collective resources. In their view, a coach can work on three things: how hard the team tries, whether its approach to the task fits the work and how much know-how members bring. Each is addressed by a coaching function: motivational coaching for effort, consultative coaching for strategy and educational coaching for knowledge and skill. Timing matters in the theory: encouragement fits the start of a piece of work, advice on approach fits the middle and teaching fits the end, when there is room to reflect.
Design Versus Coaching
Wageman (2001) studied self-managing teams of field service technicians, comparing the effects of team design, such as a clear direction, a real team task, team rewards and authority, with hands-on coaching by leaders. Design features had much larger effects on team self-management and performance than coaching. Coaching helped well-designed teams improve further but did little for poorly designed teams. Leaders' coaching that focused on solving problems for teams, rather than building their capacity, could even undermine self-management.
Psychological Safety as a Condition
Edmondson (1999) showed that teams whose members feel safe from ridicule are more willing to ask for help and to talk openly about what went wrong. Coaching depends on it: a team that fears blame will not reflect honestly with a supervisor.
How Supervisors Coach Now
Records of supervisor visits over six months and interviews with supervisors and technicians show a pattern. About 70 percent of visits followed a problem. Supervisors spent visits reviewing what went wrong, often directing technicians on correct procedures. Few visits occurred at the start of new projects or at midpoints. Technicians described visits as checking up rather than helping.
Timing Problems
In Hackman and Wageman's terms, most coaching occurred at the wrong time and with the wrong function. Educational coaching about procedures happened in the middle of work, when crews were focused on finishing, rather than at the end, when they could reflect. Motivational coaching at the start of projects was almost absent. Consultative coaching about strategy at midpoints happened only on troubled projects.
Design Comes First
Wageman's findings suggest that coaching cannot compensate for design weaknesses identified earlier: unstable membership, unclear roles and work assigned crew-by-crew without team goals. The Week 2 and Week 5 changes, core crews, role clarification and team goals, improve design and make coaching more effective.
A supervisor who arrives only after a callback becomes an inspector, no matter how kindly he speaks.
What Technicians Want From Supervisors
Interviews with 20 technicians described the coaching they would value. They wanted supervisors to visit when a big job started, not only after something failed. They wanted help removing obstacles, such as late parts or unrealistic schedules from the monitoring center. And they wanted supervisors to ask what the crew had learned rather than tell them what they did wrong. These preferences align closely with the timing and functions in Hackman and Wageman's theory.
A Supervisor Who Coaches Well
One supervisor, responsible for crews in the Oklahoma panhandle, already coaches in ways the theory recommends. She visits each new crew in its first week, calls lead technicians at the midpoint of long projects to ask what is getting in their way and joins debriefs monthly. Her region has the lowest repeat-repair rate and the highest survey scores for supervisor support. Her practices will serve as the model for others.
A Coaching Model: Launch
At the start of each major project or season, the supervisor will hold a launch meeting with the crew, a motivational coaching moment: review the project's purpose, confirm roles and goals and express confidence in the crew. Launches take 30 minutes and can happen by video for routine work.
A Coaching Model: Midpoint
At the midpoint of major projects, the supervisor will hold a strategy check, a consultative moment: what is working, what obstacles exist and whether the plan should change. Gersick's midpoint transition from Week 2 suggests crews are especially open to change at this time.
A Coaching Model: Debrief
At the end of projects and monthly for routine work, the supervisor will facilitate a debrief, an educational moment, building on the Week 5 debrief questions and focusing on lessons the crew identifies.
Building Capacity, Not Dependence
Following the warning in Wageman's study about leaders solving problems for teams, supervisors will ask questions before offering answers and will encourage crews to solve problems themselves.
Creating Psychological Safety
Supervisors will start debriefs by sharing their own mistakes, thank crews for reporting problems and separate coaching visits from disciplinary matters, which will be handled separately.
Coaching Lead Technicians to Coach
Supervisors cannot be present for most crew work, so lead technicians must coach too. Supervisors will coach leads on how to run briefings that motivate, how to ask strategy questions when a job stalls and how to facilitate debriefs. This extends coaching through the system rather than concentrating it in a few supervisors.
Workload and Scheduling
With 10 to 14 crews each, supervisors cannot attend every launch and midpoint in person. They will prioritize new crews, complex projects and crews with recent difficulties, using video calls for others.
Supervisor Development
Supervisors will attend a two-day coaching workshop and practice with peers. Each will receive feedback from crews twice a year on coaching quality.
Measures
The measures focus on whether coaching changes in timing and tone, and whether crews notice. Measures include the share of supervisor visits that are launches, midpoints or debriefs rather than problem responses, crew ratings of coaching helpfulness, psychological safety scores and crew performance.
Limits
Coaching effects are hard to separate from design changes happening at the same time. Comparing regions that adopt the model at different times will help.
Conclusion
Team coaching theory matches motivational, consultative and educational functions to beginnings, midpoints and endings, and research shows that design has larger effects than coaching, which helps most when teams are well designed. Prairie Gale's supervisors coach reactively, at the wrong times and with corrective emphasis. A model of launches, midpoint checks and debriefs, built on improved crew design and psychological safety, can turn supervisors from inspectors into coaches.
References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269-287. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.16387885
Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12(5), 559-577. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.5.559.10094
What the LDR 726 Week 6 instructions ask
Week 6 of LDR 726 generally treats coaching as one of the functions a team leader performs. Expect to explain team coaching theories, distinguish motivational, consultative and educational coaching, discuss when coaching is most effective in a team's life cycle and examine the relative importance of team design and coaching. Some versions add a review of the writer's own coaching or ask for a coaching design. A strong paper uses theory and empirical research, applies coaching functions to specific teams and moments, recognizes that coaching cannot fix poorly designed teams and proposes practical coaching routines with measures. Back each claim with scholarly studies in APA form and show how coaching builds on what earlier weeks found about team building and conflict.
How this LDR 726 Week 6 example is built
Prairie Gale's regional supervisors visit crews mainly when something goes wrong, so their coaching is reactive and centered on mistakes. The paper asks how coaching could be better. A theory of team coaching proposes that coaching addresses three performance processes, effort, strategy and knowledge and skill, through motivational, consultative and educational functions, and that each works best at a particular time: beginnings, midpoints and endings. A study of field service teams found that team design features had a much larger effect on self-management and performance than hands-on coaching, though well-timed coaching helped well-designed teams. Research on psychological safety shows that teams learn when members feel safe to speak. An assessment of supervisors' visits shows poorly timed, corrective coaching, and a coaching model with launch, midpoint and debrief roles follows.
LDR 726 Week 6 grading rubric: where the points go
Team coaching papers at the doctoral level are evaluated on theoretical accuracy, use of evidence and practical design. Reviewers like to see the timing of real coaching visits compared with what theory recommends. High-scoring work explains coaching functions and their timing, uses empirical research on the relative effects of design and coaching and applies these ideas to specific leaders and teams with evidence. Graders reward recognition that coaching is most effective at certain moments and when team design is sound, and attention to psychological safety. A coaching model with clear routines, timing and measures demonstrates applied understanding, and acknowledging what coaching cannot fix shows judgment.
LDR 726 Week 6 help: mistakes to avoid
A common problem is equating team coaching with giving individuals feedback. Team coaching addresses how the team works together: its effort, strategy and use of members' skills. Focus on the team. Another frequent gap is ignoring timing; research suggests coaching works best at beginnings, midpoints and endings of work cycles. Plan when to coach. Some papers assume coaching can fix any team, but design features such as clear direction, stable membership and authority have larger effects. Address design first. Others overlook psychological safety, without which teams will not engage with coaching. Finally, propose routines supervisors can sustain with many dispersed teams, rather than ideals that require constant presence.
Related LDR 726 sample papers
Other LDR 726 week samples
- LDR 726 Week 1: Teams and Team Effectiveness
- LDR 726 Week 2: Team Development and Group Dynamics
- LDR 726 Week 3: Group Communication and Decisions
- LDR 726 Week 4: Conflict in Teams
- LDR 726 Week 5: Team Building and Team Training
- LDR 726 Week 7: Self-Directed Work Teams
- LDR 726 Week 8: Multiteam Systems and Leadership Plan
More DBA sample papers
- FIN 711 Week 6: Debt and Alternative Financing
- LDR 711A Week 6: Values-Based Leadership
- MGT 711 Week 6: Research on Digital Strategy
- MGT 726 Week 6: Creativity and Adaptive Approaches
LDR 726 Week 6 questions, answered
What does LDR 726 Week 6 usually cover?
It usually covers team coaching, including coaching functions, timing, the relative importance of team design and coaching and how leaders can coach teams effectively.
Where can I find a free LDR 726 Week 6 sample paper?
A full Week 6 doctoral paper on coaching wind crews through their regional supervisors can be read above.
What are the functions of team coaching?
One theory identifies motivational coaching to build effort, consultative coaching to improve strategy and educational coaching to develop knowledge and skill, each suited to particular moments.
Is team design more important than coaching?
A study of self-managing teams found that design features had larger effects on performance than hands-on coaching, though coaching helped well-designed teams more than poorly designed ones.
When is team coaching most effective?
Theory suggests motivational coaching is most useful at a team's beginning, consultative coaching at the midpoint and educational coaching at the end of a work cycle.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All LDR 726 week samples · All courses