Using the three supervision functions (normative, formative, restorative), the dual‑relationship situation surfaces different types of challenges. Each function highlights specific risks you would want to explore in supervision.​

Normative function: ethics and standards

From a normative (ethical/standards) lens, challenges include:​

• Ambiguity about conflicts of interest and whether the dual relationship breaches your code of ethics or internal coaching policy (e.g. coaching someone you also appraise or influence organizationally).​
• Pressure from the organization or sponsor that pulls you away from agreed boundaries (e.g. requests for confidential information, subtle alignment with management’s agenda).​

Formative function: learning and practice

From a formative (learning/development) lens, challenges include:​

• Limited skill or repertoire to work cleanly in a dual role: contracting. This includes resetting boundaries mid‑engagement. It also involves naming power dynamics in the room.​
• Your other role, whether HR, leader, or Agile coach, shapes your questions. It affects your challenge level and the topics you unconsciously avoid with this client.​

Restorative function: well-being and impact on you

From a restorative (support/well-being) lens, challenges include:​​

• Emotional strain arises from “split loyalties” between the client and the organization. There is also anxiety about “getting it wrong” ethically in a political system you belong to.​
• Over‑involvement or depletion: ruminating about the case. It includes difficulty switching off. You feel isolated because you can’t freely discuss it with internal peers due to confidentiality.​

Systemic themes to surface in supervision

Across all three functions, supervision would explore:​

• How organizational culture (politics, expectations of HR/OD, leadership style) amplifies dual‑relationship risks for internal coaches.
• What structures are missing or weak? These include policy, allocation rules, or access to external supervision. This issue is making you personally carry too much of the ethical and emotional load.​

Internal coaches face several recurring ethical challenges, mostly around confidentiality, role conflict, and organizational power dynamics. Even when aligned with a formal code of ethics (e.g. ICF), the internal context makes these dilemmas more frequent and ambiguous.​

Key ethical tensions

• Confidentiality vs. sponsor expectations
  • Leaders or HR often expect detailed “updates” on the coachee’s progress or mindset. This expectation clashes with strict confidentiality obligations in most coaching codes.​
  • Internal coaches can be formally or informally pressured to reveal sensitive information. This includes whether someone is a “flight risk”, under-performing, or critical of leadership. Such pressures directly test the code of ethics.​
• Conflict of interest and multiple roles
  • Internal coaches commonly hold another role, like manager, HR, OD, or Agile coach. This creates overlapping obligations and loyalties to the organization, the boss, and the client.​
  • Expectations to “follow the boss’s directive” are a major source of pressure. This pressure often leads HR and internal practitioners to compromise ethical standards.​
• Perceived independence and psychological safety
  • Coachees not fully trust an internal coach’s independence. They fear that what they share harm their careers. This fear persists even if the coach adheres strictly to the code.​
  • Organizational politics and informal networks can influence how people perceive the coach’s neutrality. They can also subtly shape which topics Coachees feel safe to explore.

Code of ethics specifics that get strained

• Confidentiality and privacy
  • Professional frameworks (like ICF) emphasize that what is shared in sessions stays private unless explicitly agreed otherwise in the contract.​
  • In internal coaching, standard HR practices (e.g. documenting risk, performance, misconduct) can clash with these commitments when the coach is also part of HR or management.​
• Autonomy and non-maleficence (no harm)
  • Ethical guidance highlights protecting client well‑being and autonomy, avoiding harm, and not exploiting the relationship.​
  • Internal coaches are aware of organizational plans. These can include restructuring, layoffs, or performance procedures. These plans affect the client. But, coaches can’t always share them. This inability creates moral tension around “harm” and transparency.​
• Objectivity and avoiding misuse of power
  • Codes emphasize fairness, avoiding favoritism, and keeping clear boundaries with other roles.​
  • Internal coaches are drawn into political games. They are used to influence employees towards certain decisions. Coaches also be subtly expected to “align” employees with management agendas rather than the client’s goals.​

Typical dilemma patterns for internal coaches

• Triangular relationship: sponsor–coach–Coachees
  • Ambiguity around what is shared at “three‑way” meetings (e.g. between HR, manager and Coachees) risks sliding from high‑level themes into personal details, breaching the code.​
  • Misaligned expectations at the contracting stage can often lead to ethical conflict later in the engagement. The manager expects behavioral reports, but the coach promises confidentiality.
• Boundary management and scope creep
  • Internal coaches can be asked to “just give some advice” on HR or performance issues. This can cross into consulting, assessment, or even disciplinary influence. These areas differ from coaching.​
  • Coachees also seek special treatment or information since the coach is “on the inside”. This tests the boundary between coaching and confidential organizational knowledge.​
• Supervision and escalation challenges
  • Internal coaches sometimes lack a truly independent supervisor or ethics body inside the organization to discuss dilemmas safely.​
  • Without clear internal policies and an external reference (e.g. ICF’s ethical complaint and review structures), coaches can feel isolated when they need to push back against senior leaders.​

Practices that help uphold the code

• Robust contracting and transparency
  • Clear three‑way contracting that spells out goals, reporting limits, and confidentiality boundaries from the start reduces later pressure and misunderstanding.​
  • Documented coaching policies are aligned with a recognized code of ethics. They give internal coaches a formal reference when they need to say “no” to inappropriate requests.​
• Structural protections for independence
  • Some norms help preserve perceived and actual independence. One such norm is coaching outside one’s line of control. Another is having an independent ethics or review board.
  • Regular supervision, often with an external supervisor, aids reflection on ethical tensions. It also helps find blind spots and assess the impact of organizational politics on the coaching stance.​

If helpful, the next step can be to map your specific internal role (e.g. HR, Agile coach, OD) against these patterns and design a tailored “ethical operating model” for your internal coaching practice.

Dual relationships are best handled by minimizing them where possible. When they can’t be avoided, it is important to make them highly explicit, contracted, and supervised. As an internal coach, that usually means separating roles structurally, naming conflicts early, and sometimes declining or ending coaching relationships.​

Clarify what “dual relationship” means

• A dual relationship exists when you and the Coachees have more than one role or relationship (e.g. coach and line manager, coach and HRBP, coach and close colleague/friend).​
• These situations create conflicts of interest and power imbalances. The ICF and EMCC codes need you to recognize, reveal, and manage or avoid these conflicts.​

Design structural safeguards

• Avoid coaching people where you have evaluative or formal power (direct reports, people you appraise, HR cases you manage). Swap coaches across units or levels instead.​
• Define in your internal coaching policy who internal coaches can and not coach (e.g. “never within own reporting line, never in active HR processes”).​

Use transparent contracting

• In the intake, name the dual role explicitly. You say, “I am both your Agile coach and your internal coach; here is how that will affect us.” Then explore risks together.​
• Build the dual role and its limits into the written coaching agreement: what you will not do (e.g. no performance advice, no participation in promotion decisions) and what happens if a conflict appears.​

Monitor boundaries in practice

• Regularly check: “Are my other roles influencing this conversation?” and “The client feel pressured because of my position?”​
• If topics drift into areas where your other role is dominant (e.g. HR investigation, performance rating), pause and either re‑route that topic to the appropriate process or end the coaching relationship for that issue.​

Escalate, supervise, or step out

• Use supervision (ideally external) to unpack any dual‑relationship tensions, blind spots, or emotional hooks before they harm the client.​
• If the conflict of interest can’t be mitigated, ethics guidance supports ending or transferring the coaching. For example, you must soon evaluate the Coachees. In such cases, it’s important to explain clearly why this step is necessary.​

If you share your specific dual roles (e.g. “HR + internal coach for managers”), a concrete script and decision rules can be drafted for your context.

In a dual‑relationship case, HR gets involved when organizational risk or formal processes are triggered. An external supervisor is involved as soon as you feel ethically “stuck”. You should also involve them if you feel emotionally entangled or unsure how to continue. In practice, internal coaches are encouraged to consult supervision early. They should escalate to HR when the dilemma touches employment decisions. This includes policy breaches or potential harm to the client or others.​

When to involve HR

Involve HR (or your equivalent role) when:

• There is possible misconduct, discrimination, harassment, or safety risk disclosed in coaching. The organization is legally or ethically obliged to tackle these issues.
• The dual relationship intersects with formal HR processes. These include performance management, restructuring, investigation, grievance, and whistle-blowing. You are expected to play a role in those processes.​
• You need to renegotiate the three‑way contract (sponsor–coach–Coachees). For example, do this if expectations on confidentiality have become misaligned. You should also do it if reporting has become impossible to honor.​

When to seek external supervision

Seek an external (or at least independent) supervisor when:

• You notice conflicting loyalties, strong emotions, or attraction. Over‑identification with the client can cloud your judgment in the dual relationship.​
• You are unsure whether to continue, refer, or terminate the coaching because of boundary issues or conflict of interest.​
• You need help to clarify options that protect client welfare. These options should respect the coaching code of ethics. They must also remain realistic in your internal political context.​

How to decide whom to involve first

• If the issue is primarily about organizational rules or employment risk, start with HR. Consult a trusted senior HR or ethics contact. Ideally, obtain the client’s knowledge where possible.​
• If the issue is primarily about your own boundaries, bias, or confusion, begin with external supervision. Consider a confidential ethics consultation. Then decide whether HR involvement is needed.​

Good practice in a case study response

For a written case study or exam scenario, you can show ethical maturity by:

• Stating that you would seek supervision early when a dual relationship emerges or shifts, to explore impact and options.​
• Explain clear criteria for HR escalation. These include risk, policy breach, and formal processes. State your intention to be transparent with the client about any need to involve HR.​