When team dysfunction stems from organizational problems like unstable team composition, applying coaching is a form of meddling. It pathologizes the team and absolves leadership of their responsibility to fix the underlying systemic issues they created.

Resistance is critical information, not just a barrier. It often reveals a team's fear of losing something valuable, such as autonomy, their established identity, or a sense of expertise. Understanding what they're protecting is key to making change less threatening.

Instead of pushing advice, the most effective initial strategy with an unwilling team is to simply observe. This 'pull-based' approach builds trust and rapport, making the team more receptive when they eventually ask for your input, rather than feeling like you're forcing changes on them.

A critical element of effective coaching is absolute confidentiality. Premier providers establish guidelines upfront and will refuse requests from HR or managers for specifics discussed in sessions, even if it upsets the client. This builds the paramount trust needed for the coachee to be vulnerable and grow.

Giving teams full autonomy to select their coach can be counterproductive. They might choose someone who makes them feel comfortable and validates their existing habits, rather than a coach who will challenge their dysfunctions and push for necessary, but difficult, transformation.

Teams often don't believe they have problems. A 'perception mapping' session, using anonymized surveys to compare a team's self-perception with how others perceive them, can provide objective data to surface blind spots and create a neutral starting point for coaching.

Mandating new processes, like reducing meetings, is ineffective if the collective beliefs driving old behaviors (e.g., lack of trust) are not addressed. To make change stick, leaders must first surface, discuss, and realign the team's shared assumptions to support the new structure.

Framing coaching as a punitive measure for poor performance destroys the intrinsic motivation necessary for change. It should be positioned as a developmental tool for high-potential growth and expanding impact, not as a punishment for underperformance.

Coaching executive teams is fraught with power dynamics. To be effective, a coach must align exclusively with the person who hired them and their specific objective. Addressing other visible problems will only create opposition from other executives and derail the engagement.