I've spent over 10 years working in service design (20 in digital!), mapping complexity, working across systems, helping organisations see what's really going on. Alongside that, I've trained and worked as a coach, supporting 100+ people to think clearly, make decisions, and change how they show up.
From the outside, they can look like very different disciplines. One strategic and organisational, the other more personal and relational. But to me, they feel incredibly similar. I often find myself using coaching skills inside service design work, and service design thinking inside coaching conversations. They're not separate worlds – they're different lenses on the same kind of change.
Both start with listening, not solutions
At their best, coaching and service design are not about having the answers. They're about creating the conditions for the right answers to emerge.
In coaching, that means listening beyond the words. Paying attention to patterns, energy shifts, contradictions – what's said and what isn't. Holding back your own answers and asking questions that help someone hear themselves more clearly.
In service design, it's the same skill applied differently. Listening to users, staff, systems, data, and constraints. Understanding real pain points and not jumping straight to ideas or features. Letting the real shape of the problem surface before trying to change it.
What I love – and find hard – about both is the willingness to sit in uncertainty, waiting for clarity to emerge.
Both work with complexity, not linear problems
People are complex. Organisations are complex. Systems are messy, political, emotional, and rarely rational.
In coaching, a single issue someone brings is often connected to identity, values, fears, relationships, history, and context. You pull one thread and five more appear. In service design, you see the same thing. A "small" service issue turns out to be tied to incentives, legacy technology, leadership decisions, culture, and unspoken assumptions.
Both disciplines respect complexity. They don't try to flatten it too quickly. They help make it visible, workable, and less overwhelming – without pretending it can be fully controlled.
Both embrace problems and possibilities
Coaching and service design both work with problems and possibilities. They don't just focus on what's wrong – they also explore what could be.
In coaching, a challenge isn't just something to fix. It's an opportunity to notice patterns, make different choices, and find new ways of being. In service design, a problem isn't just something to remove. It's a starting point for better ideas and a chance to reimagine experiences and systems.
I love that both encourage curiosity and experimentation. They turn uncertainty into invitation.
Both are about behaviour change and insight
Insight – just one new thought – can be a huge catalyst for change. But insight alone doesn't change much.
In coaching, awareness is only useful if it leads to different choices, conversations, and actions. In service design, research is only valuable if it leads to changes in how services are designed, delivered, or supported. In both, the real work is helping people move from knowing to doing.
That might look like creating safe enough conditions for experimentation, supporting a leader to show up differently in a team, helping an organisation stop designing for how it wishes things worked, or challenging patterns that keep repeating because they feel familiar.
Both rely on facilitation, not authority
Neither role works well from a position of "the expert knows best." You can't force transformation in either.
In coaching, you're not there to tell someone how to live their life. You're there to help them think, feel, and choose more consciously. In service design, you rarely make the final call. You influence through facilitation, framing, evidence, and helping others see differently.
In both cases, you need to ask good questions, create psychological safety, and make the invisible visible. This is one of the things I love most – and also one of the hardest parts. There's nowhere to hide behind deliverables or certainty. You have to trust the process and yourself.
What I love about coaching
I love the depth. The privilege of being trusted with someone's inner world. The moments where something clicks. The quiet shifts that don't look dramatic from the outside but change everything on the inside.
I love that coaching honours autonomy. That it doesn't try to mould people into something else, but helps them come home to themselves – with more clarity and choice. I love how much it asks of me too. Presence. Self-awareness. Humility.
What I love about service design
I love the reach. The ability to improve experiences for thousands of people, or more. The way small design decisions can reduce friction, stress, or exclusion at scale.
I love working at the intersection of strategy and reality – where you have to translate values into actual systems, processes, and tools. I love the collaborative nature of it. Working across disciplines. Holding multiple perspectives. Designing with people rather than for them.
Why being a generalist is hard (and joyful)
The world likes neat labels. Coach or designer. Specialist or generalist. But my brain doesn't work like that. I'm drawn to the through-line – understanding people, systems, and change – rather than to a single method or role.
Being a generalist means seeing connections and patterns on different levels, moving comfortably between them, and adapting tools to the situation rather than forcing a rigid framework. It also means feeling like you don't fully belong in any one box, being asked to be narrow when your value is broad, and having to constantly explain what you do.
Where I've landed (for now)
I'm no longer trying to choose. Instead, I'm being more honest about the kind of work I'm drawn to: work with people who want to create a positive impact, work that navigates uncertainty, work that deals with complexity, work that respects people's agency, and work that aims to make systems – internal or external – more human.
Sometimes that looks like coaching. Sometimes it looks like service design. Often it looks like something in between. And that's okay.
Not everything valuable fits neatly into a job title. Sometimes the work is the through-line.