The Sacred Cow of Transferability: Why Training in One-on-One Coaching is Not Sufficient for the Team Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article challenges two interrelated sacred cows in coaching based on the assumption that mastery in one-on-one coaching naturally transfers to effective team and organizational coaching. Drawing from systems theory, phenomenology, and collaborative facilitation principles, we argue that this transition has several requirements. These include fundamental knowledge about the theory of teams; understanding models for effective team functioning and dynamics; practice and skills development in collaborative facilitation; principles offered by organizational psychology; and ability to intentionally build or revitalize a team whose culture can be sustained over time. Our core thesis posits that effective team coaching necessitates the integration of theory, models, practices, and competencies in collaborative facilitation. This article proposes a paradigm shift toward team coaching development that successfully integrates these facets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".