Energy Audit Worksheet for Coaches: A Worked Guide

An energy audit worksheet for coaches helps a client notice how tasks, working conditions and recovery relate to their sense of capacity. It can reveal practical changes, such as reducing avoidable interruptions, renegotiating a workload or protecting a useful break. It is a subjective reflection, separate from a medical assessment.

Start with the question the client wants to answer. They may want to understand why a particular meeting day feels difficult or whether their planned commitments fit their available capacity. Use a short, manageable record and include conditions outside work that the client chooses to discuss.

Four areas to consider without creating a health score

These four optional lenses are prompts for this original worksheet, not separate biological reserves or a scored diagnostic model. A client can omit a lens, use their own language or add a relevant condition. The form does not reproduce a proprietary energy assessment.

1. Notice physical demands and opportunities for recovery

Ask the client to describe a few representative periods rather than scoring their whole life. What work occurred, how long did it take, and what opportunities for rest or a change of activity were available? A brief note after a demanding block may be enough.

Include relevant context the client wishes to share, such as disrupted sleep, travel, caring responsibilities, disability or an uncomfortable workspace. The coach can help plan around capacity without requiring a health history or prescribing diet, supplements, exercise or medical tests.

If the client uses a rating, define it in their own terms. A low score may mean “too tired for this planned task today,” not a specific illness or an objective measure of physiological reserves. Scores are useful only if they improve the conversation and do not become another burden.

The NHS tiredness and fatigue guidance advises seeing a GP when unexplained tiredness lasts a few weeks, affects daily life or occurs with other symptoms. Do not infer its cause from a worksheet, use a good workday to dismiss it or prescribe increased activity. Choose appropriate local healthcare support rather than waiting for a coaching experiment to finish.

2. Identify emotional demands and support

Notice interactions and conditions that require emotional effort: a difficult client conversation, ambiguity about a decision, repeated conflict or work involving other people’s distress. Record what made the situation demanding and what support was available.

A difficult feeling can be an appropriate response to a real problem. The audit should not classify anger, sadness or concern as defective energy that must be converted into positivity. Ask what the feeling signals and what response would serve the person and situation.

Useful changes may involve clearer communication agreements, time to prepare, a manageable caseload, a suitable escalation route or professional support. If the concern involves bullying or unsafe conditions, use an appropriate workplace process rather than asking the client to become more resilient indefinitely.

The UK HSE Management Standards overview identifies demands, control, support, relationships, role and change as areas of work design. This is a useful reminder to examine conditions around a person. A coaching worksheet does not replace an employer’s risk assessment or establish that a workplace is safe.

For coaches carrying substantial relational demands, the empathy fatigue guide discusses boundaries and support. A client’s willingness to talk does not remove the practitioner’s need for suitable workload and supervision arrangements.

3. Examine attention and task switching

Record a small sample of actual work. Note the main task, interruptions, uncertainty and what was completed. The aim is to understand the shape of the work rather than to prove that everyone spends too little time on a universal category called deep work.

Distinguish necessary responsiveness from avoidable interruption. A support role may genuinely require monitoring a queue; a drafting task may benefit from an agreed period with a separate urgent route. Any change to response expectations should be coordinated with the people who depend on the client.

Ask whether difficulty comes from task complexity, missing information, a crowded schedule or insufficient authority to prioritize. Blocking a longer focus period will not fix an unclear brief or a dependency that no one owns.

Choose one feasible adjustment and define its purpose. For example, an analyst might ask for the decision question before preparing a report, or a coach might group administrative tasks where that fits client commitments. Check the effect on both attention and the people affected.

4. Explore meaning and priorities in the client’s terms

Ask which parts of the current work or life arrangement feel worthwhile and why. Meaning can come from doing useful work, earning a stable income, learning, caring for others or sustaining activities outside employment. There is no requirement to identify a grand mission.

The client may value a task and still find it tiring. Likewise, a necessary administrative activity may feel uninteresting without indicating a crisis of purpose. These combinations are useful information for planning rather than proof that the person is in the wrong career.

Explore tensions between priorities and actual commitments. If the client wants more time for learning but is covering an unfilled role, the next decision may concern workload and staffing. Reframing the existing work as meaningful will not create additional hours.

Choose language that fits the client’s beliefs and preferences. Spirituality may be relevant for some people; others will prefer values, purpose or contribution. For a fuller exploration, use the values clarification exercise.

5. Build a useful demand-and-support map

Use a record with room for mixed effects. A mentoring conversation might be meaningful and tiring. A walk may be pleasant but not appropriate or accessible for every client. A binary “charger” or “drain” label can be a quick starting point, followed by the detail needed for a decision.

For each demanding activity, identify what can reasonably change: the amount, timing, preparation, environment, expectation or support. Some changes belong to the client; others require an employer, collaborator or qualified professional. Name that dependency.

Do not add ratings as though they were a bank balance where three positive activities cancel one exhausting day. The scale is subjective and conditions differ. Look for patterns worth investigating, and compare similar situations carefully.

Prioritize a small adjustment with a clear purpose. Removing one unnecessary meeting, improving a handoff or adding a suitable pause may be more workable than a complete new routine. Also identify commitments the client needs to protect.

6. Plan breaks around the work and the person

Breaks and changes of activity should fit the task, working conditions and individual needs. There is no universal rule that every person can concentrate for exactly 90 minutes or that a particular pause resets the brain. A timer can be useful as a reminder without being a biological prescription.

HSE’s guidance for display-screen work advises frequent short breaks or changes of activity and explains that timing depends on the work. It also places responsibility on employers to plan suitable work routines. The guidance is specific to its workplace context rather than a universal coaching treatment.

Choose a feasible pause with the client: step away from a task, change position comfortably, get a drink if wanted or take another suitable break. Avoid assuming that deep breathing, movement or closing the eyes is helpful or accessible for everyone.

Review whether the planned routine is actually possible. If meetings are scheduled back to back, a break may require changing the calendar. If a worker cannot leave their station without cover, the staffing arrangement needs attention. A personal reminder alone cannot solve those constraints.

A copyable energy audit worksheet

Choose a manageable sample that includes the kinds of days the client wants to understand. A few selected periods can be more useful than a compulsory seven-day diary. Keep sensitive health and third-party information proportionate.

Agree a small sample and a decision before collecting data

Choose a sample for a question, not a compulsory tracking streak. A client concerned about one weekly meeting sequence could record those periods on two ordinary Wednesdays. Another may need a different sample. Agree what will happen if a period is missed: leave it missing, record the reason if useful and decide whether another observation is worth the effort.

Define any rating in the client’s words. For example, “I can do the planned draft without additional support,” “I need a smaller task or support” and “I need to pause and reassess” describe different decisions. They are not equal numerical units to average, and they should not be compared with a colleague’s answers. A plain narrative is sufficient.

Ask permission before collecting another person’s name, message or health information. The client can keep the detailed record in an approved work location and share a selected account. If a sponsor wants an update, agree its wording, purpose and audience separately. Permission to receive a progress summary is not permission to receive every private reflection.

Worked example: complete the record before choosing a fix

The following is a fictional coaching example, not a measured customer result. Operations lead Maya and coach Ellis agree to examine a Wednesday meeting sequence. Maya wants to finish her ordinary status draft within the paid working day. She initially calls the problem “bad energy management,” but the audit will test work arrangements rather than diagnose her capacity.

On Wednesday 3 May 2028, using her local office time throughout this example, she has three 45-minute meetings: 09:00–09:45, 10:00–10:45 and 11:00–11:45. The two 15-minute gaps are used for existing messages and notes, so she does not describe them as actual rest. She chairs the first meeting; other organizers control the next two. Lunch and other duties are outside this selected observation.

At 14:00 Maya plans a 45-minute status draft. Two missing inputs block the relevant sections, and she spends the block clarifying requests. She works on the draft again for 35 minutes after her scheduled finish. These are reported observations, not proof that meetings caused her fatigue or that every minute would disappear under a different routine.

Ellis asks, “If the rating improved but neither missing input arrived, what would you know?” Maya replies, “That I felt different. I would not know the work was ready.” They keep two kinds of evidence: her experience, and the actual work conditions. Neither is used as a substitute for the other.

Run the first trial and keep its failure visible

At the next observed meeting on 10 May, Maya uses the final five minutes of its existing 45-minute slot; the meeting is not lengthened to 50 minutes. She writes two names beside the missing inputs but does not ask either person to accept. The note looks clearer. It still contains two unagreed requests.

At 14:00 neither input is available. Maya records the same experience category and 30 minutes of additional drafting after her scheduled finish. The original plan has not delivered an accepted handoff. Ellis does not report that writing names “assigned accountability,” nor use the five-minute reduction in late work as proof the technique worked.

During their next discussion Maya notices that she assumed a colleague’s presence meant consent. She chooses a repair: ask about the actual contribution, cutoff and authority. She also decides against moving everyone’s next meeting to create a break without their agreement. Improving her own calendar cannot silently transfer work or inconvenience to someone else.

Maya’s revised closing prompt: “Here are the two inputs I need for the status draft. Is either within your role and available time? Please say yes, no or what smaller contribution you can offer. If we cannot confirm an owner and cutoff, I will record the item as unresolved and ask our manager to choose the priority.”

This is a request, not a script for extracting agreement. A refusal may reveal a staffing, access or priority issue the client cannot solve alone. The useful result can be a clear unresolved item and an appropriate escalation rather than a reluctant promise.

Repair the receiving agreement and review the actual outcome

In the 17 May meeting, a colleague accepts supplying the first input by 12:00 that day. The second says they can supply a short current summary, not the requested full analysis. Maya takes that distinction to manager Rowan rather than presenting the smaller offer as the original work completed.

Rowan reads the short request and replies at 10:30: the current summary is sufficient for this status draft, and the full analysis can wait for a separately agreed plan. Maya reads the answer and confirms the narrower requirement to the colleague. The colleague accepts a 12:30 cutoff and sends the summary at 12:15. Maya reads it and checks that it answers the revised requirement.

The first input arrives at 11:50 and Maya also checks it. At 14:00 both inputs needed for the now-narrower draft are available. Her 45-minute block produces the draft by 14:45. She reports no additional work on that draft after her scheduled finish and uses “I can do the planned draft without additional support” for that period.

That result is useful, with an important qualification: the work requirement changed. Maya did not complete the previously requested full analysis. It remains open with Rowan, and no unagreed future deadline is added. A comparison that hides this change would overstate the effect of meeting structure.

The late-drafting observations total 65 minutes across three selected days. They are not a weekly saving, an average of all work or a controlled estimate of the change’s effect. The record contains no observation of other Wednesdays, no unchanged workload comparison and no measure of biological energy. Missing wider context stays missing.

Maya’s complete selected update to Ellis says: “The first closing trial named people without acceptance and did not provide the inputs. The later trial included real replies and Rowan’s narrower requirement. I completed that draft in the planned block and reported no late drafting that day. The full analysis remains open. I want to keep the receiving check and stop detailed tracking for now.”

Ellis reads it and returns: “Keep the distinction between a clearer handoff and the smaller requirement. The later result is useful, and the first trial remains unsuccessful. What needs Rowan’s decision before another analysis commitment is made?” Maya reads the comment and replies that Rowan still needs to agree the scope and resourcing. Ellis reads that reply; no new analysis deadline or commitment is inferred.

Use different routes when the problem is not a handoff

Imagine a second client, Leon, whose notes show tiredness across workdays and days away from work. He says it has lasted several weeks and is affecting ordinary life. The coach does not ask for another observation week to prove it is not a scheduling problem. They encourage appropriate healthcare advice and ask what practical support Leon wants while he seeks it.

No diagnosis, exercise prescription or test recommendation is made. Leon can choose not to put symptoms in the coaching worksheet, and medical details need not be sent to a sponsor. If he wants help preparing a nonmedical workload request, that can remain a separate coaching task within his preferences and the coach’s competence.

Another client may report an abusive interaction or an unsafe workload. A better break timer is not an adequate response to that condition. Discuss the appropriate workplace or professional route, acknowledge limits in the coach’s role and avoid promising that reporting will produce a particular outcome. Keep responsibility with the people authorized to address the issue.

Organize observations and actions in Coachful

Coachful is our #1 recommendation for organizing this agreed reflection and follow-up workflow. This is our editorial recommendation for that use, not an independent market ranking or a claim that software treats fatigue. Prepare the original short worksheet, explain the authorized response audience and let the client omit personal context they do not want recorded.

Use a clearly named task for an accepted next action, such as asking Rowan to confirm a requirement. A tick on that task does not prove that the employer accepted the request, the draft met its quality conditions or the client’s fatigue resolved. Keep those actual responses and observations explicit.

Coach review is private to the authorized coach team, so saving a review is not itself the returned feedback. Ellis manually sends the actual comment through Maya’s private client conversation. The workplace detail stays in its approved system; only Maya’s selected generic account is shared for this discussion.

Select accepted work-design changes or support requests for goals or tasks. Review the actual experience rather than automatically treating a higher rating as success. Explore Coachful’s features for organizing preparation, resources and follow-up.

Frequently asked questions

Is an energy audit a health assessment?

This worksheet is a subjective reflection on demands, conditions and support. It does not measure biological energy, identify illness or replace healthcare advice.

How often should a client complete it?

Use it when it answers a relevant question, with a manageable sample and agreed review. There is no requirement for daily tracking or a quarterly schedule.

Should every draining activity be removed?

No. Some demanding activities are necessary or meaningful. Consider appropriate support, timing, recovery and workload rather than treating tiredness as evidence that an activity is wrong.

What if fatigue continues despite changes?

Encourage appropriate healthcare advice, especially when fatigue is unexplained, persistent or affects daily life. Do not prescribe a diagnosis or testing plan from a coaching score.

Sources: NHS tiredness guidance informs the healthcare boundary. HSE’s work-design overview and display-screen work routine guidance inform the limited workplace discussion. The worksheet, dialogue, trial and contrasting examples are original coaching material, not a validated assessment or formal workplace risk review.