Coaching Mandated Clients

Traditionally, clients are called “mandated” when it was not their choice to engage in a helping relationship, and they were sent by other people in their environment. In coaching, the most frequent case is that a manager, a superior, or the HR department is not satisfied with an employee’s performance and mandates the person to engage in coaching, which they attend reluctantly because the alternative, possibly the termination of their contract, would be worse.

Another frequent case is when coaching accompanies a training programme, for example a leadership development programme, where participants are offered individual coaching sessions in order to support the implementation of what they have learned and to create space for reflection on how this learning shows up in their daily work. In these situations, participants may or may not have a topic they want to discuss, as they have simply been offered coaching sessions and attend them without necessarily having something they urgently want to talk about.

Agile transformations can also fall into this category, as people are expected to work in an agile way, however they feel about it, and are then offered coaching to support the implementation of agile project management. Outplacement coaching, where a company offers people who are being let go the opportunity to receive coaching in order to find a new job, would also often not be the clients’ own choice. In life coaching, most children are mandated clients sent by their parents, and in marriage coaching one partner is often more engaged than the other and may be experienced as a mandated client.

So, what do you do when you are sitting in front of a “mandated client” as a coach? One way we have found useful is to move away from thinking in terms of categories such as “mandated clients” and instead to stay close to what is happening in this particular interaction. From that perspective, it is quite understandable that a person who did not choose to be here, or who was offered coaching as part of a programme, may not arrive with a clear topic or an immediate sense of engagement. Rather than expecting motivation, we find it more helpful to acknowledge that a certain degree of reluctance is a reasonable response to the situation.

In coaching circles, there is an ongoing discussion about clients who are described as “uncoachable,” and our view is that this framing is not particularly helpful. What we see in practice are moments in which a client does not want to be coached by this coach, at this time, under these conditions. The task for the coach is to do what is possible to invite the client to make use of the opportunity, while recognising that if this invitation is not taken up, it does not say something essential about the client but rather about the fit of the interaction.

A central aspect in these situations is that the client does not begin to experience the coach as an agent of the sponsor. This requires clarity in roles. As coaches, we are not the bearers of bad news and not the ones who introduce the problem and then offer to solve it. If a parent has concerns about their child, it is the parent’s role to communicate this and to offer coaching as support. If a manager is unhappy with an employee, it is the manager’s role to articulate the issue and to position coaching as a possible resource. When the coach takes on the role of naming the problem, it is quite natural that the client will experience the coach as aligned with the sponsor and respond with an unwillingness to be coached.

It can also be helpful to acknowledge that the client may be engaging in coaching as one of the more acceptable options available to them. They may be here in order to avoid losing their job or to have a chance at improving a strained relationship. We have found it useful to gently make space for this by asking questions such as, “Whose idea was it for you to come here?” particularly when the client does not immediately articulate something they want to speak about or take away from the session or the coaching process.

At this point, many coaches feel the pull to explain the value of coaching and to encourage engagement, yet this often leads to a subtle dynamic in which the more the coach insists, the more the client withdraws. A stance that acknowledges the situation tends to open more space, for example by saying, “It seems this was not entirely your choice, and here we are. What might be useful for you in this conversation?” This positions coach and client alongside one another, looking at what is possible within the situation, rather than across from or against one another.

It is also important to emphasise that what is discussed in the coaching session remains confidential and will not be shared with the sponsor. This needs to be clearly agreed with the sponsor before the engagement begins. In our practice, we have found it useful to explicitly clarify whether there are any limits to what can be addressed in coaching. For example, if the intention of the organisation is to retain the employee, it may be agreed that coaching around finding a new job is outside the scope of the contract. In such cases, it is important to make this transparent to the client at the outset, alongside an explanation of the ethical framework within which the coaching takes place.

If the client begins to see that coaching can be used for their own purposes, the topics of the conversation remain entirely in their hands. Within the agreed scope, the client is free to decide what they want to explore, and they retain the option to end the coaching process at any point.

Here are some examples from a demo Kirsten did with a very talented actor (Anthony Quinn):

Acknowledging the client’s reality

Instead of correcting or reframing the client’s view, the coach stays close to how the situation looks from the client’s perspective.

Example

Client: This is a complete waste of time. I’ve been doing this job for ten years.

Coach: I understand why it feels like a waste of time for you. From your perspective, there is no real need for you to be here.

Client: Exactly. None at all.

Coach: That makes sense, given what you’re describing.

Surfacing the “lesser evil”

Rather than ignoring the constraint, the coach gently brings it into the conversation.

Example

Coach: You could have chosen not to join. What made you dial in anyway?

Client: If I don’t, HR will give me grief. It will affect my review.

Coach: So being here helps you avoid trouble, even if it feels pointless.

Not taking the sponsor’s role

The coach avoids becoming the person who defines the problem or defends the intervention.

Example

Client: My boss should have just told the one person who needs this.

Coach: It sounds like you would have preferred a more targeted approach.

Client: Yes, instead of sending all of us.

Coach: I can see how this approach doesn’t make much sense from where you stand.

Resisting the urge to “sell coaching”

Rather than persuading the client of coaching’s value, the coach opens space for the client’s own use.

Example

Client: Let’s just get this over with quickly.

Coach: I’m not interested in just going through the motions.

Coach: Given that we are here, what might make this conversation useful for you, if anything?

Creating a joint position

The coach moves from opposition to collaboration by positioning both on the same side of the situation.

Example

Coach: It seems this was not entirely your choice, and here we are.

Coach: What could we do in this time that would not feel like a waste for you?

Client: Well… maybe there is one situation I could think through.

Offering a low-risk experiment

Instead of asking for commitment, the coach proposes something provisional and reversible.

Example

Coach: We could try working on something relevant to you for 30 minutes.

Coach: After that, you decide whether it is useful to continue.

Client: All right, let’s try that.

‍