18 – How to build an enjoyable, productive research team

Understand each other under stress; Develop your collective intelligence; Build a shared team identity

 

Reading time: 8 mins

 

For this third post in our Collaboration series, we have the privilege to welcome the coach and consultant Michela Mori as a guest. I wish for all the world I could have had the kind of support she provides when I was a researcher, since -as you know- research can be very isolating and stressful at times. On to you Michela.

 

Three efficient, real-life coaching strategies to build (or rebuild) team cohesion

A few months ago, I coached a group leader who was struggling with his team. Three new researchers had just joined; two had left. The team barely knew each other, tension was growing, and collaboration had completely stalled. He told me:

“I spend my time trying to motivate people, but it’s like everyone’s working alone.”

Sounds familiar?

In academia, team cohesion is often overlooked. You’re hired for your research skills, not your leadership training. There's no onboarding manual, and support for managing people is often limited. But here’s the truth: when researchers feel disconnected, it affects everything—motivation, publications, and even mental health.

Fortunately, there are practical, proven methods to turn things around. In this article, I’ll walk you through three coaching strategies I use to help research teams become more connected, collaborative, and resilient — even in the most fragmented environments.

 

1) Understand each other under stress thanks to Process Communication

Let’s go back to that group leader. We started with a Process Communication Model assessment for each team member. It gave us a powerful insight: under pressure, they all reacted differently. One became controlling, another shut down, a third blamed the environment. These behaviors were creating constant misunderstandings.

Once we mapped out each person’s communication style and stress patterns, things began to shift. During a team seminar, we practiced recognizing these reactions and adjusting how we spoke to one another.

For example, instead of snapping at a colleague who was going silent, the PI learned to check in with curiosity:

“I noticed you’ve been quiet in meetings—are you overwhelmed? Anything we can clarify?”

The result? Misunderstandings dropped. Conflict decreased. People felt seen—and supported.

Everybody reacts differently under pressure – Process Comm helps you understand how

 

Now, let’s look at the format in which the data generated during the collaboration should be shared.

 

2) Harness Collective Intelligence with 'Co-development' sessions

Another team I coached had brilliant researchers… all facing complex (and common) challenges alone. The problem was that when someone faced a challenge—whether it was a conflict, a technical roadblock, or a funding issue—they kept it to themselves. The result? Repetition of avoidable mistakes, and a feeling of being isolated, with no one to ask for help.

We introduced monthly ‘co-development’ sessions. Each month, one person presented a challenge; the others helped them reflect and find solutions using a structured facilitation method.

One postdoc, for example, brought up his struggle with supervising a difficult Master's student. Instead of just giving advice, the group helped him reframe the issue and explore new approaches. Not only did he leave with ideas, but the others realized they faced similar struggles.

By the third session, people were saying:

“I didn’t know you were going through that too!”

“I feel way less alone now.”

“There are so many excellent ideas and solutions within the team!”

After a 6-months period where I facilitated the sessions, I started training some members of the team to lead the sessions themselves. They are now starting their autonomous co-development sessions.  

The long-term impact? People started asking for help before things became crises. Trust grew. Collaboration followed.

 

"We've definitely been happier since we've started Co-development sessions"

 

3) Build a shared team identity thanks to the Narrative Approach

A third example comes from a multidisciplinary team scattered across two labs. They worked on the same project but barely interacted. Everyone was committed—but they didn’t feel like a team. One member even said, “I don’t really know what we stand for together.”

We used a narrative approach to surface their collective identity. Through a series of storytelling exercises during a retreat, team members shared, for example:

• What brought them to this project
• A moment when they felt proud of the team
• What success would look like in 5 years

These conversations were revealing. One senior researcher said:

“Hearing why others joined reminded me of why I started this work. I hadn’t felt that in a while.”

They discovered shared values: curiosity, autonomy, impact. And they translated these into team principles—like how they make decisions, give feedback, or welcome new members.

The final step? They co-created a "Team Charter"—not a rigid rulebook, but a living document that captured their story and aspirations. This document is now displayed in both offices to remember their common identity and commitment.

Their manager told me recently that they do not feel disconnected anymore.

 

Maybe you wonder whether coaching is for you? Here are the most common objections and questions I have heard:

 

Common objections and questions

“An outsider won’t get our reality.”
Coaches trained in research environments understand academic dynamics. They also know how to respect autonomy while helping teams work better.

“We don’t have the budget.”
How much does it cost your team to lose a PhD student, spend months on unresolved conflict, or miss a funding deadline because of poor collaboration? Coaching is an investment that saves a lot of time, headaches, and ultimately money.

“We already get along fine.”
That’s great. But cohesion isn’t just about avoiding conflict. It’s about unlocking your full potential as a research team—being more innovative, more resilient, and more impactful together.

“What actually changes after coaching?”
Let me share a few words from researchers I’ve worked with:

“After the co-development sessions, I felt like I finally had colleagues—not just people working near me.”
— Postdoc, environmental science

“Our lab meetings changed. People speak more freely, and I no longer carry all the emotional load alone.”
— Group leader, biomedical lab

“The narrative work helped us rediscover why our research matters—and why we matter to each other.”
— Senior PI, interdisciplinary project

“I’m not sure coaching is necessary...”
If you’re thinking, “Well, we can do that ourselves”, maybe you can. But ask yourself:

• Have you tried—and is it working?
• Do people speak openly? Do they know how to support each other?
• Is your team aligned on values, goals, and communication?

If the answer is “not really,” then structured support can make a world of difference. It’s not about being dependent on an outsider—it’s about jumpstarting a process you can later own.

“How do researchers hear about you? I didn’t even know we had access to this type of support.”
Some researchers heard of my coaching through my other activity of consulting for ERC fellowships. From there it spread by word of mouth.

 

Coaching is more efficient and sustainable when used both for the team and its leader

Coaching is not a magic fix. Cohesion takes time and care. That’s why the most effective approach supports both the team and its leader.

I’ve had varying experiences with research teams. The more effective included a retreat with the team (once a year), together with regular coaching sessions with the team leader. Meeting the team once a year was a great boost but certainly not enough to deeply transform team dynamics. That is why the team leader asked for an individual coaching once a month. This allowed him to provide support and advice to his team on a daily basis.

Not only was he equipped with tools and methods, he also transformed the way day-to-day leadership acts were carried out (team meeting, setting goals, etc…)

He was also able to foster connection and collective engagement in his team. He told me this led to stronger cooperation, renewed motivation and greater autonomy. A small shift in posture brought a big shift in team dynamics.

This example illsutrates how, over time, if the leader is supported, the team becomes more autonomous, with internal skills to maintain good dynamics and handle transitions.

Eventually, the team and its leader only need coaching during key transitions—like onboarding new members, launching a major project, or navigating a conflict.

 

Coaching can transform your team into an environment of mutual trust, creativity and collaboration

In parting, I would like to say that you don’t need to accept isolation, miscommunication, or silos as “just part of academia.” The right tools and support can make an incredible difference to your research team.

Cohesion isn’t a luxury. It’s the foundation for scientific excellence—and well-being. These methods don’t just fix problems—they build a culture that lasts.

So, what’s one small step you can take today to build that cohesion?

Start the conversation. Ask your team how they’re doing—not just in their work, but in their collaboration.

And if you need help creating that shift, you can always contact me.

Michela, coach and facilitator for thriving academic teams.