Frankl in Coaching: Freedom and Responsibility
Nour
Founder, Coachful
Existential coaching can explore freedom and responsibility through Frankl’s work without pretending that a person controls every condition. The useful inquiry is specific: what response is available, what does it commit the person to, and whose decisions or resources are still needed?
This guide develops those distinctions through a completed fictional service-closing case. The leader requests a change, receives a refusal, makes a communication error and repairs it. The outcome remains painful. Responsible conduct does not require describing the loss as beneficial.
Start with Frankl’s meaning of freedom
Frankl developed logotherapy and existential analysis as a therapeutic approach with philosophical foundations. Drawing on its ideas in coaching does not turn a coaching appointment into logotherapy or qualify a coach to use clinical treatment techniques.
Alexander Batthyány’s account for the Viktor Frankl Institute describes freedom as the possibility of taking a position toward internal and external conditions within the possibilities actually available. It connects freedom of will with a will to meaning and meaning in the particular situation.
This is a philosophical account of the person, rather than a claim that every practical option is equally accessible. The same account includes a spiritual dimension and treats meaning as something to discover, not an arbitrary story supplied by a practitioner. A client need not adopt that worldview to discuss a workplace choice.
Keep the distinction concrete. A leader may be unable to reverse a funded decision yet able to request reconsideration, obtain accurate information or change their own communication. A person with little formal power may need support before even those actions become feasible.
The related Frankl-informed meaning guide develops meaning and its possible avenues more fully. Here the emphasis is on the connection between an available choice and its responsibilities.
Responsibility gives a choice direction
In Man’s Search for Meaning, Frankl connects freedom with responsibleness. Freedom alone can become arbitrary unless it is directed toward something for which the person answers. He also leaves the person to decide what or whom they understand themselves to be responsible to, rather than transferring that judgment to the therapist.
For coaching, an original practical question follows: “If you choose this response, what will you actually undertake, and who will be affected?” This is more useful than asking whether an option feels sufficiently authentic.
A leader might value honesty but lack permission to release a colleague’s confidential information. They might value care but be unable to promise another department’s time. A personal commitment does not create authority over someone else.
Separate responsibility for conduct from responsibility for every outcome. A client can own a misleading statement they made without owning an organization’s funding decision, another person’s refusal or all the distress caused by a closure.
Distinguish a constraint from an untested assumption
“I cannot change it” may describe a confirmed condition, a likely refusal or a request the client has not yet made. Do not treat these as interchangeable. Ask what establishes the condition, who owns it and whether there is an appropriate way to clarify it.
Equally, do not insist that every limit is merely a belief. Contractual restrictions, financial dependence, health needs, care responsibilities and unequal power can sharply restrict available action. Acknowledging them is part of understanding the choice.
The HSE Management Standard on role emphasizes clear, compatible responsibilities and routes for raising uncertainty or conflict. Its demands standard addresses achievable work in relation to agreed hours. These work-design concerns do not disappear when a client explores their attitude.
One useful distinction is between making a request and controlling its answer. The client can sometimes ask for a different arrangement, but a request is not an agreement. A refusal may change the available options without settling whether the original policy was fair or wise.
Do not make suffering the entry price for meaning
Frankl explicitly distinguishes unavoidable suffering from a cause that can be removed. In Man’s Search for Meaning, he says suffering is not necessary for meaning. In the later discussion of tragic optimism, he also rejects commanding optimism.
A coaching application should therefore leave room for changing conditions, seeking assistance and saying that something hurts. Do not ask the client to become grateful for a harmful situation before supporting them.
Nor should ordinary organizational difficulty be casually compared with Frankl’s experiences of Nazi persecution and concentration camps. His historical and therapeutic context deserves accurate treatment. A workplace question does not need an inspirational quotation or a claim that suffering creates better leaders.
Use the client’s language about what matters. They may find a meaningful action, reject that vocabulary, or simply want help making the next accurate statement. None of those responses requires the coach to rank their moral development.
A complete fictional case: ending a valued service
Adi coordinates a free Friday digital-help desk at a community learning organization. Vi is the director, Noor owns operational arrangements, and Els is Adi’s coach. All names, service details and events below are invented.
The organization has decided that the last drop-in will be on 27 November 2026. Adi will communicate the arrangements to participants. Els and Adi have three coaching sessions on 2, 16 and 30 November. Els will support reflection and preparation, not determine employment, legal or service obligations.
Find the actual decision and the client’s purpose
On 2 November, Adi says, “If I were responsible, I would save it. If I tell people it is ending, I have chosen to let them down.” Els asks what Adi wants from the session before discussing Frankl’s ideas.
Adi: I want to check whether I can change the date and, if I cannot, tell people the truth without abandoning their questions.
Els: Which part can you decide, and which part requires someone else’s answer?
Adi: I can request an extension. Vi decides the date and funding. I can prepare the message, but Noor must confirm the operational details.
Els initially offers, “Perhaps you can turn this loss into a positive legacy.” Adi rejects that interpretation: “I do not think the closure is positive. I want people to have accurate information.” Els withdraws the suggestion and keeps Adi’s stated purpose.
That correction is part of the work. The coach does not need the client to find the preferred meaning before they can proceed.
Make the request rather than declare the condition inevitable
Adi sends Vi a written request on 3 November to continue for two more Fridays, 4 and 11 December. The request explains the participant need and asks what would have to change. It does not tell participants that an extension is likely.
Vi replies on 4 November, declines the extension and confirms that the room allocation and funded service period end with the 27 November session. Adi asks whether a different room is within the existing plan. Vi confirms that no funded alternative has been authorized.
The extension is now a request that was considered and refused, rather than an option never investigated. Adi remains unhappy and disagrees with the decision. The coaching does not require agreement with Vi’s reasoning.
Adi chooses to complete the communication within their assigned role. They do not promise to run an unpaid replacement or assume another employee will absorb it. Future advocacy for a different service would require its own decision and resources.
Translate care into an accurate commitment
On 5 November, Adi asks Noor what information can be provided, who will answer questions and how participants should send them. Noor confirms the existing service email route, which Adi can read, and agrees to own operational questions that Adi cannot answer.
Noor does not agree to individual handover appointments. Despite that, Adi’s draft message says, “Everyone will receive an individual handover before the service closes.” Adi sends it to the existing participant list on 6 November before noticing that the assurance exceeds the confirmed arrangement.
This is a real error in the fictional case, not merely a bad sentence caught in a rehearsal. Two participants reply asking when their appointments will be. Good intentions did not make the promise accurate.
Adi contacts Noor that afternoon. Noor confirms that the appointments cannot be provided and agrees the correction: a written closing information sheet, the final scheduled drop-ins and questions through the service email. No external organization has agreed to take over participants’ individual cases.
Adi sends this original correction to the same recipient list:
I said that everyone would receive an individual handover. That was incorrect, and I am sorry. No individual handover appointments have been arranged.
The final scheduled Friday drop-in is 27 November. We will provide a written closing information sheet, and you can send questions through this existing service email conversation. I will send a reply or an update on an unresolved question by 17:00 on 18 November, in Europe/London time.
Noor is responsible for operational questions that I cannot answer. We cannot promise that another organization will take over your case. Please do not send passwords or other sensitive account details with your question.
Both participants who requested appointments reply and acknowledge the correction. One says it has disrupted their planning. Adi acknowledges that consequence rather than asking them to appreciate the effort or retract the criticism.
Complete the information work, including unanswered questions
Adi and Noor prepare the closing sheet on 10 November. It states the final session date, the existing email route, the response commitment and the absence of an arranged case-transfer service. Noor checks and approves the operational wording before Adi sends it.
At the 16 November coaching session, Adi wants to describe the situation as “everyone has support.” Els asks what the actual record establishes. Adi changes that to “people have received the service information; their individual next arrangements differ.”
The service inbox contains eleven participant questions by the agreed review point. Adi answers six about confirmed dates and the closing arrangements. Noor supplies answers to three operational questions. Two requests for ongoing help cannot yet be resolved because no receiving service has agreed to take them.
By 17:00 on 18 November, Adi has sent nine substantive answers and two updates explaining the unresolved position. Each update states that an individual transfer is not arranged. Sending an update meets the promised response condition; it does not count as resolving the underlying need.
| Question state on 18 November | Count | What can honestly be claimed |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmed service facts answered by Adi | 6 | An answer was sent |
| Operational answers supplied by Noor and sent by Adi | 3 | An answer was sent after the owner confirmed it |
| Ongoing-help requests still unresolved | 2 | An accurate update was sent; a transfer was not arranged |
| Total questions | 11 | Nine answered plus two unresolved, all with a response or update |
The nine answers are not evidence that nine people have a suitable replacement service, and eleven sent messages are not eleven verified receipts. The record contains the two earlier acknowledgments of the correction; it does not assume every recipient read every later message.
Close the service while keeping the remaining duty visible
The final drop-in takes place on 27 November. At the 30 November coaching review, Adi still regrets the closure. The two ongoing-help requests remain unresolved. Noor confirms that the service inbox will remain monitored by Noor through 11 December, with Adi’s responsibility for that monitoring ending after the agreed closing handover.
Adi sends each of those two participants a final case-status update on 30 November naming Noor as the continuing contact through 11 December and repeating that no individual transfer is arranged. Noor accepts the actual handover record that day. Neither participant’s receipt of this last update is observed in the case.
Adi also gives Noor the eleven-question ledger, including the original misleading message, its correction and the remaining two requests. They do not mark those two resolved merely because ownership has changed.
Adi’s final coaching summary is deliberately limited: “I could not reverse the date. I did request a change, corrected a promise I should not have made, and handed over the unresolved questions to an owner who accepted them. I still think the ending leaves a gap.” Els uses that wording, and the three-session coaching engagement closes.
No later replacement service, resolution of the two requests or change in Adi’s feelings is claimed. The continuing organizational work is real, while the coaching service has ended.
Use a freedom-and-responsibility record
The following original record captures the case’s actual distinctions. It is a coaching aid, not a diagnostic instrument or a substitute for a governing policy.
| Question | Completed entry |
|---|---|
| What is established? | 27 November final drop-in, confirmed by Vi after considering the extension request |
| What remains possible? | Accurate information, questions through the existing email route and an accepted closing handover |
| What matters to me? | People receive the truth without an invented assurance of replacement support |
| What is mine? | My statements, requests, correction and agreed information work |
| What is another person’s responsibility? | Vi owns service authorization; Noor owns confirmed operations and the accepted remaining inbox work |
| What did I get wrong? | I promised individual appointments that had not been arranged |
| What repair actually occurred? | Correction sent; two appointment requesters acknowledged it; criticism retained |
| What is incomplete? | Two ongoing-help requests, later receipts and future service arrangements |
For a blank version, keep the questions and replace every entry with the client’s actual situation. If a field is unknown, write that. “Other department will handle it” is not a completed responsibility entry until the relevant person has accepted what handling it means.
The absent-but-implicit guide offers a different way to explore what a person values in a difficulty. Keep the traditions distinct and let the client decide whether either inquiry is useful.
Explore staying, leaving and refusing without a preferred answer
A different fictional client considers resigning from a role they find ethically uncomfortable. They have dependants and no confirmed alternative income. Calling immediate resignation courageous and temporary staying cowardly would narrow the conversation before the circumstances are understood.
Ask what the client knows, what needs qualified advice and what each option would require. They might investigate an internal concern route, seek employment advice, build a transition plan or remain temporarily while deciding. These are possibilities to examine, not instructions or promised rights in every jurisdiction.
Responsibility to other people also needs limits. A person can care about colleagues without accepting indefinite availability or taking over management’s staffing obligations. Conversely, deciding to leave may still require an honest account of existing commitments and an appropriate handover.
The useful choice might be asking one confidential question through an appropriate route. Its modest size does not make it less worthy of coaching. Do not prescribe dramatic action to make a philosophical conversation feel important.
Prepare the conversation and review its consequences
- Agree the question. Ask whether the client wants to explore a choice, prepare communication or first have a difficult reality acknowledged.
- Establish the conditions. Identify confirmed facts, untested assumptions, missing information and decisions belonging to others.
- Ask what matters in this situation. Let the client reject a proposed meaning, including an apparently positive one.
- Make the undertaking explicit. Name the action, audience, promised timing, needed authorization and relevant support.
- Check consequences and consent. Do not volunteer another person’s time, confidential information or resources.
- Review actual conduct. Compare promises with what happened, acknowledge harm and keep unresolved work visible.
The ICF Code of Ethics addresses roles, agreements, confidentiality, power and competence. Philosophical inspiration does not remove those professional responsibilities or authorize clinical work.
Keep reflection and practical follow-through in Coachful
Coachful is our #1 recommendation for organizing the client’s chosen reflection, next action and agreed review. The software does not determine what a meaningful life is, interpret an employment obligation or certify that a third party accepted responsibility.
An authorized coach can assign the original record through Clients > the client > Worksheets & resources > Assign. Copying a private resource link alone does not assign access. Explain that submitted answers enter the authorized coaching-team workflow and keep organizational records in their appropriate approved location.
Personal journal and takeaway pages remain private while unshared. If an enabled Share with coach control is available, the client can intentionally share that particular page. The client can instead bring a short chosen summary to a session. Check workspace and session-type automatic recap controls before discussing sensitive material.
A form’s Coach review is private to the coach team and excluded from the client response PDF. Saving that review is not delivery of feedback. Adi and Els used the three booked sessions as their actual feedback route; there was no extra promise to monitor Adi’s service inbox.
The demo form builder illustrates structured reflection, not a test of freedom or moral character. Explore Coachful’s features for the actual preparation and follow-through tools.
Troubleshoot difficult points without moral pressure
The client says there is no meaningful response. Do not argue them into a purpose statement. Clarify whether acknowledgment, practical support or another service would be more useful now.
The client takes responsibility for someone else’s decision. Ask what they actually controlled, what they undertook and which other roles remain accountable. Avoid replacing excessive blame with a claim that their conduct has no consequences.
The coach prefers a particular moral answer. Notice the pressure and reopen the client’s choice. Supervision or appropriate professional guidance may help when the coach cannot maintain the agreed role.
The need exceeds coaching. Qualified clinical, legal, employment or other specialist help may be appropriate. Do not present meaning or attitude as treatment or as a substitute for the relevant process.
Frequently asked questions
Does freedom mean that a client can choose every circumstance?
No. Examine actual possibilities and constraints. Adi could request an extension but could not approve it, and a refused request did not become a positive outcome.
Is responsibility the same as blaming the client?
No. Adi owned a misleading promise and its correction. The organization retained responsibility for its service decision and future arrangements.
Must the client find meaning in suffering?
Do not impose that requirement. A client can seek change, support or accurate acknowledgment without calling a painful experience beneficial.
Is this a logotherapy protocol?
No. It is an original coaching inquiry informed by accurately attributed ideas. Clinical logotherapy requires its own appropriate competence, role and context.
What shows that the coaching helped?
Use the actual agreed purpose and observed conduct. In this case, a request, correction and accepted handover occurred. The unresolved service needs and continuing disagreement remain part of the outcome.
