Does the agile coach role works well in physical environment rather than virtual?

There’s some key challenges when coaching remotely.

– communication theory (Barnlund model) suggests that the “sender” is also getting dynamic feedback from the “receiver” as they speak, which helps to improve comprehension and clarity. Much of this is non-verbal, including seeing when people are busy, or not. That’s part of the reason why face-to-face is more efficient and effective.

– there’s greater opportunity for ad-hoc coaching, conversations, and responding to coaching hooks in a face-to-face setting; we can build relationships more effectively, go for a coffee or a walk-and-talk. The idea of “Gemba” – the place where the work is done – matters.

– there’s greater opportunity for individuals to retreat from challenging conversations or situations online, avoiding conflicts and so leading to a dysfunctional team; it’s much harder to tell if an individual is stressed or under pressure.

– a recent Nature paper showed that the most creative combination is pairs working face to face; pairs remote and groups face-to-face were less productive

– teams working remotely tend to become silos faster, without the ad-hoc interaction with others outside of the immediate work colleagues

It is possible to work remotely, however you’ll end up with more, less effective online meetings. That’s not especially great for anyone.

That’s not saying there aren’t plenty of benefits to remote working, or that people are less productive, just that empathic communication suffers, and ad-hoc coaching hooks are a challenge.