Team Coaching Case Study

Team Coaching Case Study

Client profile (anonymised)

Global HR team in a fast-scaling fintech.

London HQ. Hybrid structure. Two remote members across time zones.

Sponsor: Global Head of HR.

The Human Story

This was not a broken team. It was high-performing. Trusted. Close-knit.

But there were signals:

• Residual trauma from previous leadership.

• Optimism bias.

• A tendency to move forward quickly without processing friction.

  
  

In the sponsor’s words during prep: strong energy, but limited appetite for uncomfortable reflection. Nothing was “wrong.”

Which is exactly why it mattered.

Because in fast-scaling environments, relational dynamics get buried under delivery pressure.

And when HR teams drift into harmony over honesty, performance quietly erodes.

The Design

This was not a one-off workshop.

The intervention ran over four weeks.

Phase 1: Diagnostics

• Individual Enneagram assessments (20-25 mins each)

  
  

• 1:1 debrief coaching sessions (45–60 mins per person)

  
  

Eight individual conversations surfaced live patterns before the team session even began.

Themes emerging:

• Conflict avoidance masked by positivity.

• High social instinct driving belonging over boundaries.

• Burnout risk from neglected self-preservation.

• A strong “specialising” comfort zone in maturity logic, leaning heavily on expertise and certainty

• 
  

Phase 2: Sponsor Alignment

• Dedicated leader debrief

• Lead by Yellow Cable, but joint workshop design

• Clear agreement: this was about strengthening connection, not performing vulnerability.

• 
  

Phase 3: 3-Hour Hybrid Workshop

Seven in room. Two remote.Movement-based exercises. Rotations. Speed feedback rounds.Shadow reframed as “superpower and trip-up” to maintain psychological safety.

Not theory-heavy. Pattern-heavy.

The session was structured to:

• Surface strengths without performative praise.

• Name blind spots without destabilising.

• Seed future stretch without forcing it.

• 
  

What Was Actually Going On

The combined team report showed a clear cluster around:

9–2–7: “Optimistic Cheerleading.” 

Strengths:

• Supportive.

• Visionary.

• Energising.

• Future-focused.

  
  

Blind spots:

• Conflict avoidance.

• Low structure.

• Insufficient attention to discipline and process detail.

• Over-indexing on belonging over boundaries .

• 
  

Instinct distribution showed:

-        Dominant Social instinct (47%)

-        Neglected Self-Preservation (15%)

Translation:

Brilliant at belonging.At risk of burnout.

Energy poured into navigating the system and keeping relationships smooth.

Less attention to conserving capacity.

Commercially, this matters.

Because optimism without structure delays decisions.Harmony without challenge dilutes accountability.Belonging without boundaries exhausts the team.

The Commercial Value

This was not about personality awareness for its own sake.

The intervention:

• Gave the team language to challenge each other without threat.

• Surfaced burnout risk early.

• Identified structural blind spots around follow-through.

• Increased psychological safety in a measurable way.

  
  

Sponsor feedback noted:

“You helped the team not only grasp abstract concepts but apply them to real-life scenarios in a way that felt relevant and practical.”

“You struck exactly the right balance—asking the trickier questions in an approachable way that added real depth.”

“Everyone felt engaged without pressure.”

In other words:

Depth without destabilisation.Challenge without defensiveness.

That is design meets delivery.

The Architecture Matters

I did not tether the session directly to strategy on the day.

Why?

Because the team was not yet ready for post-conventional challenge.

The maturity profile showed a strong comfort zone in Specialising and Performing logics.

This meant they understood and made sense of their roles from a place of:

• Expertise.

• Outcomes.

• Certainty.

• Efficiency.

  
  

Under pressure, fallback risk was Conforming:

• Groupthink.

• Deference to authority.

• Suppression of dissent .

  
  

So the workshop was intentionally sequenced:

1. Individual voice.

2. Strengths recognition.

3. Instinct awareness.

4. Team agreements.

5. Seeded future role-play around conflict.

   
   

This created stretch without triggering regression.

What Changed

Immediately:

• More honest conversations in the room.

• Visible recognition across styles.

• A shared shorthand for “superpower and trip-up.”

• Explicit commitments around feedback, focus, and energy.

• 
  

Longer term: The sponsor began floating expansion to the wider leadership team.

Which tells you something… High-capacity teams don’t ask for repeat work if the session was just “nice.”

The Diagnostic Layer

The Enneagram was overt. The Maturity framework was quieter.

The team sits comfortably in Performing and Specialising, with a stretch edge into Internalising.

Translation:

This team is strong on

• Strong on delivery.

• Strong on expertise.

• Developing in collaborative complexity.

• Still building muscle around emotional nuance and constructive tension.

Without diagnostics, this team would be described as:

“Positive and cohesive.”

With diagnostics, we could see:

• Where positivity becomes avoidance.

• Where cohesion masks over-accommodation.

• Where burnout risk quietly accumulates.

  
  

The Enneagram does not label teams. It reveals predictable patterns under pressure. And

once patterns are visible, leaders can design differently.

Why This Matters

Most teams intervene after conflict breaks trust. This team intervened before. That is strategic leadership.

And that is where commercial advantage lives..