The High-Performer Who Wants a Sponsor, Not a Coach
Marcus leads a six-person analytics team and was promoted 18 months ago. His director calls you, an internal coach, after two analysts asked to transfer and a skip-level review described Marcus as 'the smartest person in the room and the least curious.' In meetings he answers questions before others finish, rewrites subordinates' slides, and has cancelled three of the last six one-to-ones because of client work. Delivery is still strong at 96% on-time, but engagement scores fell from 4.1 to 3.2. Marcus emails you before the first session: 'I need you to help me build a case for director, and please don't tell anyone what I say about my team.' You have six 45-minute sessions over 12 weeks. His manager supports coaching but will not fund external help. Marcus has never had a coach and expects advice.
1. How should you frame the coaching agreement in the first session, given Marcus's request for sponsorship and his confidentiality condition? Explain what you would include, what you would refuse, and why.
Read the worked answer
I would separate three contracts that Marcus is blending. Coaching is a structured learning relationship focused on his behavior and its impact; mentoring is advice from someone with relevant experience; sponsorship is active advocacy for promotion. I can coach and, if useful, mentor selectively, but I should not be his sponsor while also holding his developmental conversations, because the roles create conflicting loyalties and make the coaching feel like lobbying.
On confidentiality, I would be explicit: the content of sessions stays private, but it is not absolute. I will share themes and progress with his manager, not verbatim disclosures, and I must act on safety, legal, or ethical risk. I would refuse the blanket condition 'don't tell anyone what I say about my team,' because team complaints are the reason the coaching exists. Instead I would agree to anonymize sources and focus on patterns.
The written agreement should include: the goal, such as increasing team voice and retaining talent; success measures, including engagement pulse, one-to-one completion, and meeting talk-time; session logistics and between-session experiments; what his manager will receive; and how either of us can end the engagement. I would also state plainly that I will not write or lobby for his promotion case. Refusing that request is not rejection; it protects the credibility of the coaching and keeps the focus on behavior he can change.
2. Marcus says: 'Just tell me what to do. I don't need to explore feelings.' How do you respond, and what coaching approach do you use in session two? Include a specific technique and a success measure.
Read the worked answer
I would not argue about his preference. Many technical leaders want concrete tools before reflection, and a coaching approach can accommodate that without becoming advice-giving. I would say: 'I won't give you a generic playbook, but I will be direct about what I observe, and we will test specific behaviors and look at the data.' That respects his request while preserving his ownership of the change.
In session two I would use a structured experiment rather than open-ended exploration. First, gather data: ask him to record talk-time in two meetings, count how often he asks a question before offering his view, and note how many one-to-ones he held. Then choose two behaviors: for one agenda item, speak last; before responding to a team member, ask one open question and wait five seconds. Use a light GROW sequence: goal, reality from the data, options for the next two weeks, and a written will-do commitment. I would also ask him to request one piece of upward feedback from a trusted peer.
Success should be behavioral and observable: talk-time below roughly 40% in team meetings, at least three genuine questions per meeting, six of six one-to-ones held for four weeks, and a team pulse score improvement of at least 0.3. If he demands answers, I would give direct feedback tied to the data, not interpret his resistance as a character flaw.