ENNL
Menu
← All articles

User roles in coaching: who does what and who decides what

User roles in coaching: who does what and who decides what

Coach, client and sponsor in discussion

The three core roles in coaching are coach, client and sponsor. Define their tasks and boundaries in writing before the engagement starts, because unclear roles lead to confusion about goals, confidentiality and results. A brief kickoff agreement prevents most conflicts that arise later in an engagement.

In short:

  • A clear division of roles between coach, client and sponsor prevents confusion about goals, confidentiality and results, especially when it is set down before the engagement begins.
  • The coach safeguards the process and the professional boundaries, while the client remains the owner of goals and actions, and the sponsor sets the preconditions without automatically receiving session information.
  • Solid agreements about purpose, duration, evaluation moments, payment and confidentiality must be recorded in writing and signed by both parties; these agreements should be reviewed periodically.
  • In case of conflicts over role expectations or information exchange, it is advisable to restate what was agreed and always act with the client's consent, in order to preserve trust.
  • Practically, a client portal such as Exantur supports compliance with role agreements and keeps an overview of goals, progress and confidentiality throughout the coaching engagement.
Exantur
Keep roles and progress clear
Exantur brings client relationships, goals, session notes, check-ins and shared documents together around every coaching engagement.
Explore Exantur

Table of contents

Coach, client and sponsor: who does what

Every coaching relationship revolves around three positions, even when one person fills two at once.

The coach safeguards the process. They ask questions, maintain boundaries and ensure a professional, safe structure, but do not make decisions for the client. The client owns the goals and the actions that flow from them: they keep their own direction, even when an employer pays. The sponsor is the commissioning party or financer, often a manager or HR department. They set the preconditions such as budget and the purpose of the engagement, but do not automatically gain insight into what is substantively discussed during sessions.

In practice, client and sponsor often coincide, for example with a self-employed person who hires themselves for coaching. The distinction doesn't fully disappear then: it is still useful to state in advance what "being the commissioning party" means in that case for payment and evaluation.

In short:

  • The coach safeguards the process and the professional boundaries.
  • The client remains the owner of goals, choices and actions.
  • The sponsor sets the preconditions, but gains no automatic access to session content.

This division appears in the core concepts of the ICF Core Competencies, which name coach, client and sponsor as separate parties in the coaching engagement.

What to establish before the first session

A good start prevents arguments afterwards. Go through these points before you begin:

  1. Describe the purpose of the engagement and how you will measure success together.
  2. Agree on the duration of the engagement, including the number of sessions and the frequency.
  3. Schedule fixed evaluation moments, for example after every third session.
  4. Set out payment terms: who pays, when and by which method.
  5. Include a cancellation policy, with a reasonable notice period for both parties.
  6. Explicitly state which information the sponsor receives and which not.
  7. Agree on how you handle confidentiality between sessions.

The Code of Conduct for professional coaching from NOBCO and BDVT names clarifying the assignment as the starting point of every engagement: goals, approach, duration, confidentiality, payment, cancellation and evaluation all belong there.

Pro tip: Put these agreements in a document that both client and sponsor sign, even if the engagement feels informal.

Boundaries between coach, manager and therapist

A coach is not a manager and not a therapist, unless that is explicitly agreed. That distinction safeguards the quality of the engagement and protects the client.

  • A coach does not assess performance on behalf of an employer, unless that has been set down in advance as a separate agreement.
  • When there are signs of mental health issues, a coach refers the client to a doctor or therapist instead of treating this themselves.
  • Personal information from sessions stays confidential, even if a sponsor asks for feedback.

The ICF Code of Ethics requires coaches to communicate in advance with the client and commissioning party about what coaching does and does not entail, and to record this in an agreement. Anyone who does not draw this boundary explicitly runs the risk that a sponsor confuses coaching with assessment, with tensions as a result for the client.

Three real-world examples of role division

Roles only become concrete in real situations. Three examples that come up often:

  • When coaching a Product Owner, tension often arises between their own agile responsibilities and the coaching question: establish in advance whether the coaching is about personal leadership or about team results, and keep the two separate.
  • In an engagement with an external sponsor, for example an organization that has a manager coached, it is customary to report only progress at a high level, such as attendance and general evaluation, without substantive details.
  • With a solo coach who works with self-employed clients, client and sponsor often coincide: the agreements about payment and evaluation then remain just as important, even without a third party.

In all three cases the same point of attention applies: establish in advance who receives which information, so that no one is surprised afterwards.

Codes of conduct and standards you should know

Coaching has no statutory professional protection, but it does have established codes of conduct that form the basis for professional practice.

  • In its core competencies, the ICF describes the coaching relationship, the agreement and the role of the sponsor as separate parts of the process.
  • The Dutch code of conduct from NOBCO and BDVT calls for accountability, a complaints procedure and clear clarification of the assignment at the start.
  • LVSC and joint Dutch guidelines emphasize professionalism and periodic recertification of coaches.

Membership in a professional organization gives clients and sponsors something to hold on to: the Code of Conduct for professional coaching from NOBCO and BDVT offers oversight and a complaints procedure, which increases the findability and reliability of coaches.

These codes are not a formality. They provide concrete language to discuss roles, boundaries and confidentiality, precisely in conversations with sponsors who do not encounter coaching every day.

Ten agreements and the right time to review them

A good coaching agreement contains ten fixed components:

  1. Purpose and desired outcome of the engagement.
  2. Duration, number of sessions and frequency.
  3. Location or format of the sessions.
  4. Fee and payment method.
  5. Cancellation terms.
  6. Confidentiality arrangements.
  7. Which information the sponsor receives.
  8. Evaluation moments during the engagement.
  9. Arrangements for early termination.
  10. Contact details and responsibilities of each party.

For sponsor reporting, neutral wording works best: "the client has worked on the agreed goals and shows progress on the themes discussed" without mentioning details about the content of sessions.

Revisit role agreements at every evaluation, not just at the start. Goals shift, and with them sometimes the sponsor's expectations.

Pro tip: At every evaluation, restate in a single sentence who receives which information, even if nothing has changed. That prevents assumptions.

How Exantur supports role agreements in practice

A client portal helps keep goals and progress visible for the client themselves, without this automatically being shared with a sponsor. Exantur offers such a portal for coachees, in which clients track their own goals, check-ins and preparations.

  • Session notes are recorded as observations, insights, breakthroughs and action points, searchable and linked to the right client.
  • Intake forms and assessments such as DISC and the Wheel of Life stay linked to the right engagement.
  • Reports and documents remain separated per client, which helps apply agreements about information sharing in practice.

That way, the role agreements you put on paper also get a place in day-to-day work.

The client's role in their own learning process

Coaching only works if the client does the work themselves. The coach guides the process, but the client draws the conclusions, makes choices and takes action between sessions.

This self-direction is not a side issue but the core of the profession. The ICF describes the coaching relationship as a collaboration in which the client retains autonomy: coaching is not a transfer of responsibility from client to coach, as the ICF Core Competencies set out.

In practice this means that a coach asks reflective questions instead of providing solutions. A client who asks "what would you do?" ideally gets a counter-question in return, not advice. That requires discipline from the coach, especially when the client themselves asks for direction.

Self-direction also grows through structure. Clients who track concrete action points between sessions and review their own progress develop ownership of their goals faster than clients who only talk about progress during sessions. That is one reason why many coaches work with check-ins between sessions, not as a means of control but as a tool for the client themselves.

So the client's role does not shift to the coach, not even when an engagement is going through a rough patch. The coach remains the guide, the client remains the owner.

Handling conflicts between roles

Role conflicts usually arise when expectations have not been expressed explicitly. A sponsor who expects concrete results while the client has a broader development goal in mind is a classic example.

The first sign of a role conflict is often unclear communication: the sponsor asks for details the coach is not allowed to share, or the client feels controlled rather than guided. At that moment it helps to fall back on the original agreement and restate what was agreed there about information exchange.

When a conflict does arise, the order matters. First discuss with the client what is going on and what may and may not be shared. Only then speak with the sponsor, and always with the client's consent regarding what is told. This order safeguards the trust that a good engagement needs.

A second type of conflict arises when the coach themselves is assigned multiple roles, for example as coach and informal adviser to management. That is tempting when a sponsor wants to see quick results, but it undermines the confidentiality that coaching needs. The solution is not complicated: decline the combined role or make the distinction explicit from the first day.

Conflicts between roles are not necessarily a sign of a failed engagement. They are often a signal that the original agreements were too vague and need to be sharpened again.

Handling conflicts between roles — overview diagram

The influence of organizational culture on roles

An organization's culture largely determines how roles play out in practice, even when the formal agreements are the same everywhere.

In organizations with a strong hierarchy, a sponsor sometimes implicitly still expects insight into session content, even though that was not agreed. A coach who works in such a context would do well to restate the confidentiality agreement explicitly more often than in an organization where autonomy is already taken for granted.

The way coaching is purchased also says something about the culture. When HR arranges coaching centrally for dozens of employees at once, there is a risk that coaching is seen as an instrument of the organization rather than an engagement for the individual client. A coach can limit that risk by explicitly stating at the start that the client remains the owner of the content, regardless of who foots the bill.

Organizations that are just beginning to use coaching as an instrument often do not yet have fixed habits around reporting and confidentiality. That is an opportunity to set a clear standard from the start, instead of adopting an existing, less clear habit.

Culture also changes during an engagement, for example after a reorganization or a change of manager. That is a good moment to reconfirm the role agreements, especially when the new sponsor is not familiar with the original agreement.

Effective communication between coach, client and sponsor

Good communication between the three roles comes down to separating channels: what the coach discusses with the client, what the client shares with the sponsor themselves, and what the coach reports directly to the sponsor.

Three separate communication channels within coaching

The most common mistake is that these channels get mixed up. A coach who emails the sponsor directly about progress without involving the client undermines trust, even if the content is harmless. It is better to always keep the client informed of every contact with the sponsor, or better still, have the client report themselves with the coach as a sounding board.

At the start of an engagement it helps to agree on a fixed rhythm: for example a short update to the sponsor after every third session, with only progress on the agreed goals, never with session content. That rhythm gives the sponsor enough visibility without breaking confidentiality.

Between coach and client, directness works best. A client who is concerned about what is or is not shared with the sponsor should be able to ask at any time. Coaches who explain this proactively, instead of waiting until the question is asked, prevent distrust before it arises.

Communication between the roles is therefore not a matter of more contact, but of clear agreements about who talks to whom about what.

Ethical dilemmas around roles in coaching

Most ethical dilemmas in coaching do not arise from ill will, but from an unclear division of roles that only becomes visible during the engagement.

A common dilemma: a sponsor asks for an honest estimate of the chance that a client will succeed in a new role. That request sounds harmless, but it asks the coach to take on an evaluative role that does not belong to coaching. The right response is to refer back to the agreement and indicate that a coach does not share assessments, not even informally.

A second dilemma arises when a client shares something during a session that seems relevant to the sponsor, for example an impending layoff elsewhere in the team. Confidentiality weighs more heavily here than the presumed relevance to the organization, unless the client themselves gives permission to share this.

A third dilemma comes into play when the coach themselves also has a business interest in continuing the engagement, for example being financially dependent on one large sponsor. That can put pressure on the independence of advice. Transparency about this, including towards the client, is the only way to keep it manageable.

These dilemmas are rarely black and white. They call for a coach who continually tests their own position against the agreements made at the start.

Why role awareness strengthens the profession

Role awareness is not a formality. It is what distinguishes a coach from a well-meaning conversation partner.

I see membership in a professional organization and peer supervision as a good habit, not an obligation.

— Martijn

How Exantur helps manage roles and agreements

Role agreements only keep working if they are also observed in practice, session after session. Exantur offers a workspace for this in which client management, session notes and a separate client portal come together, so that a coach does not have to rely on loose documents or their own memory.

Intake forms, assessments such as DISC and the Wheel of Life, and reports stay linked to the right client and the right engagement. The client portal gives the client their own insight into goals and progress, without automatically sharing this with a sponsor. That way the division of roles you agree on paper also becomes visible in day-to-day work.

Exantur offers a free 14-day trial period. Check the pricing and plans to see which subscription suits your practice.

Consult the ICF Code of Ethics and the LVSC code of conduct for the full text.

Sources

Frequently asked questions

What are the three core roles in a coaching engagement?

The three core roles are the coach, the client and the sponsor. The coach safeguards the process, the client owns the goals and actions, and the sponsor is the commissioning party or financer who sets the preconditions without automatically gaining access to session content.

May a sponsor sit in on sessions or request session details?

No, personal session content stays confidential between coach and client, unless the client themselves gives permission to share something. The ICF Code of Ethics requires coaches to discuss and document this in advance with all parties.

What should a coaching agreement contain?

A coaching agreement contains goals, duration, frequency, fee, cancellation terms, confidentiality arrangements and agreements about reporting to any sponsor. The Code of Conduct for professional coaching from NOBCO and BDVT names clarifying the assignment as the mandatory starting point of every engagement.

When should a coach refer a client to a therapist?

A coach refers a client when there are signs of mental health issues that fall outside the domain of coaching. Coaching focuses on development and goals, not on treatment, and a coach takes that boundary seriously by referring in a timely manner to a doctor or therapist.

How do you handle role confusion when coaching a Product Owner?

Establish in advance whether the coaching focuses on personal leadership or on team results, and keep the two separate throughout the engagement. This prevents the coach from unknowingly slipping into a project-based or evaluative role that does not belong to coaching.

Recommendations