What creates the right chemistry in coaching?

“I had a sense the work we would do would be meaningful”
“Trust felt immediate and I knew this would be worthwhile”

Research suggests that the quality of the relationship between a coach and a coachee is one of the key factors in the success of any coaching programme. Erik De Haan’s research work focuses on this, and in 2008 he suggested that effective coaching means relational coaching. 

In a recent group supervision session, I was part of a conversation that really struck a chord.  During it we discussed chemistry.  We all had examples when we felt the chemistry was right and we acknowledged that at times it can develop quickly in an introductory conversation. But we found it difficult to be precise about what we do as coaches to makes it happen (as is often the case in my supervision). The conversation was enough to give me some clarity and a shifting intention for my practice, however —and it also sparked a desire to do a bit more research to see if I could deepen my knowledge and practice. 

In what follows, I’m going to share my findings.

Some background and research

The Cambridge dictionary defines chemistry as “the scientific study of the basic characteristics of substances and the ways in which they react or combine” — this feels very academic and takes me straight back to my school days and my genuine joy of using beakers and Bunsen burners. The Cambridge definition also defines chemistry as “the ability of people to have a good relationship”. 

While both definitions are helpful, the first definition can add value to our ability as coaches to create chemistry as it suggests chemistry is about how we combine with the other person to create a good relationship. It’s not all about us and not all about them. 

In 1957 Carl Rogers wrote about the core conditions for creating an environment where an individual will “invariably achieve constructive personality change.” These conditions are empathy, genuineness and unconditional positive regard. Offering them as we meet our coachees can be solid ground for creating chemistry. However, they don’t provide a complete solution. These conditions are a way of being to facilitate change, not to generate social chemistry.   And while these conditions are things that we can work on for ourselves as a coach, chemistry requires both parties to be involved. 

In 2013, Paulo Ianiro and colleagues suggested that empathic, friendly coaches tend to foster stronger working alliances with coachees. They define a working alliance as a positive affective bond between a coach and a client and their agreement on what goals to pursue and what tasks these will entail. In research published between 2013 and 2015, Ianiro suggests that the working alliance at the end of session 1 predicts the coachee’s success at the end of the programme. That left me wondering how brave (or foolhardy) a coach would be to say to someone at the end of session 1, “let’s stop now, as the working alliance doesn’t feel right to me.” The ability of a coach to stay curious and non-judgemental when sensing a poor working alliance could be an interesting avenue for deeper work.   

Another aspect of Ianiro and colleagues’ work is that coaches with a dominant, friendly approach created better working alliances than submissive coaches. In a dominant, friendly approach, a coach will guide a coachee through the process in a manner that is authentic, capable and self-confident. Coaches who are ‘faking it’ — or uncomfortable in their role — are likely to be experienced as submissive. 

In 2015 Shannon Lord and colleagues suggested that a critical skill in building empathy is reflective listening and aligning communication styles and language. In 2014, Harry Weger and colleagues found that our ability to listen well is also a key driver in creating trust. 

So, if we link these strands together this suggests that if we listen reflectively well, we will show empathy and trust.  If we add friendliness to that empathy and combine it with an agreement on the goals for coaching, this can give us a good working alliance. The quality of our working alliance at the end of session 1 can predict the success of the coachee. 

And yet this feels too simple. 

In research focussed on the relationship between the coach and coachee, De Haan and Nilsson found that co-regulation is a key behaviour for effective coaching relationships.  In this sense co-regulation is the interactive biological process where two nervous systems synchronise to create mutual safety, calm and emotional balance.   If a coachee feels safe to discuss what’s really going on and balanced enough to be able to do thoughtful exploration the chances of the coaching being effective are higher.   De Haan and Nilsson’s detailed analysis suggested that the coach’s moment to moment attentiveness and flexibility were the key skills to drive this.  Building on this in 2024 Boyatis suggested that a coach’s adaptability and emotional self-control were specific aspects of emotional competence that showed significant effects in a coach helping a coachee to make a change.   

In a chemistry conversation, we can focus on our moment-to-moment awareness and hold flexibility (or adaptability) in our approach and our style.  We can also influence how we invite the coachee to help create the conditions where the coaching will be most beneficial.  Inviting the potential coachee to co-create that environment helps foster co-regulation, transparency and trust. 

It is also sometimes said that in great chemistry there is a “spark” or sense of fun and adventure.  A well-timed joke or great use of humour in a chemistry call can be a way of showing your coachee that you are present and confident. De Haan also states that research linking humour (wit or fun; not sarcasm or teasing) to coachee outcome is rare. 

Chemistry session resource

There are many other resources on how to hold a chemistry session as a coach.  Some of the faculty at Catalyst14 had a video discussion on the topic, which you can watch below or on YouTube.  

Chemistry sessions are an important part of coaching and we can learn from those that go well and those that do not.  As a coach, you can see how your supervisors are in chemistry sessions, and supervision itself is a valuable place to be reflecting on and refining your techniques. 

So what could all this mean for coaching?

Taking a step back, whilst there are some interesting ideas in the research worthy of reflection and experimentation in coaching practice, I am yet to find anything that guarantees that if you do certain things as a coach you are guaranteed to have chemistry with a coachee. I like that. It makes this work interesting to me. 

There are, however, things that can maximise the chances of creating chemistry with those you work with. Being genuine, attentive, showing empathy, reflective listening and flexibility — all skills that great coaches have. Additionally, in initial chemistry calls it can help if you demonstrate your capability as a coach by taking the lead in structuring the conversation whilst remaining attentive and flexible.

While we can’t control the chemistry, we can control our mindset and behaviours, we can influence the space between us, and we can accept that our coachees can chose to do the same.     

Sources

If you would like to dig into the research mentioned above; here are the articles mentioned and a few more :

Boyatzis, R., Liu, H., Smith, A., Zwygart, K., & Quinn, J. (2024). Competencies of coaches that predict client behaviour change. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 60(1), 19–49. https://doi. org/10.1177/00218863231204050 

de Haan, E. (2008a) Relational Coaching – Journeys towards mastering one-to-one learning. Chichester: Wiley.     

de Haan, E., & Nilsson, V. O. (2023). What can we know about the effectiveness of coaching? A meta-analysis based only on randomized controlled trials. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 22(4), 641–661. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2022.0107 

Ianiro, P. M., Schermuly, C. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Why interpersonal dominance and affiliation matter: An interaction analysis of the coach-client relationship. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 6(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2012. 740489 

Ianiro, P. M., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Coaches and clients in action: A sequential analysis of interpersonal coach and client behaviour. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(3), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9374-5 

Ianiro-Dahm, P. & de Haan, E. (2026): Creating high-quality coaching conversations: a video-based analysis of executive coach behaviour in initial coach–client interactions, Huma

Lord, S. P., Sheng, E., Imel, Z. E., Baer, J., & Atkins, D. C. (2015). More than reflections: Empathy in motivational interviewing includes language style synchrony between therapist and client. Behavior Therapy, 46, 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2014.11.002

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95–103

Weger, H., Bell, G.C., Minei, E.M. and Robinson, M.C. (2014) The relative effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. International Journal of Listening, 28(1), pp. 13–31.

Will, T., Gessnitzer, S., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). You think you are an empathic coach? Maybe you should think again. The difference between perceptions of empathy vs. empathic behaviour after a person-centred coaching training. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 9(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2016.1143023 

Related resource: Coaching statistics