Your phone rings between sessions, and it’s the CEO wanting to discuss your client. Now what?
Requests like this are sticky because coaches have more than one client. Most feel a first loyalty to the individual receiving coaching. But the organization that commissioned the work is also a client with a legitimate interest in how coaching for its leaders turns out. Often, a third party is involved as well: a prime contractor whose commercial priority is keeping the organization happy. Primes therefore aren’t neutral about whether coaches accommodate sponsors.
The following case illustrates the complexity of managing competing expectations. It is a composite, drawn partly from a matter recently brought to supervision and partly from my own experience as a coach, with names and selected details changed to protect the confidentiality of both the supervisee and their client. Let’s call the coach Reese and the client Taylor.
On a Tuesday afternoon, Reese’s phone rings. It is the CEO who oversees their client. That’s unusual and a bit worrying. What’s going on?
The CEO apologizes for the intrusion and asks whether Reese has five minutes.
“I won’t keep you, but it’s important. I want to give you some context about Taylor that I don’t imagine you’d get otherwise.”
Say it now. Say that you would rather have this conversation with Taylor in the room.
“I’d welcome the context,” Reese replies. “And my preference would be for the three of us to sit down together, as we did initially, so that Taylor can—”
“Of course. Happy to do that. Set it up with my assistant.” A pause. “Though I’m not asking you to tell me anything. I just want you to hear what’s going on.”
What am I going to say, that I won’t listen?
“Please, go ahead.”
I will reset the boundary before the call ends.
Next, the CEO impatiently states that they have repeatedly and directly raised the same concern with Taylor about not listening to staff. The feedback isn’t registering. This rings true for Reese; after all, the contract called for developing Taylor’s empathy, and Reese’s unspoken assessment is that progress has been slow. The CEO reveals that the board of directors is now paying attention to Taylor’s division; if Taylor doesn’t turn things around, it becomes the CEO’s problem, as the CEO says plainly in a low tone that suggests termination could be in the cards. Reese feels worried for Taylor as self-doubt creeps in: Am I a good coach? Should I have accepted this engagement?
These are questions that naturally trouble most coaches from time to time. Whether Reese should have taken the assignment is a worthwhile post hoc question, but one thing is certain: Reese is a highly experienced and respected coach grappling with a difficult situation.
The phone call ends with Reese thanking the CEO and a commitment to set up another three-way meeting with Taylor, leaving Reese anxiously asking a number of questions:
One thing not to do—as a general rule—is to flatly refuse to meet with the CEO or any sponsor, for that matter, because doing so could create distance and a power struggle that could cost the client as much as the coach.
What should a coach do? It starts with contracting. The most effective approach is to establish clear expectations about confidentiality, sponsor communications, and information-sharing before coaching begins. In some organizations, these expectations can be documented in a coaching agreement involving the client and sponsor; in others, they may need to be established through oral contracting.
The same expectations should also be made clear with any prime contractor, because the coach may otherwise face indirect pressure to accommodate the sponsor in ways that blur confidentiality boundaries.
Where a coaching agreement defines the respective roles of the client, coach, and sponsor, a statement that the sponsor “will respect the confidentiality of coach-client conversations” is a good start.
Further language to specifically address confidentiality expectations in the sponsor-client-coach relationship might read like this:
“Sponsor agrees that any meetings with Client and Coach are confidential. If Sponsor wants to share or request information outside those three-way meetings, the preferred approach is to speak directly with Client. If Sponsor requests a private conversation with Coach, Client’s consent is required, and Coach will remain listen-only and maintain strict confidentiality.”
Such provisions create safeguards that protect client trust and reduce the likelihood of the sponsor-related confidentiality challenges illustrated by Reese’s case.
A sponsor’s request for a private conversation can arise from several different motivations. For example:
Research suggests this last dynamic is not uncommon. In a joint Association for Coaching, EMCC, and ICF study of multi-stakeholder contracting, half of the coaches surveyed reported instances in which the organization appeared to use coaching to address issues a line manager had avoided handling directly (Turner & Hawkins, 2016). Among the motivations, this one most warrants a firm boundary. Coaches are right to refuse the role of messenger because doing so protects client trust, preserves role clarity, and keeps responsibility for feedback where it belongs: with the manager.
Turner, E., & Hawkins, P. (2016). Multi-stakeholder contracting in executive/business coaching: An analysis of practice and recommendations for gaining maximum value. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 14(2), 48–65.