Peer Coaching Inside Organizations: Why It’s Harder Than It Looks

Peer coaching inside organizations is often introduced as an obviously good idea. It appears efficient, developmental, and aligned with contemporary views on shared responsibility for learning. Instead of relying solely on external coaches or managers, colleagues support each other through structured conversations. In principle, this makes a lot of sense.

In practice, peer coaching inside organizations is more delicate than it first appears. Not because people lack goodwill, but because organizations are structured environments with history, hierarchy, and future consequences. These do not disappear simply because we call a conversation “coaching.”

The idea of “equal peers”

In coach training programmes or learning cohorts, peer coaching often rests on a reasonable assumption of equality. Participants are usually not embedded in the same organizational system, they do not compete for roles, and there are few consequences attached to being open or uncertain. The risks involved in speaking honestly are relatively low.

Inside organizations, the word “peer” often means something else. People may have similar job titles or be placed on the same level in an organigram, while differing significantly in influence, visibility, network strength, or future opportunities. These differences matter, even when everyone involved is committed to fairness and professionalism.

Calling people “equal peers” does not neutralize these asymmetries and it is wise to acknowledge and manage them consciously when setting up peer-coaching.

How status quietly enters the conversation

Even when two colleagues explicitly agree to coach each other as equals, their wider organizational roles tend to show up in subtle ways. This may happen when a reorganization is anticipated, when both are potential candidates for a future role, or when one person’s opinion carries more informal weight than the other’s.

Nothing dramatic has to happen for this to influence the coaching. The effect is usually understated. People choose their words more carefully, avoid certain topics, or steer the conversation toward areas that feel professionally safe. The coaching remains polite and constructive, but it rarely reaches the questions that actually matter.

Reciprocity and the problem of being very nice

Peer coaching is often reciprocal by design. One person coaches today, the other coaches next time. While this symmetry looks fair, it can also create a particular kind of tension.

People frequently moderate themselves because they anticipate the future exchange. They soften questions, avoid challenging assumptions, or stay firmly in supportive territory because they do not want to jeopardize goodwill. After all, they will soon be in the other chair.

What emerges is a form of mutual kindness that feels pleasant and collegial, but that may have difficulties arriving at new perspectives.

Confidentiality in a non-neutral system

Confidentiality in peer coaching inside organizations is also rarely straightforward. Even when there is a formal agreement that conversations are confidential, participants are usually aware that the coaching exists within a larger system. There may be sponsors, learning objectives, HR involvement, or managers who express interest in “general themes.”

This awareness alone can shape what people are willing to bring. They may wonder what could travel indirectly, what might later be inferred, or how a particular disclosure could be interpreted in a different context. As a result, conversations may stay on relatively safe ground, without anyone explicitly deciding to hold back.

When peer coaching is not a good idea

Experience suggests that peer coaching is a poor choice during restructurings or layoffs, when peers are competing for advancement, or when participation is mandatory. It is also problematic when one person holds significant informal power, or when coaching conversations might later be mined for themes, insights, or “useful data.”

In these situations, peer coaching runs the danger of becoming an instance of careful self-presentation rather than learning.

Peer coaching inside organizations is a really good idea when the context is managed carefully. When it works, it creates learning, connection, and shared responsibility. When it does not, it runs the risk of becoming a “compliance” exercise without much added benefit.

If you are an internal coach and would like to hang out with other internal coaches, why not join one of our special free meetups and exchanges only for internal coaches? We’d love to hear how you make it work!

‍