Six Thinking Hats in Coaching: 7 Steps and 18 Questions
Coachful
Editorial Team
How do you use Six Thinking Hats in coaching without turning a thoughtful conversation into a classroom exercise? Agree one decision, invite the client to examine it through different kinds of thinking, and finish with a choice or information-gathering step they own. The hats are prompts for attention, not labels for people.
If a client keeps switching between “it sounds exciting,” “it will never work” and “I need more information,” you do not necessarily need a stronger question. You may need to separate those conversations so each gets heard. This guide gives coaches a seven-step facilitation approach, 18 original questions and a hypothetical example.
What are the Six Thinking Hats?
Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats® is a method for deliberately changing the focus of thinking. The De Bono Group’s explanation describes six functions: white for information, red for feelings and intuition, green for creativity, yellow for value and benefits, black for risks and difficulties, and blue for managing the thinking process.
A person can use every mode. Someone who raises a concern is not “a black-hat person,” and someone who offers an idea does not own the green hat. In a team, parallel thinking means considering a shared mode together rather than allocating permanent advocates and opponents.
In a coaching conversation, the point is to help the client notice what they know, feel, imagine and need to examine. It is not to make them agree with the coach. Nor is the method a personality assessment, a diagnostic tool or a guarantee of a good decision.
The questions, timings and examples below are original editorial adaptations for coaching, not an official training curriculum. If you plan to sell formal Six Thinking Hats training or use branded materials, consult the rights holder about the relevant training and permissions.
When is this useful for a coaching client?
Consider it when a client has a reasonably defined decision and several perspectives keep getting tangled together. A career move, a delegation decision, a possible business partnership or a change in working arrangements can provide suitable material. The client needs room to explore, not a verdict from you.
It may be a poor fit when they need to be heard before they can analyse anything, when a decision requires specialist advice you cannot provide, or when a sponsor has already decided and is pretending the conversation is open. A thinking framework cannot fix a dishonest brief.
For an urgent safety concern, follow your established safety and referral procedures rather than working through six perspectives. If the client dislikes the metaphor, use plain-language headings or choose a different approach. Refusing an exercise is not evidence of resistance.
1. Contract for one decision, not “my whole career”
Start by agreeing what the conversation should help the client decide or understand. “What should I do with my life?” is too broad for this exercise. “What do I need to find out before accepting this internal role?” creates a workable boundary.
Explain the approach briefly: “We could separate the information, your reactions, possible options, benefits and risks, then look at what needs to happen next. Would that be useful?” Let the client change the focus or decline. You do not need props, a slide deck or an actual collection of hats.
Check who owns the decision and who else is affected. A leader may control whether to propose a change but not whether the organisation approves it. Coaching the controllable question prevents the session from producing a confident plan that depends on somebody else’s permission.
Write one focus sentence in the client’s language. Also agree what would count as enough progress today: a decision, a shorter list of options, or one unanswered question identified. Do not promise certainty if the available information cannot support it.
2. Separate facts from feelings without ranking their worth
Begin with what is known and what remains unknown. Under the white hat, help the client distinguish direct observations, reports from other people and assumptions. “The role requires travel” is not yet as useful as “the advert says travel is expected, but the frequency is unspecified.”
Then make room for the immediate emotional reaction. Under the red hat, a client can say they feel excited, uneasy or drawn toward an option without building a logical case for that feeling. They can also pass. This is an invitation, not a requirement to disclose.
A feeling deserves acknowledgement; it does not automatically establish an external fact. “I feel uneasy” and “the manager is untrustworthy” are different statements. You can respect the first while exploring what evidence, experience or unanswered question might sit behind the second.
Do not use this distinction to sound like a courtroom lawyer. A gentle “Which parts have you confirmed?” is often enough. If the client starts defending their feelings, check whether your wording accidentally suggested that only factual statements are welcome.
3. Generate possibilities before choosing between two familiar options
Use green-hat thinking to widen the field. Clients often arrive with a forced choice: accept or reject, stay or leave, launch or abandon. Invite other arrangements without implying that every constraint can be wished away.
A client considering a promotion might explore asking for a transition period, negotiating the scope, speaking with the previous role holder, or remaining in their current role while developing a missing skill. These are possibilities to investigate, not recommendations you have decided are best.
Let ideas exist briefly before evaluating them. If every suggestion meets an immediate objection, say, “Shall we note that concern and spend another moment generating alternatives?” Keep the concern visible so the client knows you are postponing evaluation, not ignoring it.
Offer information or an idea only with permission and a clear change of role. “Would it help to hear one option I have seen described elsewhere?” is different from slipping your preferred answer into a leading question. The client can reject your contribution.
4. Examine value and risk with equal seriousness
Yellow-hat thinking asks what could be valuable about an option and why that value is plausible. It is not compulsory cheerfulness. Black-hat thinking examines difficulties, risks and reasons something may fail. It is not an invitation to attack the person who proposed it.
Keep both grounded. “It will be amazing” needs more detail about the actual benefit. “It will be a disaster” needs more detail about the risk. Ask what supports the conclusion, what remains uncertain and whether a condition could change the assessment.
A benefit might matter greatly but depend on an unconfirmed promise. A risk might be serious but manageable with support. Help the client see those conditions rather than adding up positive and negative comments as if the longest list wins.
Stay alert to your own preference. If you explore every risk in the option you dislike and accept every benefit in the option you favour, the structure becomes persuasion with colour names. Ask yourself whether you have given each credible option a fair examination.
5. Use the blue hat to manage attention, not control the answer
The blue hat concerns the thinking process. You might use it to clarify the question at the start, notice that the conversation has drifted, decide which perspective needs more attention, or summarise what remains unresolved.
There is no need to force a single sequence onto every coaching session. The order in this guide is one practical adaptation. If a major information gap appears, the useful move may be to pause the exercise and identify how the client can fill it.
Check the process with the client: “We have explored several risks but not the alternatives. Where would it be useful to go now?” That gives them a say in how they think. Announcing the next colour every two minutes can make a capable adult feel managed rather than supported.
6. Close with a client-owned choice or experiment
Invite the client to summarise what has changed. Do not deliver a polished conclusion on their behalf. They may discover that the decision is ready, that another option deserves attention, or that one missing fact matters more than all the speculation.
Agree a next step with an owner, a realistic date and a review point. For an information-gathering action, specify what they need to learn, not just whom they will contact. “Speak to HR” is weaker than “ask HR whether the travel requirement is monthly or weekly.”
The written handoff can be short: “I will ask about the travel pattern before deciding. I want to compare the answer with the family commitments I named today.” Keep the client’s intended learning visible instead of converting the session into six categories of homework.
If you use a client workspace such as Coachful, the useful thing to carry forward is the agreed next step, not a label about which hat the client prefers. The screenshot shows a client progress view, not an automated interpretation of the exercise.
7. Review what changed, not whether every box was completed
At the next conversation, ask what the client learned and what that means for the decision. They may have completed the action and discovered that the original option is unsuitable. That can be useful progress without a positive outcome story.
If they did not act, explore what happened before adding reminders. The action may have been unclear, too large, dependent on someone else, or no longer relevant. You need that information more than a tidier compliance record.
A brief agreed check-in can ask for the new information, the client’s interpretation and whether support is needed. Do not require them to share every private feeling from the red-hat discussion. Agree what will be recorded and who can access it.
18 Six Thinking Hats questions for coaches
These are original prompts, not a questionnaire to administer in full. Choose the question that serves the client’s focus, leave room for an answer, and use ordinary follow-up rather than racing to the next heading.
White hat: information
- What do you know directly about this situation?
- Which part are you treating as a fact but have not checked?
- What missing information could materially change your decision?
Red hat: feelings and intuition
- What is your immediate reaction to this option?
- What feeling would you like acknowledged without having to explain it?
- What do you notice as you imagine each possibility?
Green hat: possibilities
- What other route have you not considered yet?
- How could this option be adapted rather than accepted as it stands?
- What small test could help you explore a different approach?
Yellow hat: value and benefit
- What could be valuable about this option for you?
- What gives you reason to believe that benefit is possible?
- What conditions would need to be present for the benefit to happen?
Black hat: risk and difficulty
- What specifically could make this option unworkable?
- Which concern has evidence behind it, and which needs checking?
- What could reduce the risk without pretending it has disappeared?
Blue hat: process and next steps
- What question are we trying to answer now?
- Which perspective needs more attention before you choose?
- What do you want to decide, investigate or leave open after today?
A worked coaching example: deciding about a promotion
This is a hypothetical example, not a client case or an outcome claim. Maya has been invited to apply for a regional role. She likes the development opportunity but worries that the work will take over her week. Her coach agrees the focus: “What do you need to know before deciding whether to apply?”
Information: Maya has the role description and application date. She has not confirmed the travel frequency or available support. Feelings: she feels interested and uneasy. Her coach acknowledges both without deciding what they mean.
Possibilities: Maya could apply, request an informal conversation first, ask about a staged transition, or remain in her current role. Value: the opportunity could involve developing people, which she enjoys. She wants to check how much of the role actually involves that work.
Risk: frequent overnight travel would conflict with a commitment she does not want to change. Process: the most useful next move is not another hour of imagining the job. It is confirming what the job requires.
Maya chooses to ask the hiring manager about travel, team support and how success is assessed. She will then compare the answers with her priorities. The coach does not announce that she should apply, and the exercise does not establish whether she will get the role.
How do you adapt Six Thinking Hats for team coaching?
Agree the decision, participation boundaries and decision authority before starting. A team may be advising a sponsor rather than making the final call. State that clearly so a collaborative discussion is not mistaken for a binding vote.
Invite everyone to use the same lens at the same time. During the information round, everyone can identify facts and gaps. During the possibilities round, everyone can suggest alternatives. During the risk round, everyone can raise concerns. Do not appoint one person to be permanently negative.
Offer a brief quiet writing option before speaking, allow participants to pass, and monitor whose contributions are being taken seriously. Do not claim that equal airtime automatically creates psychological safety. Hierarchy and the consequences of disagreeing still matter.
A red-hat invitation in a workplace needs particular care. Participants should not be pressed to disclose personal feelings in front of managers. Agree how the summary will be used, avoid attributing sensitive comments without permission, and distinguish the group’s ideas from an authorised decision.
An adaptable 45-minute coaching agenda
This is an example allocation, not an official sequence or a claim about the time every client needs. Shorten, pause or abandon it when that better serves the agreement.
- First 5 minutes: agree the focus, permission and useful outcome.
- Next 8 minutes: separate known information, gaps and immediate reactions.
- Next 10 minutes: explore alternative ways forward.
- Next 10 minutes: examine plausible benefits, risks and conditions.
- Next 7 minutes: let the client summarise and choose the next step.
- Final 5 minutes: agree the handoff, review point and feedback on the process.
Common questions coaches ask
Do you have to use all six hats in every session?
No. Use the method deliberately, but do not complete categories at the expense of the client’s purpose. A missing perspective can be worth exploring; a repetitive round with nothing useful to add can be stopped.
How is this different from SWOT analysis?
SWOT organises factors into strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Six Thinking Hats separates modes of thinking, including feelings, information and creativity. Choose based on the work needed, rather than treating one as universally better. Our SWOT coaching guide covers that alternative.
Can this replace professional advice?
No. It can expose a question that needs legal, medical, financial or other qualified advice; it cannot supply that expertise. Help the client identify the right next resource without making a judgement outside your competence.
Your next step: try the smallest useful version
Practise with a peer on a low-stakes decision before introducing the structure to a paying client. Ask whether separating the perspectives helped, whether your prompts led the answer, and what you could simplify. For a broader choice of approaches, see our coaching models guide.
If the thinking is useful but the agreed follow-up keeps disappearing between sessions, that is a separate practice-management problem worth testing. Try the interactive Coachful demo to explore the client progress and check-in views shown here. The software can support a handoff; the quality of the conversation remains your responsibility.
