Coaching Isn't Just for 1:1s
How to use coaching frameworks to approach cross-functional tensions and decision-making
Where this came from
Last week, I was in a Q&A session with a group of executives, and one of the questions that came up was:
“How do we actually work effectively with another department to solve a problem? We’re just not getting through to each other.”
In this case, she was specifically talking about working with finance. They were trying to move a project forward, and it felt like they were stuck, and not making real progress.
And as I was listening, I found myself thinking about our coaching toolkit.
Because on the surface, coaching might not feel like the most obvious answer to a question about cross-functional collaboration.
But in practice, it’s one of the most effective approaches we have.
Coaching (and how we usually think about it)
When we talk about coaching in the context of business, it’s natural to envision a one-on-one conversation.
A manager sitting across from their direct report. A moment in time that has been specifically carved out for development.
It’s probably not particularly shocking to hear that I am indeed a fan of the above.
And, when we understand the principles of coaching, we don’t need to limit ourselves to only the most obvious application. (For anyone looking for a deeper understanding of how we define coaching, you can check out this week’s edition of The Practice Plan.)
Coaching offers us the skills, mindset, and frameworks for having different types of conversations. And I’d like to argue that coaching can be an incredibly effective approach in larger group or cross-functional settings.
Why cross-functional work gets hard
These collaborative settings are ripe for a coaching approach.
You have multiple teams, multiple perspectives, different priorities, and different constraints, all coming together to try and move something forward. Often, folks walk into those conversations (consciously or otherwise) with the intent to sell their point of view.
When each person comes into the room saddled with their institutional knowledge and a plan they feel conviction about, it can make collaboration difficult—even if the intent is good all around.
We need to remember that the beauty of collaboration is that no single person or team has the full picture.
And when we come in trying to dictate direction, we’re inviting resistance.
Enter the coaching approach
At its core, coaching isn’t about having the answer.
It’s about asking questions and providing a structure that helps whoever you’re supporting (in this case, a group) reach alignment and determine next steps.
If we strip most coaching frameworks down, they’re usually trying to move through a few core things.
We’re getting clear on the ideal outcome. What are we actually trying to achieve here?
We’re painting a picture of the current situation. What’s happening right now? What do we know to be true?
We’re exploring options. What directions could we take?
We’re committing to initial steps. What are we doing and by when?
What changes in a group setting
In a one-on-one setting, that might look like a manager guiding a direct report through those questions.
But in a cross-functional or team setting, something powerful happens when those questions are opened up to the entire group.
Everyone’s voice is heard. The group owns the answers.
By working collaboratively through those questions (versus everyone fighting to share their “fully formed” plan) there’s more alignment and more genuine collaboration.
We still get to a decision because there’s structure.
But you’re doing it in a way that allows the reality to be more complete before the team decides what to do. Everyone gets to weigh all the data.
Why this works
When we feel like we’re simply being told what to do—or we feel like someone doesn’t understand our point of view—it’s incredibly easy to disengage or push back.
But when there is a clear structure that invites contribution, it creates a different level of ownership.
Coaching in a group setting leads to healthier conflict.
And no conflict in terms of finger-pointing or personal attacks. Conflict in the form of good debate and the wrestling of ideas.
A simple shift
So, consider your week ahead. If you’re leading a cross-functional or group conversation, instead of bringing the “best answers,” try facilitating with questions and structure.
Get clear on what success looks like
Build a shared understanding of the current reality
Explore a full range of options
Then commit to a way forward
The goal isn’t for one team to be right. The goal is for the best idea to rise to the top.
