When Mentors Fail: New Study Reframes Coaching Breakdowns as Consumer Dissatisfaction
Aron, D., Battistoni, M., & Bonilla, A. (2026). Coach hurt: Understanding service failures in coaching and mentoring relationships through the lens of consumer dissatisfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 39(1), 92–107. https://jcsdcb.com
Introduction
Coaching and mentoring are valuable professional development pathways. Organizations invest significantly in these relationships, viewing them as an organizational good, as they enhance employee performance and growth. A new conceptual framework published in the Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior argues that when these relationships go wrong, the fallout translates to a service failure. Aron and colleagues (2026) introduce “Coach Hurt” as a distinct category of relational service failure, one where the harm extends well beyond disappointment into eroded confidence, career disruption, and organizational disengagement.
Methods
The authors develop the Coach Hurt framework by synthesizing three established theories: service failure and recovery theory, psychological contract theory, and social exchange theory. The Coach Hurt framework is grounded in existing literature on mentoring dysfunction and brought to life through an illustrative scenario drawn from the authors’ own experiences in mentoring relationships.
Results
The authors identify three primary manifestations of Coach Hurt, each corresponding to a distinct form of service failure. Neglectful coaching constitutes a process failure—chronic unavailability, vague feedback, and abandonment. Manipulative or toxic coaching represents an interactional failure—misuse of authority, favoritism, and gatekeeping. Mismatched expectations produce relational failure—divergent assumptions about roles that go unaddressed until disengagement sets in. Across all three, mentees respond in ways that resemble the psychological experience of a dissatisfied consumer: emotional withdrawal (private response), negative word-of-mouth (public response), and reduced organizational loyalty (exit response).
Discussion
When coaching relationships break down, the authors argue that typical strategies like apologizing are insufficient. Unlike traditional service failures, Coach Hurt cannot be resolved through apology or compensation alone—meaningful relationship recovery requires rebuilding psychological safety, restoring trust, and realigning the developmental goals of the relationship. Without that deeper repair and genuine effort, dissatisfaction deepens over time.
Implications for Mentoring Programs
Organizations should approach mentoring with the same rigor that is applied and enforced in formal service systems. This involves establishing clear expectations from the start, creating confidential channels for feedback, and encouraging mentees to build networks across multiple mentors rather than relying on a single relationship. When mentees go quiet or pull back, it should be interpreted as a sign that the relationship is falling short, rather than reflecting individual personality traits.
Read the full article here
