Relational Coaching: Erik de Haan’s Approach and Its Limits

Relational coaching examines how coach and client work together, alongside the client's topic. Erik de Haan's approach asks the practitioner to attend to the client's experience of that relationship, including disagreement, uncertainty and the coach's own contribution. Psychodynamic ideas add possible ways to understand recurring expectations and reactions, not permission to read hidden motives as facts.

Coachful is our #1 recommendation for organizing the agreed work around these conversations. A short feedback worksheet, relevant session context and a client-chosen action can support continuity. Keep professional supervision separate, and do not treat a private interpretation as a client finding simply because it has a place in the software.

The distinction matters in practice: asking for approval may reflect a familiar relationship pattern, or it may be an entirely reasonable response to an unclear coaching task. A useful relational inquiry can end by correcting the coach.

Understand de Haan's relational emphasis

In his account of Relational Coaching (2008), de Haan places the relationship as experienced by the client at the center of the work. His published practitioner guidance encourages explicit discussion of that relationship, attention to the coach's condition and continuing reflection. This is an orientation to practice, not a license to disregard methods or agreed goals.

Ask how the way you are working serves the client's purpose. A warm conversation can still be unhelpfully vague. A challenging conversation can still be useful if the client understands its purpose and can question it. “We connected well” is therefore incomplete as an evaluation.

Relational attention also means noticing what your instructions make likely. If you ask the client to bring a draft and repeatedly praise or criticize it, asking you for a verdict may be predictable. Before interpreting their behavior as dependency, examine the task you created.

Use ordinary language: “What did you expect me to do with this draft?” or “When I explained that model, did it help or take us away from your question?” The client should be able to answer without adopting your preferred account of their psychology.

Distinguish goals, tasks and bond

The working alliance is commonly discussed through agreement on goals, agreement on tasks and the relational bond. These dimensions are related but not interchangeable. A client may feel respected while remaining unsure what the exercise is meant to accomplish.

Do not infer agreement from politeness. Ask what the client thinks the task requires, then compare it with your intention. A discrepancy may explain the interaction more directly than a story about unconscious resistance.

This does not require abandoning structure. A client can explicitly choose a rehearsal, checklist or focused question. Relationship awareness helps the pair examine the fit of that structure rather than treating either rapport or technique as sufficient by itself.

Read the alliance research without turning association into cause

De Haan, Grant, Burger and Eriksson's 2016 retrospective study collected information from 1,895 client-coach pairs, involving 366 different coaches, and 92 sponsors. Perceived effectiveness was associated with working-alliance ratings and client self-efficacy. Task and goal aspects were stronger predictors than bond aspects in that analysis.

That is evidence of relationships among ratings, not proof that a stronger bond caused better workplace outcomes. Retrospective perceptions, how variables were measured and who supplied the ratings matter. Nor does a sample of many pairs mean that every coach or executive context is equally represented.

De Haan, Molyn and Nilsson's 2020 paper critically reviews two coaching trials, including longitudinal evidence. They report that alliance ratings related to overall outcome levels, while early alliance did not clearly predict subsequent improvement across further conversations. They propose that ratings may partly reflect client readiness or disposition, and explicitly discuss limits on generalization from the two samples.

This is a challenge to a simple causal explanation, not a finding that relationships do not matter. Randomizing access to coaching is also different from randomly assigning relationship quality. The paper's interpretation remains an argument to investigate, not a rule for judging an individual client.

A practical response is to examine agreement and usefulness, while checking the actual work. Do not promise that raising a relationship score will produce a specific performance gain, or claim that a client with a low score lacks the right personality.

Understand the psychodynamic terms before using them

Transference concerns earlier relational expectations and responses appearing in a current relationship. The APA Dictionary's entry on transference analysis describes its psychoanalytic context: earlier relationships expressed in the relationship with the analyst. That clinical tradition is not the same as an executive coach exploring a present misunderstanding.

A leader might expect criticism from an authority figure, including a coach. But the expectation could also reflect the coach actually being critical, an unclear assessment role or the client's experience of the current employer. Noticing a possible pattern does not establish its origin, duration or relevance.

Countertransference concerns the practitioner's reactions. The APA Dictionary definition includes conscious and unconscious responses connected with the therapist's own needs and conflicts. In coaching, this invites disciplined reflection on your reactions rather than treating them as a transparent window into the client.

If you feel protective, bored or eager to prove yourself, ask what belongs to you: fatigue, personal expectations, commercial pressure, bias or uncertainty about your role. The feeling is real as your experience. The explanation you attach to it remains a hypothesis.

De Haan's historical paper on transference explores its relevance to coaching and consulting. It is a conceptual account, not a test showing that a particular client's request reveals a family relationship. Applying psychodynamic ideas responsibly requires suitable competence and supervision, with clear limits between coaching and psychotherapy.

Let reflection change your response before explaining the client

Psychodynamic reflection can be useful without announcing an interpretation. Suppose you notice an urge to rescue the client by supplying a decision. You can pause, recall the agreement and ask what help they want. That changes your participation while leaving the explanation of the urge open.

Look for a sequence rather than a label: the client challenges the exercise, you explain more, they speak less, and you feel you must work harder. The sequence suggests several places to intervene. Ask whether the exercise fits, shorten the explanation or invite the client to choose another task. You need not first establish a hidden cause.

Then examine what happens. If clearer instructions change the interaction, that supports the practical value of clarifying the task. It does not prove there was never a broader pattern. If the difficulty continues, seek further understanding rather than escalating automatically to a more personal interpretation.

Keep the coach's responsibility visible throughout. Reflection should increase the range of responses you can choose, including tolerating uncertainty, acknowledging a mistake or stopping an unsuitable method. It should not make the client responsible for managing the coach's feelings.

Use a hypothesis that the client can actually reject

Start with the specific event and the client's account. Ask whether it would be useful to examine the present interaction. A tentative tone alone is insufficient if every possible answer confirms the coach's theory.

For example, “You deny needing approval because it is unconscious” makes rejection impossible. A workable inquiry is: “I noticed I gave a verdict twice. What were you hoping for from my feedback?” The answer might show that your instructions were misleading.

If the client declines personal exploration, respect that boundary. Return to the contracted purpose, change the method or discuss fit. Do not use discomfort as automatic evidence that you have reached the important issue.

The ICF Code of Ethics addresses competence, clear agreements and accurate professional representations. A client's willingness to discuss something does not give a coach qualifications they do not have. A theory does not override the right to stop an exercise.

Worked example: an approval request changes the coaching task

Fictional example: Yuna, a product director, has three self-funded fifty-minute sessions with Noel on 2, 16 and 30 November 2026. All people, dialogue and events below are invented. Their purpose is preparing clearer proposals and reviewing how Yuna makes requests at work, not conducting psychotherapy or an assessment of dependency. Their agreement permits limited discussion of Noel’s practice in confidential supervision; it does not authorize sharing Yuna’s documents or personal history.

Noel's initial instruction is: “Bring a draft and we will check whether it is good enough.” During the 2 November session Yuna asks several times whether Noel thinks her message is right. Noel feels pressure to demonstrate expertise and gives quick verdicts.

He then wonders aloud whether her requests for approval resemble earlier authority relationships. Yuna says: “No. You told me we would check if the draft was good enough. I thought you would tell me what the standard was. I do not want to discuss my family.”

Noel stops that inquiry and responds: “You are right about my instruction. I introduced a personal explanation without first checking the task I had set. I am sorry. We can work on the draft without exploring family history.” He does not interpret her refusal as confirmation of his hypothesis.

Yuna chooses to develop her own review criteria, while asking Noel to flag unclear wording. They agree that Noel can comment on clarity and the stated evidence, but does not approve the underlying business decision. Yuna decides what she sends.

Complete the revised feedback agreement

They write a four-criterion card during that first session. It is an original practical aid for this case, not a de Haan instrument or validated alliance measure.

The package includes one ordinary email review of a draft up to 200 words. Yuna will send it by noon on 12 November, and Noel will reply by 17:00 on 13 November. The reply will use those four criteria. It is not unlimited approval, commercial assurance or urgent monitoring.

At the close, Noel asks what would help Yuna question the process sooner. She chooses a simple phrase: “Please stay with the draft.” Noel agrees to pause and check what she needs when she uses it. This is a response commitment he can actually honor.

For a different lens on mismatched expectations, see the psychological contract in coaching. Here the relational finding is concrete: Noel's instruction and verdicts contributed to the interaction.

Take the coach's reaction to supervision without exporting a verdict

On 3 November, Noel brings the interaction to his supervisor under their established confidentiality arrangement, using only the necessary account and omitting employer names, documents and identifying detail. This reduces disclosure; he does not claim perfect anonymity or send Yuna's private writing.

Noel asks his supervisor to tell him whether he handled it correctly. They notice the resemblance to the approval discussion. A possible parallel process is worth examining, but Noel's request may also be ordinary consultation, uncertainty about an error or a response to the supervisor's role.

In psychodynamic supervision, parallel process refers to patterns appearing across client-practitioner and practitioner-supervisor relationships. A 2020 qualitative study of parallel process interviewed nine experienced supervisors about such cases. It examined their accounts of the process; it did not test whether an executive client's behavior causes a coach's reaction or whether this coaching method improves performance.

For the surrounding professional process, see the coaching supervision guide. Supervision should examine the practitioner's choices and boundaries within its own agreement.

Noel's completed practice decision is to make his feedback role explicit, own his unsupported interpretation and check his explanations against the client's request. He does not return with “My supervisor says you need approval.” Supervision informs his responsibility; it does not make an absent expert the authority on Yuna's motives.

Show what the revised feedback actually produces

Yuna sends her draft by ordinary email on 11 November. It proposes a two-team pilot on 23 November and says, “Most checks are complete.” Noel replies at 15:00 on 13 November, within their agreement:

The pilot request is visible. “Most checks” leaves me unsure what is complete and what remains open. Could you name those separately? I also cannot tell whether 23 November is a proposed date or an accepted start. Those are clarity questions under our card; I am not approving the pilot itself.

At the 16 November session, Yuna says this distinction helped, but she still wants Noel to point directly to the ambiguous words rather than ask broad questions about her confidence. They use the agreed criteria to prepare this revised passage:

I recommend a two-team pilot once the support rota is confirmed. Two of the three test checks are complete; the handover check remains open. Priya owns the start decision. Could we obtain the operations team's rota and then review readiness for a possible start? A 23 November start is a proposal, not an agreed date.

The paragraph shows an actual editorial change without becoming evidence that the business should launch. Yuna sends it on 18 November. Priya replies on 19 November asking for the remaining handover result before deciding. The decision is still open.

At the 30 November session, Yuna reports that exchange. She says she can distinguish an information request from seeking a coach's business approval. She also says she still hesitates before disagreeing with Noel. Both observations remain in the review.

Retain the later failure instead of declaring the relationship repaired

During that final session Noel begins a long explanation of why the criteria matter. Yuna uses the agreed phrase: “Please stay with the draft.” Noel stops and asks which words she wants to inspect. She identifies the proposed date and the still-missing handover result.

Noel acknowledges that he has repeated part of the original problem by explaining past her request. The adjustment is useful in that moment, but it does not prove that his tendency has disappeared or that Yuna now feels fully able to disagree.

They complete the third session and its review. Yuna chooses to pause further coaching. Noel confirms that their three sessions and single email review are complete, and no ongoing feedback or monitoring remains included. Any future work would need a new agreement.

The business pilot is not marked approved, and no workplace outcome is attributed to the relational repair. The observed outputs are a clearer feedback agreement, a revised passage, a corrected coach interpretation and a client who used the stop phrase once. They are meaningful within their limits.

Contrast an ordinary request for a professional standard

Separate fictional contrast: Ivo contracts for presentation practice against two explicit criteria: identify the proposal within the first minute and end with one clear decision request. After a rehearsal he asks the coach whether he met them.

The coach's useful answer is specific: “Your proposal appeared at fifty seconds. The ending described the project but did not ask for a decision.” Ivo rewrites the ending as, “Can we agree to a two-week discovery period before deciding whether to proceed?” This remains a proposed request, not an approval obtained from the audience.

There is no need to reinterpret this feedback request as dependency. The coach agreed to provide observations against a standard. Relational attention means honoring that role and checking whether the feedback helps, just as Noel needed to clarify a different role with Yuna.

The distinction is between an explicit professional contribution and an unexamined authority relationship. Either deserves clear agreement; neither can be classified from the words “Was that right?” alone.

Use a short relationship review that can change the work

1. Return to purpose. Ask what the client wants from this conversation now, including whether an earlier goal has changed.
2. Check the task in the client's words. What do they expect you to do? Compare that with your actual role and competence.
3. Name your contribution. Describe an interruption, verdict, explanation or unclear instruction you can take responsibility for.
4. Invite an alternative account. Ask what you missed. Leave room for the client to reject a personal explanation.
5. Agree one observable adjustment. Specify a changed activity, feedback format or stopping phrase, rather than promising a better relationship in general.
6. Review the actual event. What changed, what did not and does the client want to continue? A repair conversation is not guaranteed to restore confidence.

Do not demand positive feedback as proof that the client feels safe. If comments lead only to a more elaborate defense of the method, the questionnaire has not supplied a realistic route to influence the work.

Keep client work and professional reflection distinct in Coachful

A short feedback worksheet might ask: “What should we keep doing?”, “What should we change?” and “Is there something you would rather discuss live?” Explain its purpose, actual audience and when responses are read. It is an invitation to discuss the service, not a covert psychodynamic assessment.

Use the relevant client record and resource assignment for work the client actually chooses. A suggested action in a note is not automatically an agreed commitment. Keep the coach's promised feedback route and deadline visible as a separate responsibility.

Coach review under a submitted worksheet is private to the coach team. It is not the client reply and does not appear in the response PDF. Noel's agreed reply in the case returns through ordinary email; saving an internal review would not fulfill that promise.

Unshared personal journal and takeaway pages remain private. Where enabled, Share with coach intentionally shares the individual page. Ask for a separate chosen summary if that is enough, and do not transfer sensitive personal words into supervision or sponsor reporting merely because the client shared them for coaching.

Inspect session recap approval and session-type overrides before using generated recaps. Automatic sending is the default; a coach-private reflection and a client-facing recap have different audiences. Explore the relevant Coachful features against those distinctions rather than assuming one “notes” label covers everything.

Frequently asked questions

Does relational coaching replace goals and methods?

No. It helps the pair examine whether their goals, tasks and interaction fit the client's purpose. A structured draft review can be relational work when the client can correct the instructions and change the method.

Does a strong alliance guarantee better results?

No. The research designs, measures and findings require care. Association with overall ratings does not establish that increasing alliance quality causes subsequent performance improvement, or that one approach will work for every client.

Can a coach identify transference from an approval request?

That request alone cannot establish its origin. Check ordinary task expectations and your own behavior first. A psychodynamic hypothesis remains open to alternatives and rejection, and inquiry must stay within competence and the agreed scope.

What if the client refuses a personal interpretation?

Respect the refusal and ask what would serve the agreed work. Do not treat denial as confirmation. You may need to apologize, change the task, seek supervision or discuss whether continuing together is appropriate.

Does supervision establish the truth about the client?

No. It can help the coach examine practice, alternatives and boundaries using the available account. It does not replace the client's voice or authorize clinical conclusions. The coach remains responsible for what they do next.