Another article you might enjoy.

Nancy Kline: Thinking Environments

And this idea isn’t new. I want to say that my mom talked to me about Nancy Kline in the 1990s; I feel like I had heard of her groundbreaking work, Time to Think. That said, it had been lost to me through time. What I have come to learn is that Nancy Kline has long championed the importance of creating spaces where individuals can think for themselves. Kline’s Thinking Environment framework emphasizes deep listening, silence, and the belief that the best thinking happens in the presence of another who offers no interruption, judgment, or rush.

For me, this aligns seamlessly with the role of the coach as a “thought partner.” We aren’t here to provide answers or solutions—we’re here to hold the space for our thinkers to do their best thinking. Kline’s work reminds us that this requires intentionality: offering a level of presence and curiosity that allows people to access their wisdom, often buried under layers of self-doubt or busyness.

But as with any big idea, not everyone’s on board right away.

So, for some, the word has a bias, but ok, recognize the bias and decide if it still works or if it is time to challenge it. That’s all we do when we take an implicit bias and make it explicit, and then decide if we agree with how we have been thinking about things. 

So, I 100% agree with you that thinking is not a head only process. Brains are great for aggregating information; they are informed by touch, taste, smell, emotions, energy, and experiences. In this sense, I would invite you to consider expanding your definition of “thinking” to include all the elements you mentioned—feeling, creating, playing, being—because those are absolutely part of the thinking process.”

For me, coaching isn’t just about how a person thinks with their head brain—it’s about the whole, messy, somatic, vibrant, creative, brilliant human experience. And yes, while “thinker” may work in some contexts, it doesn’t always capture the complexity of who we’re working with or the magic happening in a coaching session. That said, I like the languaging of it so much more than “client” and a 1000 times more than “coachee,” so let’s get into why I am making this switch.

The History of Coaching Language

The words we use matter. Back in the day, we called people in therapy “patients,” which set up a very specific dynamic. This label came from the medical model when therapy was trying to prove it was more than hocus pocus.

Carl Rogers, one of the key figures in humanistic psychology, helped bring the term “client” into the mainstream with his groundbreaking client-centered therapy in the 1940s. Rogers wanted to move away from the traditional, doctor-patient ideas of relationship, and instead create a more equal partnership. For Rogers, it was about creating collaboration, honoring the individuals desire for a “Good Life” with autonomy and agency in making their own choices. Using the term “client” was a deliberate way to reflect this shift—putting the focus on mutual respect and self-determination.

Yet, as we evolve in the humanistic fields, the terms “coach” and “client,” while better than ‘patient’ it still carry distinct implications that shape the perceived roles and dynamics within the coaching relationship. At this point in history, everyone from Accountants, Lawyers, to Hair Stylists and Real Estate Agents all have “clients.” But the role that they fill is one of an “expert,” supporting, consulting, servicing, and/or guiding the “client.”

In the 1990s, as coaching started to differentiate itself from therapy, it began looking for a way to describe the “client” in a new, maybe fresh way, and to distiguish that coaching was not therapy, or consulting.

The term “coachee” emerged as a way to further distinguish coaching. Personally? I hate “coachee.” The diminutive “-ee” feels a bit patronizing to me. That “ee” ending is like giving our “thinkers” a nickname; it’s sweet, familiar, and friendly, but that is not our role. For me there is a subtle implication of a one-up, one-down relationship. From Transactional Analysis, it’s a bit more Parent to Child. And while the intent may have been playful or familiar, it doesn’t quite fit the depth of the work we’re capable of doing.

Your Turn to Reflect

What words resonate most with you when you think about the people you coach? Do you prefer “client,” “coachee,” “thinker,” or something entirely different? How does your language shape the space you create in your sessions?

Words are powerful, yes—but they’re just the beginning. The real magic happens in the connection you create in the work you are doing with other human beings.

Another article you might enjoy.

References

• Childre, Doc, and Howard Martin. The HeartMath solution: The Institute of HeartMath’s Revolutionary Program for Engaging the Power of the Heart’s Intelligence. Harper Collins, 2011.
• Kline, Nancy. Time to Think: Listening to Ignite the Human Mind. Hachette UK, 1999.
• Oka and Soosalu, MBraining: “Using Your Multiple Brains to Do Cool Stuff,” 2012.
• Rogers, Carl Ransom. On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy, 1961, http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA71836074..

Photo by Mihály Köles on Unsplash
Photo by Liam Simpson on Unsplash
Photo by 愚木混株 cdd20 on Unsplash
Photo by fynn on Unsplash

All Photo copyright retained by photo owners, everything else ©2014 - to present Lyssa deHart