Abstract
Internal Coaching provides organizations with an effective and scalable approach to developing talent, yet its insider dynamics create distinctive challenges. This qualitative study examines these challenges and identifies the organizational support required to sustain a robust internal coaching practice. Semistructured interviews with 11 internal coaches across multiple industries and countries were analyzed thematically. Findings reveal tensions related to role conflict, objectivity, and organizational alignment. The study contributes to theory by extending understanding of internal coaching within organizational systems and offers practical insights for designing strategic and developmental support structures that strengthen coaching cultures and practitioner effectiveness.
Introduction
In an era of accelerated organizational change and strategic emphasis on talent development, coaching has emerged as a central lever for fostering growth, performance, and leadership capability. The global coaching industry is estimated to be worth approximately USD20 billion (International Coaching Federation, 2024), reflecting its widespread adoption across sectors. Within this expansive field, internal coaching, coaching conducted by employees within the same organization, has attracted increasing attention as a cost-effective, scalable, and contextually grounded means of development (Schalk & Landeta, 2017). However, its distinctive insider context introduces unique challenges that differentiate it from external coaching, particularly concerning confidentiality, boundaries, and role complexity (Frisch et al., n.d.).
Internal coaching has been variously defined. Frisch (2001, p. 242) described it as “a one-on-one developmental intervention supported by the organization and provided by a colleague of those coached who is trusted to shape and deliver a programme yielding individual professional growth.” Baldwin and Cherry (2020, p. 3) refined this definition to “an individual within an organization who has received formal training in coaching skills, operating within a structured coaching arrangement, without formal authority over the coachee, who facilitates the personal and professional growth of others.” These perspectives collectively highlight internal coaching as a formalized developmental practice distinct from mentoring or managerial coaching (DiGirolamo & Tkach, 2019).
The increasing prominence of internal coaching stems from its alignment with organizational imperatives for continuous learning and leadership agility. It not only reduces dependency on external consultants but also contributes to cultivating a coaching culture—a collective mindset where reflective dialog and feedback are embedded into daily practice (Gavin, 2018; Milner et al., 2020). By internalizing coaching capabilities, organizations democratize access to developmental support beyond executive levels (Bowman, 2016). Leading firms such as Google and GlaxoSmithKline have exemplified this integration, embedding internal coaching as a core element of their leadership and performance frameworks (Machon, 2016).
Despite these advantages, internal coaches navigate complex interpersonal and systemic dynamics. They often balance multiple organizational roles while maintaining coaching integrity, impartiality, and confidentiality—tensions that can generate ethical and psychological strain (St. John-Brooks, 2014). These challenges can compromise the working alliance and raise questions about the coach's neutrality (Fatien et al., 2023). Further, internal coaching effectiveness is contingent not merely on individual skill but on the degree of organizational support provided through leadership endorsement, developmental resources, and a culture conducive to open dialogue (Clutterbuck et al., 2016).
While the literature on coaching has expanded considerably, internal coaching remains relatively undertheorized and empirically underexplored (Bachkirova & Borrington, 2019; Boyatzis et al., 2022). Much of the extant scholarship focuses on external executive coaching, leaving a gap in understanding the distinct experiences of internal coaches operating within organizational systems (De Haan & Nilsson, 2023; Jones et al., 2016). This underrepresentation is significant because internal coaching involves complex boundary management, cultural adaptation, and ethical navigation distinct from traditional external models (Sass & Fly-Dierks, 2015). Furthermore, given the absence of universal regulatory standards across coaching bodies such as the International Coaching Federation (ICF), Association for Coaching (AC), and European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC), the ethical dilemmas of internal coaches often lack a consistent interpretive framework (Iordanou & Hawley, 2020).
In addition to ethical and relational complexities, structural and cultural barriers can hinder the development of coaching cultures within organizations. Insufficient managerial competence, lack of strategic alignment, and underestimation of coaching's value often impede the embedding of coaching as a sustainable practice (Rothwell & Bakhshandeh, 2022). Additionally, misunderstanding the principles of coaching can lead to transactional rather than transformational applications, undermining its developmental potential (Whitmore, 2017). Chidiac (2013) proposed “relational field coaching” as a paradigm that positions coaching within the broader relational and systemic context of the organization—an idea particularly relevant to internal coaches who operate within the very systems they seek to influence. This relational positioning also aligns with emerging perspectives in Relational Leadership Theory (Uhl-Bien, 2023), which conceptualizes leadership as a process of social construction occurring through interactions rather than formal authority structures. This perspective deepens understanding of how internal coaches influence organizational relationships beyond traditional role boundaries.
The institutionalization of internal coaching highlights organizational support as crucial for success (Passmore & Crabbe, 2023). Effective programs demand executive sponsorship, integration, and resources (Rock & Donde, 2008a), while leadership advocacy and cultural endorsement (Hawkins, 2012) ensure credibility and sustainability. Without such systemic support, internal coaching initiatives risk marginalization, inconsistency, or ethical vulnerability.
Against this backdrop, this study investigates the dual dimensions of internal coaching: the challenges internal coaches encounter and the organizational support necessary to build robust practice. This dual focus reflects the interdependence between individual agency and systemic enablement. The research contributes by addressing a gap in empirical understanding of the lived experiences of internal coaches across diverse organizational contexts, offering insights that extend theory and inform practice.
Literature Review
Coaching has become integral to contemporary organizational practice, valued for its role in fostering individual learning, leadership development, and organizational agility (Garvey & Stokes, 2021; Grover & Furnham, 2016). Defined as a structured and goal-oriented developmental dialog, coaching aims to enhance self-awareness, performance, and capability (Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011). The shift from remedial to developmental coaching marks a broader cultural evolution toward evidence-based leadership and learning (Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018). Despite its widespread adoption, coaching remains conceptually diverse and theoretically fragmented, drawing from psychology, adult learning, and organizational theory (Bachkirova, 2017).
Meta-analytic evidence supports coaching's positive effects on performance and well-being (De Haan & Nilsson, 2023; Jones et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2021). Yet, the majority of studies center on external executive coaching, exposing a critical empirical and theoretical gap for internal coaching.
The insider status of Internal Coaching offers contextual understanding, accessibility, and cost-efficiency (Schalk & Landeta, 2017) and influences the emergence of a coaching culture that promotes reflective learning across organizational levels (Whybrow & O’Riordan, 2021). However, this embeddedness also introduces tensions. Internal coaches must manage dual roles as both employees and facilitators of development, which can blur professional boundaries and challenge impartiality (St. John-Brooks, 2010). Role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Biddle, 1986) and role strain research (Goode, 1960; Örtqvist & Wincent, 2006) help explain these tensions, where conflicting expectations generate psychological and ethical stress (Schmidt-Lellek, 2022). Internal coaches must balance confidentiality with organizational transparency and navigate the politics of proximity, which external coaches have the opportunity to largely avoid. These tensions can be further understood through the lens of the psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995), which represents the implicit expectations between employee and employer. For internal coaches, breaches of this contract, such as perceived lack of confidentiality or misalignment between espoused and enacted organizational values, can erode trust and diminish coaching effectiveness.
Ethics occupy a central place in discussions of internal coaching. Unlike external practitioners governed by established contracts and independence, internal coaches operate within blurred relational boundaries (St. John-Brooks, 2014). The lack of universal ethical standards across professional bodies, such as the ICF, AC, and EMCC exacerbates this ambiguity (Iordanou & Hawley, 2020). Common dilemmas include balancing confidentiality with organizational accountability, managing dual loyalties, and resisting inappropriate requests for information (St. John-Brooks, 2010).
Organizational context profoundly influences internal coaching effectiveness. Internal coaches rely on a culture of openness and trust to function effectively (Sass & Fly-Dierks, 2015). Where hierarchy and fear prevail, coaching is reduced to compliance rather than dialogue. Building a coaching culture therefore requires strategic alignment across leadership behavior, Human Resources processes, and communication norms (Clutterbuck et al., 2016). Obolensky (2017) argues that participative leadership and adaptive systems are essential to embedding coaching values. Without systemic support, internal coaching initiatives often remain peripheral, short-lived, or underresourced (Rothwell & Bakhshandeh, 2022).
Although distinct from coaching, mentoring research offers complementary insights into relational and contextual challenges. Mentoring, defined as a developmental relationship between a more experienced and less experienced colleague (Viera, 2021), shares with coaching an emphasis on growth and learning (Garvey & Stokes, 2021). Yet, mentoring typically involves hierarchical structures and experience transfer, contrasting with coaching's focus on self-directed learning and reflection (Hansman, 2002; Matuszek et al., 2008). Mentoring studies highlight issues also evident in internal coaching, such as boundary management, trust, and role clarity (Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2017; Salomaa & Abbott, 2016). However, internal coaches face the additional pressure of maintaining confidentiality and influencing systemic change. This duality amplifies the risk of ethical tension and perceived bias, making the internal coaching context distinct and more complex.
Organizational support structures are central to sustaining credible and effective internal coaching. Passmore and Crabbe (2023) propose the LEAD framework—Leadership, Enabling infrastructure, Accountability, and Development—as essential to a mature coaching culture and leadership advocacy, governance, and integration with talent systems as prerequisites for long-term success.
Research Rationale and Aim
Although prior studies have substantially advanced understanding of coaching effectiveness, ethical frameworks, and the emergence of coaching cultures, significant conceptual and empirical gaps remain concerning internal coaching specifically. Much of the extant literature emphasizes external executive coaching or focuses on programmatic design rather than lived practitioner experience. Consequently, the day-to-day realities of internal coaches—their ethical tensions, boundary management, and role conflicts—are underrepresented in empirical research.
Furthermore, studies exploring organizational support for coaching (Passmore & Crabbe, 2023) tend to conceptualize support at a strategic or systems level, without adequately addressing how such structures are perceived or enacted by the coaches themselves. The literature also remains fragmented across psychological, managerial, and developmental traditions, with limited integration of these perspectives into a coherent framework for internal coaching practice.
Addressing these shortcomings is critical because internal coaching constitutes a growing but underexamined mode of development within organizations. This study therefore aims to explore two interrelated questions: What challenges do internal coaches experience within their organisational contexts? What forms of organisational support strengthen internal coaching practice and its sustainability? Through a qualitative, interpretive approach, this study contributes to theoretical understanding of internal coaching as a systemic phenomenon and offers practical insights for designing supportive organisational environments that enable ethical, effective, and sustainable internal coaching.
Methodology
This study adopted a qualitative, interpretivist design to explore the lived experiences of internal coaches and the organizational factors that enable or constrain their effectiveness. A qualitative approach was appropriate for this as it prioritizes meaning-making and context, allowing an in-depth examination of how individuals interpret their experiences within complex organizational systems (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Purposive sampling was employed to identify participants who possessed relevant experience and insight into internal coaching (Patton, 2015). Eleven internal coaches participated, representing diverse sectors including financial services, healthcare, and education, and encompassing organizations of varying sizes (from 200 to 395,500 employees), vintage (inception years from 1840 to 2012), and geographical contexts (USA: 2, Germany: 2, India: 2, and the UK: 5). This diversity enhanced the credibility and transferability of findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) to an extent. Participants were required to have completed accredited coach training and to be actively engaged in delivering internal coaching within their organizations.
Interviews were semistructured to ensure consistency while allowing flexibility for participants to elaborate on their experiences. Interview questions were designed around the study's focal areas and refined following supervisory feedback to ensure clarity and alignment with the research objectives. The final list consisted of ten open-ended questions. Interviews were conducted online via video conferencing platforms and lasted between 45 and 60 min. All sessions were recorded with consent and transcribed verbatim.
The data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022). Analysis progressed through six iterative stages: familiarization, initial coding, theme generation, review, definition, and reporting. Throughout the analytic process, regular discussions were held with the research supervisor to review emerging codes, explore interpretations, and ensure alignment with the study's research questions, which contributed to analytic depth and reflexive rigor (Nowell et al., 2017).
Rigor was addressed through strategies of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Member reflections were invited postinterview, allowing participants to review summaries of interpreted themes. Confirmability was supported by maintaining an audit trail of coding decisions and reflexive notes.
As a practitioner-researcher with over 2 decades of experience in leadership development and organizational coaching, the author acknowledges the potential for interpretive bias. A reflexive journal was maintained throughout the research process to record assumptions, emotional responses, and decision-making rationale, thereby enhancing transparency and reflexive awareness (Finlay, 2002).
Ethical approval was obtained from the review board of the University of Essex. Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality was ensured through anonymization of all identifying details.
Findings
The thematic analysis produced findings in two different directions—challenges of internal coaches and the organizational support required to establish a robust practice. The former is segregated into two themes: “Role-Related Challenges” and “Practice-Related Challenges,” and the latter into “Strategic Support” and “Developmental and Structural Support.”
Challenges of Internal Coaches
As it relates to the challenges of internal coaches, two superordinate themes were produced which were common to almost all participants indicating a high level of convergence, which are further categorized into subthemes for better interpretation (Table 1).
Challenges of Internal Coaches.
Although all subthemes are relevant, Balancing Coaching Responsibilities with Other Roles and Maintaining Objectivity and Avoiding Overidentification are explored in depth. The decision to elaborate primarily on two was guided by their conceptual centrality and empirical prominence. These were identified as foundational tensions underpinning many of the other challenges, as they shape ethical decision-making, time management, and trust within the coaching relationship. These were consistently referenced as underlying influences on other difficulties, including ethical dilemmas, trust, and boundary management. Challenges in balancing multiple professional identities often created conditions that heightened ethical strain and blurred confidentiality, while difficulties in maintaining objectivity were interwoven with relational and systemic complexities.
By foregrounding these two foundational tensions, this segment provides a lens through which the interconnected nature of other challenges can be understood. Ethical dilemmas, for instance, frequently arose because of role ambiguity or compromised objectivity. Similarly, the trust and confidentiality concerns reported by participants were often direct consequences of these underlying tensions. Thus, these two subthemes are not isolated experiences but rather fundamental mechanisms shaping the entire landscape of internal coaching challenges.
Balancing Coaching Responsibilities With Other Roles
Participants, mostly part-time internal coaches, consistently described tension between their coaching duties and other professional responsibilities, which led to competing demands on time, loyalty, and attention. This finding aligns with role theory (Biddle, 1986; Katz & Kahn, 1978) and the notion of role strain (Goode, 1960), as participants reported stress from conflicting expectations.
Participant# 3 articulated this difficulty vividly:
“I struggled the other way also. You know, I've completed a coaching conversation, now I need to get into, I don't know, sometimes it's a RFP review or something. That is tough.”
This illustrates the cognitive and emotional strain of shifting between distinct mindsets. Coaching requires deep listening and empathy, while other work functions often demand analytical detachment and speed. The abrupt transition between such contrasting roles created mental fatigue and reduced focus.
To mitigate this, some coaches developed self-management strategies. Participant# 3 continued:
“I don't immediately get into a coaching conversation. I have at least, like, a 10–15 min slot or half an hour slot in between. So maybe I'm answering a couple of emails, and then I get into that. It's essential.”
This temporal boundary setting illustrates proactive coping by creating mental space to transition roles and maintain presence. However, participants also noted that their organizations rarely recognized the need for such decompression time, treating coaching as an “add-on” rather than a core professional responsibility.
Participant# 2 reflected on the challenge of establishing clear boundaries between coaching and other developmental roles:
“I briefly explained again what coaching was, and that benefiting from my experience would be mentoring, but not coaching, and that I would also be available for mentoring, but this, this very call, these very 60 min are supposed to be coaching.”
This quote underscores a recurring theme of role ambiguity—the need to educate colleagues about the distinct purposes of coaching. When role clarity was lacking, coaching was often misinterpreted as directive or advisory, undermining its developmental intent. This finding reinforces the need for organizational education and explicit contracting to prevent boundary confusion (Gettman et al., 2019).
Maintaining Objectivity and Avoiding Overidentification
The second major subtheme, Maintaining Objectivity and Avoiding Overidentification, relates to the relational and ethical complexity of being both an insider and a neutral facilitator. Coaches described balancing empathy and impartiality when working with colleagues whose roles and experiences they understood intimately.
Participant# 5 reflected:
“So for example, if someone's bringing … I've had one before where they bring in conflicts to discuss that involve other people. So, someone would bring ‘I'm having this problem with somebody, and you wouldn't know who the people are’, but I will know who the people are. So, you have to remove yourself; just think you're only with that one person at that time. The other people – I normally try and rename them in my head, just call them something different.”
This illustrates cognitive strategies used to maintain neutrality. “Renaming” individuals in their mind helped Participant# 5 avoid bias, a subtle psychological tool to maintain presence with the coachee.
Participant# 10 described the emotional strain of managing confidentiality when privy to sensitive organizational information:
“In some instances, we already would be in coaching engagements with those who would be affected by the layoffs, right? So that was a, really a hard thing to know those types of things. But also, you know, hey, we have to sign NDAs and all these types of things to say, it's not something we can talk about … So, it was one of those things where, just like, I know you're being laid off and you're working on, let's say, a promotion, right? And we had, like, I know that promotion is not happening … So that was a hard place to be in.”
This exemplifies moral dissonance: the internal conflict between empathy for the coachee and duty to organizational confidentiality. Such dilemmas require emotional labor to reconcile competing loyalties.
Participant# 2 highlighted the power dynamic when coaching subordinates:
“If the coaching topics that people bring up are about something work related, the fact that I am their superior in some way will inevitably creep into the conversation, and that is unhealthy.”
This highlights the relational imbalance that can constrain authenticity and trust. Power asymmetry can inhibit openness even when the coach exercises discretion.
Participant# 5 further reflected on the challenge of detachment when personal identity intersected with the coachee's experience:
“I think it was a difficult experience because I had to put myself to one side, because the type of environment they were talking about that they didn't enjoy was one that probably a demographic of my type of person had created.”
This reveals the intersection of empathy, guilt, and reflexivity. The participant's deliberate act of “putting myself to one side” reflects self-awareness and ethical commitment to impartiality—a form of role distancing (Goffman, 1961).
Maintaining objectivity was therefore not merely cognitive but emotional. It required self-regulation, boundary consciousness, and reflexivity, echoing Kemp's (2012) emphasis on reflective awareness as a foundation for ethical practice.
Other Role-Related and Practice-Related Challenges
Beyond these focal subthemes, several additional challenges emerged.
Although not analyzed in depth here, ethical dilemmas were closely interwoven with the two dominant subthemes. Participants frequently referred to situations of moral uncertainty—deciding whether to report misconduct, managing sensitive information, and balancing confidentiality against organizational loyalty. These situations often arose as secondary consequences of the very tensions described above: blurred role boundaries and compromised neutrality, reinforcing the moral complexity of internal coaching (Wooten, 2001).
Generating trust and maintaining confidentiality was a pervasive concern. Some coachees hesitated to speak openly due to fears that their disclosures might circulate informally within the organization. Participants were of the belief that earning trust while being a part of the system is a function of time.
Managing resource limitations was another recurring issue. Participants described the lack of allocated time, absence of supervision, and minimal organizational resourcing as obstacles to maintaining consistent practice. Without structural support, coaching risked becoming an unsustainable “extra duty.”
Addressing systemic issues and bringing down organizational barriers reflected frustration with entrenched hierarchies and rigid systems. Coaches often observed that they could facilitate personal insight but had little influence over structural impediments to behavioral change.
Finally, eradicating stigma remained an enduring concern. In some organizations, coaching was still viewed as remedial, offered only to underperforming staff. This misunderstanding limited engagement and diminished coaching's developmental reputation (Whitmore, 2017).
In summary, internal coaches navigate a delicate balance between multiple professional roles, ethical imperatives, and organizational expectations. The foundational tensions of balancing responsibilities and maintaining objectivity underpin many of the other challenges identified, influencing how coaches manage confidentiality, ethical decision-making, and credibility. The interconnected nature of these challenges reveals that they cannot be addressed solely through individual skill but require organizational recognition and systemic support.
These findings underscore the need for structures that foster clarity, supervision, and cultural understanding of coaching. The following section explores how organizations can provide such support through strategic, developmental, and systemic interventions, enabling internal coaches to practise ethically and sustainably.
Organizational Support for Robust Practice
The second major domain identified through the analysis concerns the organizational supports that enable a sustainable and effective internal coaching practice. Two overarching themes were identified: Strategic Support and Developmental and Structural Support, which are further categorized into subthemes for better interpretation (Table 2).
Organizational Support for Robust Practice.
Although both themes are crucial, this section focuses primarily on Strategic Support, as it forms the foundation for establishing legitimacy and long-term sustainability. The decision to focus on it as the primary area of analysis arises from its foundational role in establishing and sustaining internal coaching within organizational systems. Strategic support refers to the actions taken by organizational leadership to champion, integrate, and culturally embed internal coaching within the broader organizational ecosystem (Hawkins, 2012). It creates the why and how of coaching—leadership endorsement provides legitimacy, secures resources, and embeds coaching into the organizational narrative (Clutterbuck et al., 2016).
Providing Executive Sponsorship and Awareness
A recurring pattern in participants’ narratives was the indispensable role of executive sponsorship in legitimizing internal coaching. Participants repeatedly noted that visible endorsement from senior leadership transformed coaching from a peripheral activity into a recognized strategic tool.
Participant# 1 articulated the benefits of top-level support:
“It's been fantastic, because our senior leadership in our firm, and it's a huge global firm, has provided tremendous support from that level.”
When executives model and advocate for coaching, it not only signals institutional legitimacy but also fosters wider engagement.
Participant# 10 similarly highlighted the multiplier effect of leaders who have personally experienced coaching: But I think right now, we have, like, a 91% opt-in rate, because I think there's a legacy, you know, there's been … so they, they're sponsoring partners who help them become Senior Partner and or Managing Director, have all gone through coaching, most likely, and so they're usually saying: hey, this could really help you.
This “legacy effect” reflects the generative cycle wherein leaders’ personal advocacy creates a virtuous loop of cultural reinforcement (Uhl-Bien, 2023). Leaders who speak authentically from experience convey credibility and model vulnerability, making coaching more accessible across hierarchies (Gibson, 2004).
By contrast, the absence of executive sponsorship proved detrimental. Participant# 11 described the consequences of insufficient leadership engagement: …couldn’t get the attention of the top-level to do something about it… for example, promote it, you know, globally… and making sure everyone knows about it. Be our, you know, sponsor. This was not done. And, there were several political reasons why this was not done. So, the top level did not really believe in this Internal Coaching program until it started showing some good results. They didn’t want to put their face on something that obviously they weren’t sure will succeed.
This account underscores how the absence of sponsorship can relegate coaching to a marginal position until tangible results “prove” its value. It also resonates with Obolensky's (2017) argument that leadership in complex organizations demands a shift from traditional directive control to a more enabling and participative style—one that coaching embodies.
Participant# 9 observed that even supportive leaders sometimes lacked a nuanced understanding of coaching's potential: I think in turn, what I would like is a bit more awareness from the senior HR leaders. I think they know stuff there and they know what, well they think they know what, coaching is, but they're a little bit removed from it.
This highlights the need for not just sponsorship, but informed sponsorship. Leaders must be educated in the purpose and practice of coaching to advocate effectively.
Finally, Participant# 3 captured the need for a visible, passionate champion within leadership: You need a leader with that commitment and that vision that, yeah, now this is stopping you. Let's figure out a solution for this. Let's get it done. And he [the Head of Coaching] had the support of executives as well. They had given him enough funding, sponsorship, everything. You need… one owner for this, right. That person lives, breathes, coaching.
This description of a “living champion” underscores the importance of leadership continuity and symbolic ownership in embedding coaching.
Integrating Coaching With Talent Strategy
A second critical aspect of strategic support is integration—embedding coaching within existing organizational systems such as leadership development, succession planning, and performance management.
Participant# 4, with experience in learning and development, illustrated this synergy:
“So, I've gone through the whole phases of coaching and how it is important. And since I'm coming from learning and development, for me, it is very easy to connect the dot from leadership program and coaching.”
This reflects the benefit of linking coaching with the organization's broader developmental agenda, ensuring alignment with talent pipelines and strategic objectives. Passmore and Crabbe (2023) emphasize that coaching realizes its full potential when integrated with organizational capability frameworks.
When integrated effectively, coaching transitions from a discretionary activity to a systemic lever for talent growth. Conversely, when disconnected from broader HR systems, its impact remains isolated and difficult to sustain.
Chipping Away at Cultural Barriers
The third dimension of strategic support involves addressing the cultural conditions necessary for coaching to flourish. Participants highlighted the importance of psychological safety, trust, and openness as essential preconditions.
Participant# 9 noted:
“I don't think our psychological safety scores are bad. I think we've got more scope to improve, and that's more around the leaders creating the right environment for their team.”
Leadership behavior is central to building a coaching-ready culture. Without trust and openness, coaching remains superficial. However, organizational culture can also present structural obstacles. Participant# 2 described how leadership priorities constrained their ability to practise coaching: The interest in coaching is less probably also because there are simply less people around, I had interactions with less people on an individual level than I used to have at my previous organization. And also, I have been explicitly asked to hold off on going big on coaching, because my leadership at the time wanted me to be perceived as a VP [Vice President], not as an internal coach.
This illustrates how identity politics and organizational hierarchies can inhibit coaching. Cultural readiness thus extends beyond individual openness—it depends on how the organization defines and values developmental work. Fostering a genuine coaching culture requires aligning belief systems, not just behaviors (Clutterbuck et al., 2016). Addressing cultural barriers therefore involves deliberate communication, role-modeling, and consistent messaging from leadership.
Developmental and Structural Support
While Strategic Support establishes the foundation, the second major theme—Developmental and Structural Support—ensures coaching's sustainability and professional integrity. This theme encompasses four subthemes: ongoing professional development for coaches, celebrating the value of coaching, establishing clear processes and resources, and measuring impact.
Participants’ comments indirectly pointed to these systemic needs. Many internal coaches noted that while initial training was available, opportunities for continued learning and supervision were scarce, safeguards both ethical standards and coach well-being (Machin, 2010).
Equally, recognizing and celebrating the success of these programs emerged as a subtle yet important element as appreciation reinforces identity and motivation, strengthening commitment to coaching as a valued organizational practice (Milner et al., 2020).
Several participants also highlighted the need for defined processes, resource allocation, and formal infrastructure. These mechanisms enhance efficiency, provide accountability, and prevent coaching from being perceived as “spare-time work.” Finally, evaluating coaching effectiveness, through both quantitative outcomes and narrative evidence, was viewed as vital to legitimizing investment and refining strategy (Jones et al., 2018).
Together, these developmental and structural supports transform coaching from an initiative into a sustainable capability. Without them, strategic enthusiasm risks fading into underresourced aspiration.
In summary, organizational support for robust coaching practice operates across two interdependent dimensions. Strategic Support lays the cultural and structural groundwork through leadership advocacy, integration, and psychological safety, while Developmental and Structural Support ensures continuity, professionalism, and institutional memory.
The findings demonstrate that the success of internal coaching depends on reciprocal alignment: leadership must provide the vision and endorsement, while the organization must institutionalize coaching through systems and development pathways.
By connecting these layers, organizations can move beyond isolated coaching interventions to a fully embedded coaching culture—one that both reflects and reinforces the values of learning, trust, and growth. The next section explores how these findings inform the broader theoretical and practical implications for sustaining internal coaching within complex organizational systems.
Discussion
The findings of this study underscore the intricate nature of the internal coaching role, characterized by inherent tensions and dualities that arise from the coach's position as both an organizational insider and a facilitator of individual growth. These challenges reflect not only individual experiences but also broader systemic and cultural conditions within organizations that shape how internal coaching is practised, perceived, and sustained.
The Dual Role of the Internal Coach
The study reinforces long-standing theoretical insights from role theory, which suggest that individuals who occupy multiple professional identities often experience tension between conflicting role expectations (Örtqvist & Wincent, 2006). Internal coaches’ admission of moving rapidly between coaching and other work tasks highlight how the constant shifting of cognitive focus generates both mental fatigue and a sense of divided allegiance. The practice of scheduling “buffer” periods between sessions and work tasks demonstrates the coach's active effort to manage transitions between distinct cognitive and emotional states, echoing the micro-role transition literature (Ashforth et al., 2000).
Leroy's (2009) notion of “cognitive residue”—the mental remnants of one role carried into another—proves particularly salient. Coaches reported difficulty in fully disengaging from organizational concerns or task-oriented thinking, thereby compromising their ability to be wholly present in coaching conversations. The implication is that organizations must recognize these transitions as legitimate aspects of role performance, rather than viewing coaching as a discretionary or “add-on” activity. This necessitates not only workload adjustments but also psychological and cultural recognition of the complexity of coaching within the organizational context.
Role differentiation also emerged as a critical factor. Several participants noted the need to clarify the distinction between coaching and mentoring, especially when coachees expected directive guidance rather than facilitative dialogue. Role ambiguity in developmental relationships can erode trust and effectiveness (Gettman et al., 2019). From an organizational perspective, this finding highlights the need for explicit communication, contracting, and training around role boundaries to prevent confusion and maintain the integrity of the coaching process (Knights & Poppleton, 2008).
The findings also suggest that unaddressed role strain can have significant emotional and ethical consequences, with role overload and ambiguity were associated with burnout risk and reduced program efficacy (Mullins, 2016). These tensions are intensified by the fact that internal coaches frequently undertake coaching alongside their substantive roles, often without commensurate reductions in other responsibilities. The implication for organizations is clear: to safeguard both coach well-being and program sustainability, coaching must be institutionalized as a recognized and supported role, with dedicated time, clear expectations, and appropriate developmental infrastructure.
Supervision and peer reflection are vital for sustaining ethical and emotional balance in internal coaching (Ratlabala & Terblanche, 2022). Reflective spaces enable coaches to process relational and ethical dilemmas, maintaining professional distance and well-being (Iordanou & Williams, 2017). This study confirms their centrality to responsible coaching practice urging organizations to create the space and time for these.
Relational and Ethical Complexities
Beyond role strain, the findings reveal the relational and ethical intricacies that define internal coaching. The coach's embeddedness within the organization, while offering valuable contextual insight, inevitably blurs boundaries and complicates objectivity. This dual awareness mirrors what St. John-Brooks (2014) describes as the paradox of proximity: the coach's closeness to the organizational context provides understanding but also heightens vulnerability to bias.
Participants’ use of cognitive and emotional strategies, such as mental distancing and deliberate reframing, reflects a sustained effort to maintain impartiality. These strategies of reflective consciousness require a high degree of self-awareness and self-regulation (Kemp, 2012). However, these findings also demonstrate that such individual strategies are insufficient in isolation; they must be supported by organizational systems that reinforce ethical decision-making and transparency.
Power dynamics were another significant concern. Hierarchical relationships can distort the coaching process, particularly when the coach holds managerial authority or insider knowledge (Machin, 2010). This study confirmed that power asymmetry can inhibit openness and authenticity, as coachees may fear the repercussions of disclosure. In such contexts, the coach's ethical responsibility extends beyond individual confidentiality to include creating psychological safety and managing perceived or real conflicts of interest.
Participants’ emotional labor to suppress personal reactions and distancing themselves from their own experiences illustrates Goffman's (1961) notion of role distancing. Supporting Mayhead (2023), this study shows internal coaches face intensified “duty of care” dilemmas, as their insider knowledge demands nuanced judgment, emotional restraint, and ethical self-management within complex organizational relationships.
The study's findings thus contribute to understanding boundary management as a dynamic ethical practice rather than a fixed rule, highlighting the need for professionals to apply principled judgment in ambiguous ethical situations, guided by conscience and contextual understanding (American Psychological Association, 2002; Barnett, 2008, 2019). Accordingly, organizations should provide explicit training in ethical reasoning and boundary management, supported by ongoing supervision and clear governance protocols.
Importantly, a psychologically safe organizational climate emerged as a precondition for ethical and effective internal coaching. Psychological safety enables both coaches and coachees to engage authentically in developmental dialog, mitigating defensive behavior and fostering learning. Yet, it is not merely an individual disposition but a systemic property of coaching cultures—one that requires leadership modeling and collective trust. This study reinforces that notion and suggests that psychological safety must be intentionally cultivated as part of organizational design.
Strategic Leadership and Cultural Alignment
The final major insight of this study pertains to the systemic factors that determine the success and sustainability of internal coaching programs. The findings align strongly with the growing body of literature that underscores the critical role of leadership commitment and cultural readiness in embedding coaching within organizations (Hawkins, 2012; Obolensky, 2010). Leadership sponsorship functions as both a symbolic and structural mechanism, demonstrating organizational endorsement and providing the authority and resources required for coaching to flourish.
This study's participants consistently described the transformative effect of visible executive sponsorship. When senior leaders modeled coaching behaviors or shared their own experiences of being coached, it normalized participation and elevated the perceived value of the program. Such leadership behavior parallels transformational leadership theory (Mansaray, 2019), which posits that change is most effectively driven by leaders who inspire, model, and empower rather than direct. Coaching aligns closely with this leadership paradigm, positioning reflection, dialogue, and learning as tools of organizational transformation.
Equally important is the integration of coaching within broader talent and performance systems. When coaching is aligned with leadership development, succession planning, and organizational learning strategies, it transitions from a remedial tool to a strategic enabler. This integration ensures that coaching outcomes contribute to measurable organizational objectives and fosters accountability. Passmore and Crabbe's (2023) LEAD framework provides a relevant model, illustrating how Leadership, Enabling Infrastructure, Accountability, and Development interact to sustain coaching cultures over time.
However, cultural barriers can impede these strategic intentions. The findings revealed that internal coaching is most effective in environments characterized by openness, trust, and curiosity (Schein, 2010). In contrast, hierarchical or risk-averse cultures can suppress participation or stigmatize coaching as a corrective measure. Addressing such barriers requires both symbolic and systemic action: communication, recognition, and leadership modeling must be supported by processes that institutionalize psychological safety. A true coaching culture extends beyond behavioral norms to encompass shared beliefs about learning, development, and interpersonal respect (Clutterbuck et al., 2016).
Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions
Theoretically, this study extends understanding of the internal coaching role by situating it within the intersection of role theory, systems thinking, and organizational ethics. It demonstrates how individual experiences of strain, boundary negotiation, and relational complexity are shaped by systemic structures and cultural norms. It thereby bridges micro-level accounts of coach–coachee interaction with macro-level organizational processes, responding to calls for more integrative models of coaching (Hawkins & Turner, 2019).
Practically, the findings provide clear guidance for organizations seeking to embed sustainable internal coaching programs. Organizations should explicitly recognize coaching as a formal role with dedicated time and defined expectations; provide ongoing supervision and reflective learning opportunities; and ensure that senior leaders actively sponsor and model coaching practices. Equally, fostering psychological safety and integrating coaching with broader talent strategies are essential steps towards cultural embedding. These actions collectively transform coaching from an episodic intervention into an organizational capability.
As with all qualitative studies, this research has limitations. The participant group was drawn from a specific organizational context, which may restrict the transferability of findings. The interpretive nature of qualitative analysis means that conclusions are shaped by the researcher's positionality as both practitioner and scholar. While reflexivity and supervisory oversight were employed to enhance rigor, complete objectivity cannot be assumed. Future research could build on these insights through longitudinal or comparative studies, exploring how internal coaching cultures evolve over time and across sectors. Further inquiry might also examine how factors such as national culture or organizational maturity influence the adoption and efficacy of internal coaching.
In sum, this study highlights that internal coaching exists within a dynamic tension between individual agency and organizational structure. The dual identity of internal coaches, their embedded ethical responsibilities, and the systemic conditions that shape their work collectively define the complexity of this professional practice. The findings reinforce that effective internal coaching cannot be achieved through individual competence alone; it depends on the alignment of strategic intent, ethical support, and cultural openness.
By demonstrating how these elements intersect, the study contributes to both theory and practice, offering organizations a roadmap for building coaching cultures that are not only operationally effective but also ethically grounded and psychologically safe.
Conclusion
This study explored the lived experiences of internal coaches, highlighting the tensions that arise from balancing dual organizational and developmental roles, as well as the systemic supports necessary for sustaining a credible coaching practice. The findings reveal that internal coaching effectiveness is shaped not only by individual skill and ethical awareness but also by the strategic and structural conditions within the organization. Visible executive sponsorship, integration with talent strategy, and the cultivation of a psychologically safe, coaching-conducive culture are pivotal for embedding and sustaining internal coaching.
Ultimately, the study underscores that internal coaching is a systemic capability rather than a discrete intervention. Building robust internal coaching requires holistic organizational commitment—uniting strategic intent, developmental infrastructure, and reflective practice—to enable coaches and organizations alike to realize their full transformative potential.
Footnotes
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.