CLEAR Coaching Model Template: Five Stages and an Example

A CLEAR coaching model template organizes a conversation around Contracting, Listening, Exploring, Action, and Review. Associated with Peter Hawkins, the framework makes the working agreement and reflection on the coaching process visible alongside the client’s chosen action.

This guide develops all five stages with original prompts, a forty-five-minute planning option, a complete fictional session, and a copyable worksheet. Use it flexibly. The model does not require a particular emotional disclosure or prove that one coaching framework produces deeper change than another.

Understand what the model does before using the worksheet

Hawkins’s own resources include teaching on the CLEAR model. The Centre for Excellence in Therapeutic Care’s 2022 staff-coaching guide also describes its five stages in a specific professional setting. That implementation does not authorize a general coach to deliver therapeutic care or establish that every application has the same evidence.

Here, CLEAR is a structure for an appropriately agreed coaching conversation. The prompts and worksheet are original examples, not copied training materials or an official certification exercise. Choose them according to the client’s purpose and your competence.

Contracting and review can recur as the conversation changes. A new question, an important limit, or an unhelpful approach may require a fresh agreement rather than a move to the next box.

Hawkins's current Renewal Associates recordings page lists his teaching on using CLEAR transformationally. That listing supports attribution; it is not a comparative trial or evidence that every client needs transformational work. The CETC guide is directed to Therapeutic Specialists and Supervisors developing staff practice. Its context should remain visible when a general coach borrows a conversation structure rather than that professional role.

The distinction matters when using the original consultant example below. Marta wants a workable response to a customer's expanding request. Her coach, Isha, can help her examine the conversation and rehearse wording. Isha cannot determine the legal meaning of disputed correspondence, authorize the customer's procurement or resolve every workload constraint by choosing different questions.

The five CLEAR stages at a glance

C: Contract the purpose, role, and way of working

Ask what the client wants to address and what would make the session useful. Check the available time, any access needs, privacy, and whether the proposed topic fits the engagement. A preparation answer can be a starting point, but it may no longer be the priority.

Discuss how you will work together. The client might want room to think, a practical comparison, a rehearsal, or a tentative observation. Agreement to challenge an idea is not permission to provoke, humiliate, or push beyond competence.

A session agreement is distinct from the overall service contract. Reconfirming the focus does not replace clear terms about fees, confidentiality limits, records, sharing, and termination. Nor does a signed agreement guarantee psychological safety.

Two original prompts are: “Which question would you like this conversation to help you examine?” and “How should we handle it if the focus or approach stops being useful?” The session agenda guide gives timing options for a client-chosen purpose.

Extend the example through a future-dated fictional session on 9 November 2026. Marta agrees to forty-five minutes of private professional-development coaching, followed by an included fifteen-minute return conversation the next day. She declines recording and uploading the customer's contract. Isha accepts a short permitted description and checks that no customer or sponsor will receive the private notes. All case times are UTC.

At Contracting, Marta chooses a practical scope discussion and asks to avoid speculation about her personal history. Isha initially wants to explore a fear of disappointing authority. Marta says that is not her question. They agree to examine the current request, available time and wording instead. Recontracting changes the work while retaining the client's purpose; it does not make declining emotional exploration a failure to engage.

L: Listen to the account and check what you understood

Give attention to what the client says and the context they consider important. A short summary can check understanding without deciding what the client really feels. For example: “You want to keep a good working relationship, and you are uncertain whether the additional work fits the agreement. Is that accurate?”

Let the client correct the emphasis. They may care more about capacity than approval, or about a missing decision rather than fear. A useful correction changes where the conversation goes.

Voice, movement, expression, and silence can have many meanings. If you notice something relevant, offer the observation tentatively and ask whether it matters. Do not diagnose distress, resistance, dishonesty, or a hidden issue from posture or a change in pace.

Two original prompts are: “Which part of that would you most like me to understand?” and “What have I missed or put too much emphasis on?” Accessible alternatives can include written prompts, processing time, captions, or a different communication format.

At Listening, Marta corrects the same emphasis described in the complete example: preserving the relationship matters, but the immediate constraint is capacity. She has fourteen hours available for customer delivery that week, ten already committed and eight newly requested. Eighteen hours of proposed work exceed fourteen by four. Those are Marta's planning estimates, not the coach's verified time study or a legal interpretation of what she owes.

Isha's first summary says the customer is exploiting Marta's reluctance to refuse. Marta rejects it. The customer may not know the conflicting deadline, and Marta's own message, 'I will look at this this week,' was ambiguous. She accepts responsibility for clarifying what she meant, while declining Isha's account of the customer's motives. Listening includes that valid criticism of Marta's communication.

E: Explore context and possibilities without imposing a hidden cause

Use the client’s account to examine what is known, what remains uncertain, and what options are available. Feelings and assumptions may be relevant, but practical resources, power, responsibilities, and organizational conditions matter too.

A tentative observation can help when the client wants it. “I wonder whether we are treating those as only two options” offers something to examine. “Your childhood need for approval is creating this problem” supplies a cause the coach has not established.

Avoid ranking this stage as deeper than another model’s Reality stage. Different frameworks can support thoughtful inquiry. The quality of attention and the fit with the client’s work matter more than a claim that CLEAR necessarily produces emotional or cultural transformation.

Two original prompts are: “What else would you need to understand before choosing?” and “Which part of the situation could be approached differently within your actual role?” The question-selection guide develops inquiry that leaves room to reject the premise.

Exploring stays with options rather than forcing a hidden explanation. If the customer can remove four hours of existing work, ten minus four plus eight would fit fourteen. Alternatively, a four-hour part of the new request could fit alongside the existing ten. Neither option is accepted merely because the arithmetic works. The customer must decide whether the resulting work is useful, and Marta must decide whether she can agree the change within the relevant process.

When Isha starts asking repeated hypothetical questions, Marta says she needs a rehearsal rather than more possible scenarios. Isha stops, checks the request and uses the remaining Exploring time for the practical comparison. The adjustment stays inside the fifteen-minute allocation, not a second uncounted conversation. No childhood account, diagnostic label or presumption about silence is needed to continue.

A: Choose an appropriate action or inquiry

Invite the client to decide what follows. An experiment can be useful if the question, scope, permissions, risks, and review are clear. Calling something a small trial does not make it harmless or authorize action affecting other people.

A next step might be gathering information, seeking qualified advice, rehearsing a request, changing a routine, or deciding to wait. The coach should not impose a workplace intervention because the template has reached Action.

For a chosen trial, specify what will happen, who has agreed, what support is needed, and when to review. Identify reasons to stop or change it. A tentative result can guide the next decision without proving a general psychological theory.

Two original prompts are: “What action or inquiry would serve the purpose you chose?” and “What needs to be in place before you take that step?” Keep the wording in the client’s own language rather than convert an uncertain option into a firm promise.

For Action, Marta chooses to ask the customer's decision-maker, Leon, about priorities before promising eight extra hours. She will clarify the ambiguous earlier email and describe the four-hour capacity gap. She declines Isha's suggestion to copy the coach into that exchange. Isha has no role in negotiating the customer's decision and does not contact Leon.

The original next step is an information request, not an accepted extension. Marta can ask for clarification while continuing the existing work she understands to be agreed. If Leon disputes the terms, she can take that question to a qualified adviser through an appropriate route. The CLEAR sheet does not adjudicate their contract or replace the parties' own change process.

R: Review the outcome and the coaching process

Invite the client to identify what they learned and whether the session served its purpose. A useful result can be a clearer question or recognition that a different professional role is needed. It need not be an emotional breakthrough.

Also ask about the process. The client can say that a question was confusing, a summary missed something, or a different pace would help. Feedback is information for adapting the work, not a required positive testimonial.

Check any next steps and distinguish the client’s chosen action from the coach’s own promise. Confirm what should be recorded or shared and any follow-up window. A recap should not make an unresolved question appear settled.

Two original prompts are: “Which part of the conversation helped, and which part should we handle differently?” and “What do you want to carry forward, including anything that remains undecided?”

At Review, Marta says the arithmetic and rehearsal were useful but the motive labels and hypothetical questions were not. Isha accepts that feedback and records the change in approach. Marta does not agree to a testimonial or another package. Completing all five stages is not a requirement to report satisfaction, and Marta can retain a disagreement about part of the coaching.

CETC's guide distinguishes reviewing the current conversation from later review of actions that have been tried. In this example, the forty-five-minute session cannot establish how Leon will respond. Its finite output is Marta's chosen question, a checked capacity comparison and feedback about the process. The included next-day conversation has a separate purpose: reviewing the actual reply and correcting the handoff record.

An optional forty-five-minute CLEAR session plan

The allocation totals forty-five minutes: 5 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 5. It includes questions, listening, and transitions within the stages. Use another balance if the work needs it, and revisit the focus rather than rush someone to a commitment.

Complete example: a consultant clarifies an expanding request

In this original fictional example, Marta wants to decide how to respond when a customer asks for work beyond what Marta believes was agreed. The coach has an appropriate professional-development role and does not provide legal interpretation of the contract.

Contracting: Marta chooses to prepare a clear scope conversation. She wants to preserve the working relationship while understanding what is being requested. The coach agrees to help examine options rather than decide whether the customer is acting badly.

Listening: Marta explains the request and her concern about appearing unhelpful. The coach summarizes, and Marta corrects the emphasis: the larger issue is that the extra work would delay another commitment.

Exploring: They distinguish the customer’s request from an accepted change. Marta identifies missing information about urgency, priorities, and what can be removed if the new work is included. She may need qualified legal advice if the actual terms are disputed.

Action: Marta chooses to ask for a short scope discussion with the decision-maker. Her draft lists the requested addition, the effect on the current plan, and a request to compare feasible options. She does not promise the work before that conversation.

Review: Marta says the useful distinction was between receiving a request and accepting a new commitment. She asks for fewer hypothetical questions next time and more time to rehearse the wording. The coach records that feedback and the chosen next step.

The example shows a complete use of the five stages. Marta can use the customer’s answer to decide whether the scope, timing, or support needs another discussion.

At 09:00 on 10 November Marta sends her own clarification to Leon. At 10:30 he replies that he cannot drop the existing milestone and does not want the smaller four-hour addition. He agrees to park the new request pending procurement review. At 10:45 Marta tells Isha the outcome in her own words. Marta confirms that she is continuing the existing ten-hour work. The new eight-hour request has not become an accepted change, and a later procurement decision remains unknown.

That reply rules out two neat planning options. Marta has four unallocated delivery hours in her own estimate, but Leon's rejection does not turn them into a useful deliverable he has bought. Isha initially calls the reply an approved extension in the private summary. Marta corrects it: the new request was parked, not authorized. The recorded outcome must change rather than use the model's Action stage as evidence that new work was sold.

Copyable CLEAR planning and review sheet

• Contracting: Today’s focus, useful outcome, role, time, and any adjustment needed.
• Listening: The client’s account, what matters to them, and a summary to check.
• Exploring: Known information, interpretations, uncertainties, context, and options.
• Action: The client’s chosen step or inquiry, permissions, resources, and dependencies.
• Review: Learning, process feedback, accurate commitments, and the next review.

Use concise, relevant notes. A template does not require collecting private history, diagnosing a pattern, or recording every detail of the conversation. If the client wants a different format, adapt it.

Isha promised the private summary by 9 November at 17:00 but sends it at 11:00 on 10 November, eighteen elapsed hours late. Marta reads it at noon and identifies the approved-extension error. Isha apologizes for both the delay and the unsupported conclusion, returns the corrected version at 13:00, and Marta confirms readable receipt at 14:00. Her receipt and factual correction are not permission to circulate the record to Leon.

The fifteen-minute return conversation at 15:00 reviews the actual reply and the corrected record. Marta receives her agreed take-home copy by 16:00. Purchased coaching ends at 17:00 that day, while portal access is separately scheduled to end on 17 November at 17:00. Isha owns checking the actual access arrangement then. No future revocation or permanent access is claimed at the 10 November close.

Adapt CLEAR for teams only with an appropriate agreement

A team conversation involves more than applying the individual worksheet to several people. Clarify who the client is, the purpose, participation, sponsor role, authority, confidentiality limits, and what information may be shared.

A leader’s request does not automatically authorize disclosure of each participant’s private preparation. Different perspectives and power relationships may affect whether the proposed format is suitable. Team coaching also requires the relevant competence.

Use a separate, explicit design when needed. Do not promise that a model establishes safety, equal influence, or a shared decision just because all five letters appear in the agenda.

Marta declines converting this work into a joint customer meeting. The individual session agreement would not authorize inviting Leon, exposing Marta's private preparation or treating her customer as another coaching client. A team or multi-party proposal would require its own purpose, roles, participation and information arrangements; no such service is accepted in this case.

Isha planned twenty-five preparation minutes, forty-five live, fifteen reporting and fifteen for the return conversation: 100 selected provider minutes. Actual work takes thirty preparation, forty-five live, twenty reporting, ten correction and fifteen return, totaling 120. Sixty client-live-only minutes are nested within that total. The twenty-minute overrun includes Isha's repair; it is not a measure of Marta's business workload or an automatic extra charge.

Organize original CLEAR preparation in Coachful

Coachful is our #1 recommendation for connecting chosen preparation, agreed actions and review records. We build Coachful, so this is a maker’s recommendation. Retain qualified advice and specialist systems when the purpose requires them. An uploaded signed agreement is a filed record, not proof that every later session focus or scope change has been legally accepted.

Use an original form or worksheet for relevant preparation and review the answers before assuming the focus. Describe it as your adaptation rather than an official licensed Hawkins resource or a diagnostic assessment.

Check recipients, actual access, notifications, downloads, and sharing before collecting personal or workplace information. After the session, deliberately select agreed tasks or goals; a reflection answer is not automatically every action.

When a summary or transcript is available, check effective recap sharing and approval, including the relevant session-type override, before sharing. Distinguish owner-private journal writing from intentionally shared pages and submitted answers, checking actual controls and permissions. Keep coach promises distinct from client commitments and agree the response window for follow-up. Explore Coachful’s coaching features for preparation, appropriate records, and review.

At the close Marta has a corrected private record, a received answer from Leon and a clear decision not to accept the added work yet. Leon owns the proposed procurement review on 12 November; its result is unknown. Marta can handle that reply independently or seek suitable advice if needed. Isha's later access check remains her own responsibility, and neither an unaccepted new package nor an indefinite coaching follow-up is implied.

Frequently asked questions

Who is associated with the CLEAR model?

The framework is associated with Peter Hawkins. His resources include teaching on its use, and published professional guides describe its five stages.

Is CLEAR better than GROW?

There is no basis here for a universal ranking. They organize conversations differently; choose an approach that fits the purpose, client, competence, and agreement.

Must every session include deep emotional work?

No. Explore what is relevant and wanted within scope. A practical distinction, decision, or information request can be a useful outcome.

Can the client criticize the coaching process at Review?

Yes. Invite honest feedback about what helped or should change. A positive comment is not required to complete the session.

Does contracting mean signing a new legal agreement each call?

No. A session agreement clarifies the current purpose and approach. It sits alongside, and does not replace, appropriate overall service terms and information arrangements.

Use CLEAR to keep the agreement, attention, choices, and review visible. The template should adapt to the client’s work and feedback throughout the conversation.

Primary context: Peter Hawkins’s Renewal Associates resources on using CLEAR; Macnamara (2022), A Model for Coaching Staff in Therapeutic Care, Centre for Excellence in Therapeutic Care, for its bounded professional implementation. The prompts, timing, worksheet, and consultant example here are original general coaching applications, not a therapeutic-care protocol.