Despite preparatory sagreuafds, there may be many reasons for members being absent ranging from objection to the process and low committment to higher priority crisis management'. The validity of the absence may be different for each member of the group and the coach. As coach I need to be wary of assuming this is a problem for the group and imposing my perception on the team. I am, however, likely to have picked up verbal and non-verbal indications about whether this is a problem whilst the group assembled and prepared for their work or from comments in previous sessions. As the group has met several times the reasons these people are members of the team are likely to already be clear. I agree with the questions suggested above that help the group explore the situation and to take responsibility for their performance and self-regulation. This is particularly so when the offending members are present, but may be less effective if the offenders are absent. Even if present, their behaviour may only change if they are self-aware that their behaviour is problematic, and the drivers/reasons for absenteism are identified and dealt with by effective motivators for change. In the absence of the offending members, I would be wary of asking the group to solve a problem (behaviour of an individual) they are not responsible for. The group may, however, have the authority to determine/change its membership as it sees fit. Thus, I might ask firstly Does anyone know if X & Y are still expected to join us for this action learning group?' If no one has insight into the absence I would follow up with what will the impacts be on our work if X & Y do not join us today?' If adverse impacts are identified then I would ask, having identified these impacts, how would the group like to handle this situation?' If there are no adverse impacts associated with their absence it may be pertinent to ask if we commence work now, how would you as a team like to handle late attendance by X & Y?'