When Coaching Meets a Toxic Culture

In many organizations, coaching enters the scene at the moment when something already feels strained. A high performer is labelled as difficult, and their team is suffering quietly. People who can leave are beginning to do so. HR looks for a constructive intervention and coaching appears to be a responsible, developmental choice.

Often, this decision is thoughtful and well-intended. It signals care and investment rather than punishment. At the same time, there are situations in which coaching is asked to carry a weight that does not belong to it.

In recent weeks, I encountered two examples.

In the first, HR is intentionally hiring for humility and cooperation, and the company has a stated cultural aspiration of collaboration. At the same time, top performers and some leaders operate with a comparative mindset seeing themselves as the strongest contributors. Some see their performance as an excuse to behave badly toward their colleagues. They have been rewarded for results for years and from their perspective, their approach has worked.

In the second example, HR hires a coach to support development at leadership level. Before any real work begins, the coach’s competence is openly questioned by some of the leaders who were asked to engage in coaching. The coach senses that they are being tested rather than partnered with and the emotional climate is competitive and defensive.

In both of these cases coaching was offered to the “difficult” high performers. The underlying hope was that they will become more relational without losing performance. What is not addressed is that the surrounding system continues to reward individual heroics and tolerate unkind behavior as long as targets are met.

Coaching becomes associated with problem fixing. The coach is positioned close to the announcement that something is wrong. Leaders who feel successful with their current style experience coaching not as a reward but as a correction. If their identity is built on outperforming others, being invited into development can feel like a loss of status.

From a social constructionist perspective, the way we frame the situation matters. When the story becomes “this person needs coaching,” we are constructing the problem at the level of the individual. We may overlook the interactional patterns that have shaped and rewarded that behavior for years.

For the coach, the atmosphere can become uncomfortable very quickly. When leaders respond with defensiveness or open hostility, the coach may feel the need to justify their presence. The coaches’ humble and useful curiosity may be replaced by fear and collaboration becomes almost impossible. The coach’s effectiveness decreases precisely because the relational foundation is unstable. You simply cannot coach someone who does not want to partner with you.

For HR, the risk is more strategic. If coaching is introduced into a context where influential leaders do not support it, the method itself can be burned. Coaching is then remembered as something that did not work. HR’s competence may be called into question, and the cultural pattern of comparison and unkindness is reinforced rather than softened.

For the organization, the cost is visible over time. High performers who value cooperation leave. Talented people who have options choose other environments. The organization keeps those who can tolerate or replicate the dominant pattern.

None of this means that the so-called toxic leaders are villains. People rarely act without reasons. Many comparative high performers have succeeded precisely because of their drive and their intolerance for mediocrity. From their standpoint, changing may appear irrational. Why alter a method that has delivered results and status?

If we want to shift a culture, we need to start with the willing. Coaching works best when it is experienced as a reward and an opportunity rather than as a correction. Instead of beginning with those who resist, HR can invest in those who are already curious about developing a more collaborative way of leading. When enough respected people begin to model a different standard of interaction, the definition of success slowly changes.

In practical terms, this means asking systemic questions before commissioning coaching: What behaviors are truly rewarded here? Does the performance of one or two individuals genuinely outweigh the relational damage caused? Who benefits from the current pattern? Who pays the price?

It also means clarifying the limits of coaching. A coach cannot credibly announce the problem and solve it at the same time. If coaching is part of the intervention, the broader cultural message needs to be owned by leadership. The coach’s role is to support reflection and development, not to carry the burden of culture change alone.

For coaches, discernment is equally important. When the environment makes collaboration impossible, walking away can be an ethical choice. In other cases, close consultation with HR can help design an approach that involves as many willing participants as possible. Ignoring those who openly reject coaching may be wiser than trying to convert them.

Coaching is a powerful relational practice. It can support growth, awareness, and more humane forms of leadership. It cannot, on its own, transform a culture that continues to reward comparison, fear, and unkindness.

Knowing the limits of coaching is not a sign of weakness but a sign of professional maturity.

If you want to discuss these or other coaching related topics, why not come to one of our free meetups and exchanges, or, if you are an HR practitioner – why not join our special meetups for HR?

‍