Partnering language in coaching

I have been noticing something in mentoring conversations with coaches. It shows up quietly and repeatedly, often in otherwise careful and well-intentioned work. Coaches sometimes fail to respond to what the client has just said, even though they are asking recognisable and professionally acceptable questions.

A client says, “I am feeling a bit tearful when I think about my grandchild.”

The coach replies, “And what would you like to get out of this session?”

Another client says, “I am a bit anxious about this workshop.”

The coach responds, “Where do you feel that in your body?”

These questions belong to familiar coaching repertoires. When we look more closely at these interactions, we see that coach’s response does not take up the client’s sentence. The conversation shifts direction without acknowledging where the client just was and without asking the client whether this is where they want to go. The result feels less like a reply and more like a transition initiated by the coach.

Clients usually cooperate. They answer the question that is asked. They may even answer attentively and sincerely, even when the question does not quite resonate. I recognise this pattern from my own experience on the client side. I am not particularly fond of the question “Where do you feel that in your body?” and I will usually still answer it rather than saying out loud that it does not work for me. Politeness often takes precedence over precision.

When this dynamic shapes a large part of a session, the relationship begins to change in quiet ways. The conversation becomes increasingly guided by the coach’s internal map rather than by the client’s unfolding experience. The client remains engaged, but their role subtly shifts from co-author to respondent.

In mentoring conversations, I often hear several influences operating beneath these moments. Coaches may be orienting themselves toward a theory they trust. They may be focusing on demonstrating competence. They may be acting from a sense of professional responsibility for the process. Many have learned that the quality of coaching depends on their ability to guide the session correctly.

If a coach understands themselves as responsible for steering the process, it becomes natural to move quickly toward familiar interventions. Goals, agreements, preferred futures, and embodied explorations offer structure and reassurance. They provide a sense of orientation. Language then serves that orientation rather than a co-creative process.

There is another way of working that relies less on predefined moves and more on conversational responsiveness. It begins by acknowledging what the client has just said and then offering them a choice about where to go next.

A coach might say, “You are feeling anxious about the workshop. Would it be useful to explore what you want instead?” Or, “You sound tearful when you talk about your grandchild. What, if anything, would you like to explore about that?”

These responses are straightforward. They do not rely on special phrasing or advanced technique. They accomplish two things. They recognise the client’s experience, and they leave the decision about direction with the client. The invitation creates space for agency. The coach’s curiosity remains present, but it does not override the client’s sense of relevance or timing. The conversation remains collaborative.

Small linguistic elements carry much of this work. Phrases such as “if anything,” “if it is relevant to you,” or “if at all” communicate that the client is not obliged to follow the coach’s suggestion. They signal that the coach is proposing rather than directing. These words often appear insignificant, yet they shape the ethical texture of the conversation.

Partnering language rests on a different understanding of how movement occurs in coaching conversations. It assumes that meaning emerges through interaction rather than through the correct application of technique. It treats the client as an active participant in shaping the conversation rather than as someone whose experience needs to be translated into a framework.

This does not imply the absence of structure. Coaches still bring attentiveness, intention, and professional judgment. Structure, however, becomes something that is negotiated in real time rather than imposed in advance. The coach listens for what matters now and responds accordingly.

A practical way to explore this in one’s own practice is to notice moments when a question forms fully in the coach’s mind before the client has finished speaking. These moments offer useful information. They indicate that attention may have shifted away from the client’s sentence and toward an anticipated move. Pausing briefly at such moments can reopen choice. Adding an explicit invitation can restore partnership.

If you want to explore how you can partner with your clients why don’t you join one of our free meetups and exchanges?

‍