7 Steps of Systems Entry: why most agile coaches blow the first 90 days
Article content
Article sections
Some years into my coaching practice I had a year that I would not call my best. I had four engagements running concurrently, all of which had been kicked off the same month, all of which I had stepped into believing I was coaching the team. By month four I noticed that two of the four were going noticeably better than the other two; by month six I understood why. The two that were going well had a System Agreement in writing, signed by the sponsor and the client system, before the first coaching session. The two that were stalling did not. I had skipped the agreement in those engagements because the sponsor was eager and the team was warm and the work felt like it was already underway, and the consequence of that skip was that the team and I were doing parallel monologues for half a year.
Erkan's original post on the 7 Steps of Systems Entry lays out the steps clearly and walks you through the work of each one. This piece is the companion; it is what each step costs you to learn the hard way. If you skipped the System Agreement, you are not coaching. You are consulting in coach clothing, and the team you thought you were partnering with will keep showing up to the meetings without ever quite landing inside them.
The seven steps, and what each one costs to skip
The original post is the canonical walkthrough; what follows is the confessional companion. I have lived each of these failure modes at least once, sometimes more than once, and most of the time it took me a quarter or two to notice the move that broke the engagement, because the engagement looked fine right up until it did not. The pattern repeats; the names of the rooms change.
Get clear which system you're coaching
The discipline of this step is naming, in one sentence, who the client is. The team is one possible answer; the team-and-its-sponsor is another; an individual leader is a third. Each one is a different engagement with different ethics and a different shape of agreement, and the temptation, when an engagement starts moving fast, is to leave the choice ambiguous so you can flex into whichever conversation happens to be in front of you.
Failure mode: the coach drifts between the team and individuals on the team in the same week, and individual members start sharing things with you they have not yet shared with the team. The team has not been told you are now also coaching its members in private; you have become a quiet channel of information that flows around the team instead of through it. Co-option starts here, before anyone notices it has started. The fix is to name the client system on day one, in writing, and to stay inside it.
Clarify roles and responsibilities
The classic Systems Entry triangle is sponsor, client, and coach; the discipline here is making sure each of those three knows what they are responsible for in the engagement, and just as importantly, what they are not responsible for. Sponsors who think they own the agenda will run the coaching like a project. Coaches who think they own the agenda will run the coaching like a consultant. Clients who think the coach owns the agenda will sit back and wait to be guided.
Failure mode: the coach becomes an errand-runner between the sponsor and the team, carrying messages from one to the other under the protection of "confidentiality." The first time a sponsor asks you to convey something to the team that they could not say themselves, the engagement is in trouble; the fix is to refuse the role and to coach the sponsor toward saying the thing directly. If you cannot refuse it, you should not be in the engagement.
Align the sponsor and the client system
The sponsor wants something. The client system wants something. Those somethings are almost never the same thing on day one, and the surface alignment that happens in the kickoff meeting is usually false. The real alignment work is asking each party to name what they want in their own words, comparing the answers, and surfacing the gaps before the coaching begins. Sometimes the gap is small and the conversation closes it; sometimes the gap is large and the conversation is what the engagement is.
Failure mode: the coach assumes the kickoff meeting did the alignment work and starts coaching. By month two the sponsor is asking why the team is not changing the things the sponsor wanted changed; by month three the team is asking why the coach keeps bringing up things that feel out of scope. The fix is to ask both sides, separately, what success looks like in three words, and then to read both answers aloud in the same room. The gap is the engagement.
Ask for permission to coach
Permission is not implicit; the team gave it to the sponsor, not to you. The sponsor brought you in; the team is meeting you for the first time in the kickoff. Asking explicitly for permission, in front of the whole team, is a small ritual that has more weight than it looks like; it tells the team that you are not their boss's spy and that they have a real choice about whether to engage. The hard version of this question is asking the people on the team who look least enthusiastic.
Failure mode: the coach takes a few smiling nods in the kickoff as consent and skips the explicit ask. Three weeks later, the quietest two members on the team are not showing up emotionally to the work; they are tolerating it. They never opted in. The fix is the explicit ask; if even one person says no, you have a conversation to have before you proceed, and that conversation is the most important thing you will do in the engagement.
Co-create the coaching agreement (the System Agreement)
This is the step the post's thesis hangs on. The System Agreement is the written covenant that says how the coach and the team and the sponsor will work together: confidentiality, scope, cadence, the no-secrets clause, what each party brings, what each party gets, what each party agrees to set aside. It is co-created in the room, not handed out as a template; the act of writing it together is half of what makes it a covenant rather than a contract.
Failure mode: the coach treats this step as administrative and either skips it or sends a one-page boilerplate by email. When conflict arrives in month two or month three (and it always arrives), there is nothing to fall back on; the team and the coach are in a fight about what they thought they had agreed to, with no document and no shared moment of having agreed. The fix is to spend ninety minutes in the room writing it together; the fix is not negotiable. Without the agreement you are consulting in coach clothing, which is the part of the thesis I will keep repeating because most of us learned it the hard way.
Facilitate the client system's self-assessment
The discipline here is to facilitate the team's awareness of itself, not to diagnose the team for the team. The first move is observation and questions; the second move is the team naming its own patterns; the third move is the team deciding which of those patterns to work on. Each of those movements has to be the team's, not yours, even if you can see the answer from the other side of the room.
Failure mode: the coach diagnoses and presents a report. The team receives the diagnosis as criticism, blames the coach for the framing, and disengages. The fix is to slow down, to ask the team what it notices about itself, and to wait. The silence at this step is information; it is the team learning to do its own seeing. The five-stance map Erkan put together is a useful reference for what stance to use when the team is at this step; the answer is rarely diagnose.
Co-create the coaching plan
The plan is the team's plan, sponsored by you; the plan is not your plan, ratified by the team. Co-creation here is harder than it sounds, because the coach almost always sees the shape of the right plan a few weeks before the team does, and the temptation to bring the plan in pre-written and walk the team through it is large. Resist it. The plan the team owns will be slower to write and easier to keep.
Failure mode: the coach brings a plan, the team accepts it because the coach is the expert in the room, and three months later the team is going through the motions of a plan that does not feel like theirs. The plan executes weakly. The engagement winds down without anyone naming what went wrong. The fix is the same fix as step six, applied earlier in the workflow: ask the team to draft the plan and edit the team's draft rather than presenting your own.
Why the System Agreement is the load-bearing step
The seven steps are sequential and each one matters, but the System Agreement at step five is the one that, when skipped, breaks the engagement in the most invisible way. The other six steps have visible failure modes that surface within a week or two; you can correct in flight. The agreement, when skipped, fails silently. The engagement looks fine until it does not, and by the time it does not, the team has already learned to relate to you as someone who is doing things to it rather than with it. Recovery from that position requires either a brave conversation in month three (rare) or starting the engagement over (more common than I would like to admit).
The substance of the agreement is less important than the act of writing it together. Confidentiality, the no-secrets clause, cadence, scope, what each party brings, what each party gets, what each party will set aside; those are the contents. The covenant is in the room while the contents are being written. A team that has spent ninety minutes co-creating a System Agreement has, in those ninety minutes, done more team-formation work than they will do in the next month of coaching, because they have decided together how they want to be in the room with each other and with you.
If you have an engagement running right now and you cannot remember whether you signed an agreement, you almost certainly did not; signed agreements are remembered. The good news is that it is not too late to retroactively co-create one. The bad news is that the conversation you have to have to do so is harder than it would have been on day one, because the team will reasonably ask why now, and the honest answer is the one in this post. The coaching mindset piece I wrote earlier is the place to start that conversation in your own head before you take it into the team's room.
What to do this week
Look at every engagement you are currently running. For each one, ask yourself two questions. Is there a written System Agreement that the team co-created and the sponsor signed? When was the last time anyone in the engagement referenced it? If the answer to the first question is no, that is your next conversation. If the answer to the second is "I cannot remember," that is your next conversation too; living agreements get referenced regularly, and an agreement nobody mentions has stopped doing its work.
If you are newer to the coaching role and the System Agreement vocabulary is unfamiliar, our CSP-SM programme is where the long version of this lives. If you are running multiple engagements and they all started in the same hot-quarter rush, Erkan's Coaching Sprint piece on picking your goal last is the right next read; the same goal-clarity discipline that protects a Coaching Sprint also protects a Systems Entry from skipping the alignment. The ICF maintains a public-facing version of the ethics framework at coachingfederation.org/ethics if you want the standards in their official wording.
Write back when the welcome email lands if you are mid-engagement and uncertain whether the agreement step got done. Most of what surfaces in those conversations is that the agreement got skipped politely and the engagement still has time to be re-grounded. Replies reach Erkan and me directly.