Decolonizing the Coaching Industry: Power, Patriarchy, and the Myth of Neutrality
The coaching industry markets itself as a global movement for human potential. Yet beneath the glossy promise of transformation, familiar hierarchies persist. The same colonial and patriarchal patterns that shaped education, therapy, and corporate leadership have quietly migrated into coaching—defining who gets certified, whose tone is deemed “professional,” and which cultures are labeled “unregulated.”
Decolonizing coaching isn’t about politics; it’s about accuracy. When neutrality protects power instead of dismantling it, coaching stops being liberatory and starts becoming a tool of assimilation.
The Work of Decolonization Is About Redesigning a Structure for Everyone
Who built this structure? Who benefits from it? Who’s missing from the conversation?
As coaching globalizes, the question isn’t whether the industry can scale—it’s what exactly we’re scaling. Standards born in Western, individualist cultures have been exported as universal truths. To decolonize coaching means redesigning a structure that can hold multiplicity—where identity, culture, language, and neurotype are not footnotes but foundations.
Ignoring identity or silencing feedback isn’t professionalism—it’s ethical neglect.
Modern Coaching: Whose Framework Defines Professionalism?
The International Coaching Federation (ICF) Code of Ethics (2025) is explicit: coaches must actively manage power and status differentials with clients—cultural, relational, psychological, and contextual. Standard 4.1 codifies that duty (ICF Code of Ethics 2025 PDF).
When the “client” is another coach—as in mentor coaching, supervision, or training—the responsibility doubles. ICF guidance and case studies reinforce that ethical reflection must evolve with social-justice awareness, not avoid it (ICF Case Study on Standard 4.1; ICF Insights & Considerations for Ethics).
Ethics, in this sense, isn’t about compliance; it’s about consciousness. If neutrality protects existing hierarchies, it ceases to be ethical.
Consider the following dynamics in coach training, supervision, and mentorship:
Voice capture & monologue culture. The mentor or trainer speaks most of the session; the coachee sits still. Context—culture, caste, class, language, gender, disability—is treated as noise to reduce rather than knowledge to integrate. Empirical work in coaching shows that when social difference isn’t explicitly part of the conversation, power imbalances intensify; when it is named, coaching becomes safer and more effective (Frontiers in Psychology, 2024).
Color-blind “professionalism.” A curriculum that treats everyone as if they share the same cultural norms is not neutral—it reproduces dominance. Research finds that coaching frameworks remain rooted in Western, white, male models of leadership (Frontiers in Psychology, 2024).
Patriarchal norms of “mastery.” Calm tone and polished speech are coded as competence; visible emotion or interruption as volatility. These aesthetic standards mirror patriarchal hierarchies of credibility—where authority is gendered and composure is rewarded over authenticity.
In coach training and supervision, women and gender-diverse coaches are often penalized for emotional expressiveness while men’s equivalents are praised as “passionate.” Credentialism becomes a gatekeeping tool: those who mirror the dominant cultural style ascend faster, while those who challenge it are told to “tone it down.”
This normalization of emotional suppression and evaluative control doesn’t just mirror patriarchy—it enforces it, teaching conformity under the guise of professionalism.
Global export of local defaults. Across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, Western coach-training models still dominate accreditation standards and credential pathways. Even as coaching becomes multilingual and regionally adaptive, its conceptual frameworks—from “growth mindset” to “professional presence”—remain anchored in Western, individualist psychology. Without local epistemologies, we risk exporting soft skills with hard borders.
Steps Toward a Decolonized Coaching Industry
Shared authorship. Contract for how voice, authority, feedback, and learning will be co-held. Decide together how the difference will be named.
Context before critique. Begin every feedback cycle with: “What cultural, social, linguistic, or neurodivergent factors shaped this session?”
Relational reflexivity. Engage identity and social difference as active variables, not side notes. Research shows this deepens insight and safety (Frontiers 2024).
De-norm emotional legitimacy. Emotion isn’t unprofessional—it’s data. Treat affect as information about the system, not a metric of control.
Audit power, not just performance. Track mentor/mentee talk ratios. Invite review panels to assess bias patterns in feedback.
Global cultural humility. When training across borders, center local wisdom traditions and collective epistemologies instead of exporting Western scripts.
For Mentor-Coaches, Coach-Educators, and Communities
Publish your anti-oppressive pedagogy and make your DEIB framework public.
Diversify assessor pools across culture, language, and lived experience.
Protect dissent. Create appeal mechanisms for biased evaluations.
Connect ethics to justice. Non-harm isn’t enough; liberation is the standard.
Measure success by who feels authorial and heard, not just by certification counts.
Conclusion
When coaching refuses to interrogate power, it quietly reproduces empire. The industry can’t preach transformation while exporting hierarchy. True professionalism means redistributing credibility, naming bias, and building systems designed for plurality—not assimilation.
Decolonizing coaching isn’t an academic project; it’s the next evolution of our ethics. Liberation begins when we stop calling dominance neutral.
References
Tawadros T., Birch D., de Haan E. Social Difference and Relational Coaching: Finding New Freedoms in Working with Identity. Frontiers in Psychology (2024).
Bourne D. Editorial: Identity Work in Coaching—New Developments and Directions. Frontiers in Psychology (2024).
International Coaching Federation. ICF Code of Ethics (Effective April 2025).
International Coaching Federation. Case Study: Managing Power Differences (Standard 4.1).
International Coaching Federation. Insights and Considerations for Ethics (ICE).
About the Author
Minal Kamlani is a trauma-informed ADHD recovery coach based in NYC. She works with neurodivergent adults in recovery from trauma, burnout, and survival-based coping. Her coaching blends structure and nervous system awareness to help clients reclaim function—without shame or perfectionism. Learn more at Higher Vibes Coaching.