Force Field Analysis in Coaching: 7 Steps and an Example
Coachful
Editorial Team
Your client says they want to delegate, then spends another week doing the work themselves. Do you challenge the commitment, make the action smaller, or ask what the current arrangement is protecting?
Use force field analysis when a client wants a specific change but cannot yet see what would make it workable. Map the forces supporting the change and the forces holding it back, then help the client choose one influenceable factor to test. The point is not to build a case for pushing harder.
This guide gives you seven facilitation steps, an original worked example and a copyable worksheet. The examples are hypothetical, and the questions and practical adaptations are editorial suggestions rather than a validated assessment.
What is force field analysis in coaching?
Force field analysis is a visual way to examine what supports a proposed change and what restrains it. It is associated with psychologist Kurt Lewin's work on change. In a coaching conversation, the client names the desired change, identifies both sets of forces and decides what to do with the picture.
A driving force could be an existing skill, a supportive colleague, available time or a reason the client cares. A restraining force could be a missing resource, an unclear responsibility, a competing priority or an assumption about what will happen.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's force-field analysis guide describes defining the change, mapping driving and restraining forces, considering their strength and identifying ways to reduce restraints. It also explicitly notes that judging strength is subjective. That limitation matters in coaching: a neat diagram does not turn someone's impressions into objective evidence.
A force field map is a conversation aid, not a verdict. It can help a client investigate how to make a change. It cannot prove that they should make it, predict success or tell you that a person is resistant.
When should a coach use it?
Consider the exercise when the client can name a change but their explanations keep circling: “I want to do it, but…” You need enough specificity to examine the conditions around an action, not just an aspiration such as “be happier.”
- Delegation: the client wants to transfer a responsibility but keeps taking it back.
- Career development: the client wants to apply for a role but has unresolved practical constraints.
- Business habits: the client wants protected planning time but repeatedly gives the time away.
- Team change: a group wants a new working practice and needs to hear the concerns it would create.
Do not use it to make a predetermined answer look participatory. If a sponsor wants someone to accept a promotion, the coaching question is not automatically how to remove their objections. First establish whether that is a change the client actually wants.
Likewise, pause if the conversation raises a safety issue, serious distress or a need outside your competence. A two-column exercise does not replace appropriate support, safeguarding procedures or specialist advice. If the client dislikes diagrams, you can explore the same questions verbally or leave the tool aside.
How to facilitate force field analysis: 7 steps
1. Agree the change and ask permission
Begin with an observable change in the client's words. “Have better boundaries” is a useful opening, but “stop accepting non-urgent work after Thursday afternoon” gives you something you can examine.
Ask: “Would it help to map what supports this change and what makes it difficult, before deciding on an action?” Explain that the client can revise the goal or decide not to proceed. Permission is more meaningful when declining is a real option.
Then clarify what belongs to the client. A manager may control whether they draft a handover brief, but not whether their organization approves a new hire. Keep those different kinds of action separate from the start.
2. Identify the driving forces
Draw two columns under the change statement. In the first, invite the client to name what already supports the change. Ask for actual conditions as well as hoped-for benefits.
- “What makes this change worth considering now?”
- “What resources or relationships already support it?”
- “When has a small version of this worked?”
Make each answer specific. “Support from my team” is less useful than “one colleague has asked to learn the reporting process.” If the support is assumed, mark it as something to confirm rather than quietly treating it as available.
Avoid filling the column for the client. You may see a benefit they have not mentioned, but your enthusiasm is not one of their driving forces.
3. Identify the restraining forces without judging them
In the second column, ask what makes the change harder or keeps the present arrangement in place. Include money, capacity, access, authority and other practical constraints. Do not make every obstacle a belief.
- “What would become harder if you made this change?”
- “What does the current arrangement make possible?”
- “What would need to be true for this to feel workable?”
If a client says “I'm lazy,” slow down. Ask what happens at the moment the action does not happen. “The form takes forty minutes and I only have ten” gives you a different coaching conversation from a character judgment.
A restraint may also protect something valuable: income, quality, privacy or a caring responsibility. Understanding that function does not mean the current arrangement must remain. It means you have a better design problem than “try harder.”
4. Explore strength, influence and evidence
Ask which forces matter most to this client in this situation. They can use short, medium and long arrows, or an optional strength scale from 1 to 5. Make the labels consistent and let the client choose the ratings.
Then add two separate questions: “How much influence do you have over this?” and “What tells you it is true?” These are practical additions to the basic map, not a scientific scoring system.
- Direct influence: the client can change how they prepare a brief.
- Negotiable influence: they can ask a colleague to agree a review point.
- Outside their control: they cannot promise a funding decision will go their way.
Keep facts, interpretations and unknowns distinguishable. “The colleague missed a deadline last month” is an observation. “They will always let me down” is an interpretation. “They have no time this month” may be an unanswered question.
Do not add both columns and announce a winner. Scores may help a client explain relative importance, but they cannot establish whether a change is ethical, affordable or desirable. One serious constraint can matter more than several minor advantages.
5. Choose one lever worth testing
Now ask: “Which force could you influence in a useful way?” Do not assume that the strongest force is the best first target. A substantial obstacle outside the client's control may be less actionable than a modest obstacle they can alter today.
Look at both sides. The client might strengthen support by asking for training or reduce friction by agreeing a smaller handover. Reducing a restraint is worth exploring before adding another motivational commitment, but it is not a universal rule that one side always matters more.
Ask what else would change if that factor moved. Removing a review meeting might save time but create uncertainty. A good experiment addresses the restraint without silently creating a larger one somewhere else.
6. Design a small, observable experiment
Convert the chosen lever into something the client will do, with a boundary and a review point. “Trust my colleague more” is an intention. “Hand over the first section of Friday's report using an agreed checklist” is testable.
Ask the client to name what they want to learn, not just what they hope to achieve. For example: “Can a written brief reduce the corrections I make?” Decide what they will notice, what they will record and when you will discuss it.
If the experiment is repeatable, a habit tracker can help record whether the agreed action happened. Use a narrow behavior, such as preparing the brief before the weekly handover. A tick does not measure trust, motivation or the quality of the whole delegation.
Keep recording proportionate. The client does not need a new administrative project to prove they attempted a small change. A brief note about the attempt and the condition that helped or hindered it may be enough.
7. Review and redraw the map
At the next review, start with what happened. Which support was useful? Which restraint was stronger than expected? Did the client discover a force they had not named?
Let the client decide whether to repeat, revise, pause or stop. An experiment that reveals a genuine capacity problem is not evidence of poor commitment. The next move may be a conversation about workload rather than another personal action.
Keep the original change statement visible so you can distinguish learning about the plan from changing the goal. If the client no longer wants the change, investigate that openly rather than trying to restore the old score.
A worked coaching example: delegating a recurring report
Here is an original hypothetical example, not a client case or an outcome claim. A manager wants to delegate part of a monthly report so they can protect time for planning. They have previously handed it over, then rewritten the work late at night.
The coach asks the manager to define the change. They agree on: “For the next report, a colleague will prepare the first section, with responsibilities and a review point agreed in advance.” They are not trying to solve all delegation in one session.
The driving forces: the manager wants planning time; a colleague has expressed interest in learning; the report follows a recurring format. The coach asks whether the colleague has capacity, because interest is not the same as availability.
The restraining forces: instructions live in the manager's head; the colleague does not know which decisions need approval; the manager fears discovering errors too close to the deadline. Those are three distinct forces, not one label called “control issues.”
Asked which restraint they can influence, the manager chooses the missing brief. They draft a checklist for one section and discuss what the colleague can decide alone. They agree an earlier review point rather than assuming the final deadline is enough.
The experiment is deliberately limited. The manager will hand over that section, record any corrections and note whether the checklist was usable. No predicted time saving or guaranteed improvement is attached to it.
At review, useful questions include: “Which instructions were clear?”, “Where did either of you have to guess?” and “What would you change before handing over another section?” If the colleague lacked time, the next conversation concerns capacity, not the manager's willingness to let go.
A copyable force field analysis worksheet
Use these prompts in a shared document or on paper. Keep the client's words, omit unnecessary personal details and agree where the record will live and who can access it. The worksheet is an original coaching adaptation of the basic force-field structure.
- Proposed change: What would be observably different, and whose goal is it?
- Driving forces: What supports the change? What is already available? What needs confirmation?
- Restraining forces: What makes it difficult? What does the current situation protect or provide?
- Importance: Which forces matter most? Use words, arrows or optional client-defined ratings.
- Influence and evidence: What can the client change, negotiate or only observe? What is known rather than assumed?
- Experiment: What will the client try? What boundary keeps it manageable?
- Review: What will they notice, when will they revisit it, and what would justify adjusting or stopping?
For session preparation, you can invite the client to bring one change and a few initial thoughts. Do not require a completed analysis before they are allowed to explore the issue. The useful material may emerge in conversation.
What changes when you use it with a team?
Agree the shared change before collecting forces. Otherwise, one person may be analyzing a new meeting format while another is analyzing whether the team should meet at all.
Give participants a chance to think privately before discussion, and ask what would make it safe to name concerns. A leader's presence can affect what people say. Do not promise confidentiality you cannot maintain, or interpret public agreement as private commitment.
Write forces as conditions rather than naming people as obstacles. Replace “Finance blocks everything” with “The approval criteria are unclear and the turnaround time is unknown.” The second version leaves room to investigate without assigning a villain.
Retain disagreement when it is informative. Two people can reasonably experience the same process differently. The task is not to produce a unanimous score; it is to identify what needs clarification and who has authority to act.
Common mistakes that make the exercise less useful
- Starting with your preferred answer. Ask whether the client wants the change before mapping how to achieve it.
- Calling all restraints fear. Check resources, access, responsibilities and constraints before exploring assumptions.
- Turning scores into proof. Ratings are subjective prompts, not success probabilities or diagnostic results.
- Trying to shift every force. Choose one meaningful experiment rather than a second full-time job.
- Finishing with a diagram. Agree what the client wants to try or learn, even if the decision is to pause.
Frequently asked questions
Is force field analysis the same as a pros and cons list?
No. Pros and cons usually compare advantages and disadvantages of an option. Force field analysis examines conditions supporting or restraining a change, then asks which conditions could be influenced. There can be overlap, but a benefit is not automatically a resource that helps implementation.
Do you have to score the forces?
No. A client can identify the most important forces using conversation or arrow size. If numbers clarify their thinking, define what the scale means and keep it subjective. Avoid treating a total as a decision rule.
How long should a coaching exercise take?
There is no required duration. As an optional starting agenda, allow a few minutes to define the change, a longer discussion of both sets of forces, and enough time to choose and review an experiment. Drop the structure if it prevents you from listening.
Can the same factor appear on both sides?
Yes. A responsibility can motivate change while making it harder. A client may want a different working pattern to spend time with family while also needing predictable income. Explore those effects separately instead of forcing the factor into one column.
Your next step: make the experiment easy to revisit
Take one client-owned change into your next suitable session. Map what supports it, what restrains it and one factor the client wants to influence. Finish with an experiment and a review point, not a promise to become a different person.
If that experiment needs a repeatable action or preparation for the next session, it helps to see how the client will revisit it. Try the interactive Coachful demo to explore the client portal and habit views shown here. Use the demo to assess that practical follow-through, not to replace the coaching conversation.
