A manager in an offshore bank is finding the jurisdictions under her control isolated and antagonistic. Can she improve this with a limited coaching budget?
The Issue
Dani is a mid-level manager in an offshore bank responsible for regulatory compliance of anti-money laundering activities. She oversees the reporting of suspicious financial activity across six legal and financial jurisdictions in western Europe.
Dani’s team is made up of reporting officers with sole responsibility for their respective jurisdictions. Two members support cross-jurisdiction issues. The team totals nine people, including Dani.
But there are deep and long-standing issues. There is distrust and lack of collaboration between reporting officers. This is not helped by the isolated nature of the jurisdictions (most are small islands), lack of communication technology superior to a telephone and a near zero expenses budget for getting the team together. This is antagonised by the closeness the reporting officers have with their local businesses.
Dani has asked for a coach to help her improve the situation in the team. There is a budget for one day of face-to-face work. The rest will need to be done over the phone. How might coaching support Dani and the rest of the team?
Dr Declan Woods, Boardroom psychologist and master coach, ZPD Consulting
Dani is facing an increasingly common situation. There appears to be little inter-dependence between members, yet the expectations seem to be that they are, or need to, operate like a team. Establishing why (their purpose) and in what ways, they need to rely on each other (team glue) would help them form as a team and start to collaborate.
It’s positive that relations are strong between reporting officers and their businesses. However, it appears as if they identify more strongly with these than the financial crime team. Working on the team’s identity and bolstering individuals’ orientation to this would help create a stronger sense of belonging and common purpose.
Distrust is an issue but we don’t know its cause and impact. It can show up in different ways and lead to an unwillingness to collaborate. It’s easy for misunderstandings to develop in remote teams. So it’s key that they communicate much more than usual and check for alignment.
Using a diagnostic tool to uncover tricky related team dynamics can be a valuable source to both team and coach and provide clarity on the provenance of such issues and the agenda for change.
Middle Circle for Teams (www.middlecircle.com) identifies difficult dynamics and measures 14 drivers of team effectiveness, including purpose, team glue, team composition and role as leader.
I’d start coaching Dani so she’s clear on the team’s purpose and goals, composition and her role as leader. Working to a one-day budget, I’d help the team understand and align around its purpose, creating a charter specifying what collaboration looks like and how to ‘team’. The team can use this to hold each other to account until they develop new routines. Regular telephone team check-ins will build momentum and help reinforce these new ways of working.
Dave Kesby, Systemic team coach
There are many challenges here. I’d challenge Dani around how she views the team as a team. A normal mental model of teams would want the team to work together to achieve a common goal. Yet each reporting officer needs to ‘team’ with their respective jurisdictions. An alternative model of teams, which I like to explore with leaders, is that some teams learn together to develop a common practice.
Such teams have members who do similar work, but apply it to people outside the team. Dani’s team appears to be such a team and I call them Extra-Dependent (dependent outside) rather than Inter-Dependent (dependent inside). While such teams don’t benefit from working together, they benefit hugely from learning together. Since all the reporting officers do very similar jobs, they will all have similar experiences, challenges and approaches.
With all this in mind I’d recommend an initial engagement with Dani – coaching her over four to six sessions to appreciate the team as it is and acknowledge her part in creating a trusting environment. This might include observations (over the phone) of team calls, to help appreciate the dynamics Dani creates with the team.
I’d then switch focus to the whole team.
My part would consist of individual sessions, more team call observations and coaching at a whole team event – I’d suggest about a third of the way through.
The process of the day would be generated through the coaching, but the focus would be on learning to trust each other, appreciate each other’s similar challenges and that the dynamics outside the team will be having an impact inside the team. Follow-up coaching would support Dani to develop and embed team communications that promoted trust and learning together.