Most attempts to change another person begin with confidence or misplaced optimism. We see the problem, we see the solution, and we assume the missing ingredient is a clear explanation for our misguided friend, partner, client etc.

So we explain again.

Then we remind. Then we repeat ourselves with more urgency. If that fails, we add consequences, disappointment, ultimatums, or distance. Eventually, we conclude that the other person is stubborn, lazy, selfish, unmotivated, or simply unwilling to change.

During our CLCI Live discussion, we kept returning to a more useful possibility: the behavior may reflect a missing skill, an unmet need, a poorly defined expectation, or a problem the person does not yet know how to solve. Once we assume bad intent, our own behavior often adds pressure to the exact place where the person is already struggling.

For life coaches, this matters in two directions. Clients often want someone else to change, or, coaches can become quietly invested in changing the client. Both situations create the same problem: one person decides what should happen, while the other begins defending their autonomy.

People Can Change, but Not on Command

People do in fact change throughout their lives. Big surprise? They learn, adapt, revise beliefs, develop skills, leave habits behind, and become capable of things that once felt impossible.

That does not mean every part of a person is equally flexible. Some preferences, values, identities, and temperamental traits remain stable. Other behaviors can change, but only when the person has enough awareness, capacity, motivation, and support to work with them.

This is where many conversations go wrong. We treat “can change” as though it means “can change immediately because I asked.”

A partner may be capable of becoming more communicative but unable to produce a thoughtful answer during an argument. An employee may be capable of better organization but not know how to break a large assignment into manageable steps. A client may be capable of following through but keep creating goals that have little personal meaning.

The ability to change exists alongside timing, readiness, emotional regulation, and skill. Ignoring those conditions turns change into a character test.

The Appeal of “If They Wanted To, They Would”

“If they wanted to, they would” is satisfying because it gives us a clean answer. The person did not act, so they must not care.

Sometimes that conclusion is accurate. A person may understand the expectation, possess the ability, and choose not to meet it. Clients need permission to recognize that possibility, especially when they are tolerating neglect, manipulation, or repeated harm.

But the phrase becomes unreliable when used as a universal rule. Wanting something does not automatically provide the skills required to do it.

A person may want a healthier relationship and still lack the ability to manage conflict without shutting down. They may want career growth and still avoid feedback because criticism floods them with shame. They may want to be dependable and still struggle with working memory, planning, or estimating time.

There is also a difference between wanting an outcome and wanting every action required to produce it. Most people want a clean home. Far fewer feel a spontaneous desire to wash dishes at 9:30 at night.

Coaching helps clients examine that gap without turning it into a verdict on their worth.

Why More Pressure Often Produces More Resistance

When someone does not change, we usually increase the force behind our request. We repeat the instruction, explain the consequences, or emphasize how obvious the solution should be.

This can make the problem worse.

Pressure reduces room for honest communication. The person starts managing our reaction instead of examining their own behavior. They defend, avoid, agree without commitment, or complete the task just long enough to end the conflict.

People also resist when they feel their autonomy disappearing. Even a reasonable request can become difficult when it arrives as a command, especially if the person already feels judged or controlled. The conversation becomes a contest over who gets to decide.

The person requesting change may think they are providing motivation. The person receiving the request may hear, “I do not trust you to think, decide, or act without my supervision.”

That message rarely builds sustainable change.

Rules and Consequences Have Limits

Rules can clarify expectations. Consequences can establish boundaries. Reminders can be helpful when someone genuinely forgot.

None of those tools are automatically wrong. Problems arise when we use them to solve every form of nonperformance.

A consequence may motivate someone who already knows how to complete the task. It does not teach someone how to regulate emotion, organize information, communicate clearly, tolerate frustration, or think through competing priorities.

More motivation can even increase distress when the person still cannot perform. They care more, feel more pressure, and continue failing in the same place. Then they receive the additional message that they must not be trying hard enough.

The result is often resentment on one side and shame on the other.

Skill Before Judgment

A skill-based view changes the first question we ask.

Instead of “Why won’t they do this?” we begin with “What makes this difficult?”

That question leaves room for several possibilities. The person may not understand the expectation. They may need more processing time. They may struggle to put their concern into words. They may become emotionally flooded. They may see the problem differently. They may be protecting something important to them. They may lack the planning or communication skills that the situation demands.

Adults do not reach a certain age and automatically acquire a complete set of life skills. Plenty of people enter adulthood without learning how to set boundaries, name emotions, repair conflict, plan realistically, receive feedback, or ask for help.

Calling those people careless or resistant does not develop the missing ability.

This approach does not excuse harmful behavior. An explanation can help us respond accurately without removing accountability. A client can understand why someone behaves a certain way and still decide that the behavior is unacceptable.

When a Client Does Not Follow Through

Missed action steps are one of the clearest places where coaches can accidentally make change harder.

A client says they will exercise three times, update their résumé, initiate a difficult conversation, or complete a business task. The following week, they report that they did nothing.

An inexperienced coach may become disappointed. They might remind the client of the commitment, question their seriousness, or try to increase motivation. Even when the language is polite, the client can feel that they have failed the coach.

A more useful response is simple: “Tell me what happened for you.”

That question makes the missed action available for learning.

Perhaps the client agreed to a goal they never wanted. Perhaps the task activated fear. Perhaps the first step was unclear. Perhaps their week changed. Perhaps they discovered that another priority mattered more. Perhaps they need structure, support, information, or a smaller experiment.

The coach is not responsible for enforcing the plan. The coach helps the client understand their choices well enough to make the next one more intentionally.

Accountability Is Not Enforcement

Accountability in coaching is often misunderstood as making sure the client does what they said they would do.

That turns the coach into a hall monitor.

Useful accountability belongs to the client. It involves examining what they chose, what occurred, what they learned, and how they want to proceed. A missed commitment may reveal more than successful completion would have.

This does not mean every outcome receives a cheerful shrug. Coaches can challenge discrepancies. They can notice repeated patterns. They can ask what the client is avoiding or what continuing the pattern may cost.

The difference lies in ownership. The coach is not there to punish inconsistency. The coach is there to make inconsistency visible enough for the client to decide what it means and how to act accordingly.

Coaches Have Skill Gaps Too

Coaches can be quick to recognize a client’s missing skills while overlooking their own.

A coach may avoid challenging a client because tension feels uncomfortable. Another may talk too much because silence feels unproductive. Another may rescue the client with suggestions because uncertainty creates anxiety.

These are not signs that the person is incapable of coaching. They are areas for training, reflection, mentor coaching, supervision, and practice.

A coach who believes that human behavior is shaped by skill must extend that understanding to themselves. Curiosity, patience, emotional regulation, active listening, and comfort with uncertainty all develop through use.

The aim is not perfection. It is enough self-awareness to notice when the coach’s discomfort starts directing the session.

You May Need to Change Your Part

When we focus entirely on another person’s behavior, we give ourselves very little room to respond differently.

The person may still refuse. They may lack interest in changing. They may continue behaving in a way the client cannot accept. Coaching does not guarantee collaboration, and empathy does not require endless accommodation.

What can change is the client’s approach.

They can stop repeating explanations that have already failed. They can clarify the concern beneath the demand. They can establish a boundary instead of issuing another threat. They can ask what makes the change difficult. They can decide what they are willing to contribute and what they will no longer manage for someone else.

Sometimes the change is a better conversation. Sometimes it is a new structure. Sometimes it is accepting that the other person is not going to participate and making a decision from there.

People often resist being changed. They are more likely to participate when they have room to understand the problem, name their own concerns, and help shape the response.

For coaches, that is the central discipline: remain curious without becoming controlling, challenge without taking ownership, and help clients build the skills to make changes that belong to them.

Thank you,

Lisa Finck (MCC), Jerome LeDuff Jr. (MCLC), Anthony Lopez (MCPC), Brooke Adair Walters (PCC) and Jen Long (PCC)

We now stream from our site! Watch by clicking here!

We also now stream live on YouTube! Subscribe to our channel and don't miss out!

Don't miss out on our 3-day life coach classes, it's an education that is beneficial for life, not just for life coaches!