| Course | GM585 Mentoring and Coaching |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Boundaries and ethics case |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM585 Unit 8
Keep It From the Partner: A Unit 8 Boundaries and Ethics Case for a Manager Who Coaches
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM585: Mentoring and Coaching
Unit 8 Boundaries and Ethics Case
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The accounting firm, the associate and the conversation are composite and illustrative; the codes and sources cited are real.
The Facts
Priya is a first-year audit associate at Tanner Pryce. Her manager, who is also her coach under the firm's coaching program, met her on a Tuesday afternoon for a session on her goal of finishing review notes faster. The manager's summary afterward:
Twenty minutes into the session, Priya said she had been slower because she was tired. When asked what was making her tired, she said her mother had been diagnosed with dementia in the spring, that Priya had moved back home to help, and that she was up most nights and sleeping about four hours. She said she was worried about two errors in recent workpapers, a misfooted schedule and a missed confirmation follow-up, both caught in review. She asked me not to tell the engagement partner, because she did not want to be seen as unreliable in her first year. She did not ask for time off. She said she could handle it.
When the coaching began, the two of us signed a short agreement keeping sessions private, with stated exceptions for a breach of professional standards or law and for a risk to her own or others' health or safety.
The Obligations
The manager holds three roles at once, and each has its own duties.
As coach. The International Coaching Federation's Code of Ethics asks coaches to maintain confidentiality within the limits agreed with the client, to be clear about those limits from the start, and to recognize when a client's needs go beyond coaching and refer them to other professionals (International Coaching Federation, 2020). The agreement made with Priya allows confidentiality except for professional breaches and health or safety risks. Sleep deprivation at this level is a health concern, but it is not the kind of risk that the agreement intended to override, such as harm to herself or others.
As supervisor. Firm policy makes the manager responsible for the quality of work on the engagement and for assigning work fairly. Two errors caught in review are not breaches of professional standards, but continued errors on audit work could become a quality issue. Firm policy also says that managers who learn an employee may need leave or accommodation for a family health reason should refer the employee to human resources, which is responsible for explaining options such as protected leave under federal and state law.
As colleague. The manager's sympathy is real. Priya trusts them, and that trust is what made her disclosure possible.
The manager is not one person with one duty but three roles with three sets of duties, and the case turns on which role each choice belongs to.
Ioanna Iordanou, Rachel Hawley and Christiana Iordanou note that internal coaches face sharper confidentiality dilemmas than external coaches, because the coach also holds organizational responsibilities and relationships with the client's other colleagues (Iordanou et al., 2017). This case is an example. An external coach could keep Priya's situation private without any further duty. The manager cannot simply set aside the supervisory role.
The Options
Option one: full secrecy. The manager keeps everything private and continues coaching on review speed. This honors Priya's request but ignores the supervisory duty and the likely need for more help than coaching can offer. If errors continue and the partner later learns the manager knew, both Priya and the manager would be harmed.
Option two: tell the partner. The manager informs the partner so that staffing can be adjusted. This addresses quality, but it breaks the coaching agreement, which did not allow disclosure for this reason, and would likely end Priya's trust in coaching and in the manager.
Option three: report to human resources immediately. The manager tells human resources without Priya's knowledge. This meets the policy's letter but disregards her autonomy and her request, and it treats a referral as something done to her rather than with her.
Option four: pause coaching, refer and involve human resources with her knowledge. The manager tells Priya honestly what they can and cannot keep, pauses coaching on review speed, refers her to the employee assistance program and explains that the firm's human resources office can discuss leave or flexible arrangements. The manager offers to contact human resources with her, or tells her that the manager will need to do so within a week, without sharing details she has not chosen to share.
A fifth option, waiting a few weeks to see whether things improve, was also considered and set aside. It feels kind, but it leaves Priya without support while her sleep and her work both suffer, and it delays the human resources conversation that firm policy requires. Waiting would also make the eventual referral harder, because Priya would reasonably ask why the manager said nothing for a month.
The Chosen Response
Option four is the right response. It separates the three roles. As coach, the manager recognizes that Priya's needs go beyond coaching, as the ICF code expects, and pauses the coaching rather than continuing as though the goal were still review speed (International Coaching Federation, 2020). As supervisor, the manager meets the policy by making sure human resources is involved, but does so with Priya rather than around her. As colleague, the manager is honest with her about what will happen.
The manager would say: "I'm glad you told me, and I'm sorry you're carrying this. I won't tell the partner what you've shared. What I can't do is keep coaching you on review speed as if this weren't happening, because the problem isn't your review technique. I'd like you to call the employee assistance program; I can give you the number now. And I'd like to set up a conversation with human resources about whether some flexibility would help. I can go with you, or you can go alone, but I do need to let them know within the week that you may want to talk to them."
On the workpaper errors, the manager would ask the in-charge senior to review Priya's work a little more closely for the next month, without giving a reason, which is within the manager's supervisory role. The ICF core competencies describe establishing and maintaining agreements, including revisiting them as needed (International Coaching Federation, 2019). Once Priya's situation is more settled, the coaching agreement can be renewed with her, with its limits restated.
References
International Coaching Federation. (2019). ICF core competencies. https://coachingfederation.org/credentials-and-standards/core-competencies
International Coaching Federation. (2020). ICF code of ethics. https://coachingfederation.org/ethics/code-of-ethics
Iordanou, I., Hawley, R., & Iordanou, C. (2017). Values and ethics in coaching. Sage.
The Purdue Global GM585 Unit 8 instructions
GM585 Unit 8 asks you to analyze an ethical dilemma that arises in coaching. Present the facts as the coach would summarize them afterward, including the agreement made at the start about confidentiality and its limits. Separate the roles the coach holds, especially if the coach is also the person's manager, and list the duties each role carries with their source, such as the ICF Code of Ethics or organizational policy. Weigh several options, from keeping everything private to escalating at once, and explain what each gains and costs. Choose a response and justify it by role. Write out the words you would use, because a response that cannot be said aloud is not finished. Close with how the coaching relationship might resume. Four parts across roughly six pages is usual, with the codes and ethics research cited in APA 7.
How this GM585 Unit 8 example is built
The facts give the manager's summary of Priya's disclosure: her mother's diagnosis, about four hours of sleep, two workpaper errors caught in review and her request to keep it from the partner, along with the signed agreement and its exceptions. Obligations separate the coach's duties under the ICF Code of Ethics, the supervisor's duties under firm policy, including referral to human resources, and the colleague's real sympathy. The highlighted sentence frames the case as three roles. Iordanou, Hawley and Iordanou explain why internal coaches face sharper dilemmas. Four options are weighed, and waiting is also set aside. The chosen response separates the roles, and the manager's words are written out: no disclosure to the partner, coaching paused, the assistance program number and a human resources conversation within the week. The agreement is renewed later, citing the ICF competencies.
Reading the GM585 Unit 8 grading rubric
GM585 rubric points for this case go to clear role separation and a response that honors both the coaching agreement and the manager's duties. Instructors check that the facts include the confidentiality agreement and its limits. Each role's duties should be tied to a source, such as the ICF Code of Ethics or firm policy. Weighing several options, including their costs to trust, shows judgment. The chosen response should explain which role each action belongs to. Writing out the words the coach would use earns significant credit because it shows the response is workable. Recognizing when needs go beyond coaching and referring, without abandoning the person, reflects the code. The ICF Code of Ethics and core competencies and Iordanou, Hawley and Iordanou's Values and Ethics in Coaching form the references in APA 7.
GM585 Unit 8 help: mistakes that cost points
Many GM585 Unit 8 cases treat the dilemma as a choice between secrecy and disclosure and miss the middle options. Others ignore the agreement made at the start, which usually decides what can be kept. A common gap is role confusion: a manager who coaches holds duties as a supervisor that an external coach does not, and the analysis should say which role drives each choice. Some writers escalate without the person's knowledge, which damages trust needlessly. State the agreement, separate the roles and their sources, weigh at least four options, choose one that respects both the person and your duties, write out what you would say and explain how coaching can resume.
Get a GM585 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Whether your Unit 8 case is assigned or taken from a coaching or mentoring relationship you saw turn into something else, with details altered, send it along with the prompt and rubric. A free first case analysis is ready in 24-48h, roles separated, options weighed, and a response the person involved would recognize as fair. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GM585 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM585 Unit 1: Mentoring Functions Discussion Post
- GM585 Unit 2: Coaching Skills Self-Assessment
- GM585 Unit 3: OSKAR Coaching Transcript
- GM585 Unit 4: Feedback Scenario Response
- GM585 Unit 5: Intentional Change Development Plan
- GM585 Unit 6: Coaching Spectrum Seminar Reflection
- GM585 Unit 7: Mentoring Program Design
- GM585 Unit 9: Progress Review Memo
- GM585 Unit 10: Coaching Philosophy Paper
- GM543 Unit 8: Span of Control and Layers Review
- GM541 Unit 8: Fair Process Change Communication
- GM506 Unit 8: Second Plant Sensitivity Analysis
- GM505 Unit 8: Aid Pilot Data Gathering Plan
GM585 Unit 8 questions, answered
When should coaching become a referral?
When the conversation needs expertise the coach does not have or a relationship the coach cannot offer: grief, mental health, caregiving strain, legal or financial trouble. The ICF Code of Ethics expects coaches to notice such moments and encourage the person toward a suitable professional. Referring is not abandoning; the coaching can resume later, and saying so makes the referral easier to accept.
Can a manager ever keep a disclosure confidential?
Some of it, often. Personal circumstances can usually stay private unless safety or law requires otherwise. What a manager cannot keep private is anything touching work quality, client obligations or fairness to others, because the manager answers for those. Stating that limit at the start of a coaching relationship, as the sample's agreement did, prevents a promise that later has to be broken.
Is the employee assistance program the only referral?
It is usually the first, since it is confidential and already paid for. Depending on the situation, human resources may explain leave options, a physician or counselor may be appropriate, and community resources may help with caregiving. The case should offer options the person chooses among rather than making the referral for them, which respects the relationship even as it changes.
Where can I find a free GM585 Unit 8 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM585 Unit 8 boundaries and ethics case on a caregiving disclosure during coaching, with roles separated, four options weighed, the manager's words and APA 7 references.
Why not simply keep the disclosure secret?
The manager is also the associate's supervisor and answers for work quality, and firm policy requires a human resources referral when an employee may need leave or flexibility. Secrecy would leave her without support and could harm both of them if errors continued.