Developing Our Practice Together
Collaboration and professional judgement in bike fitting
By Gillian Corke
A client tells you that they loved the bike fit. They enjoyed the space and are looking forward to coming back. Then they add that you cost about 50% more than other fitters. What happens next?
You might explain the time involved, describe your experience or ask what they are comparing. You might consider a discount. Before any of that, there is a moment in which you interpret what you have heard. Are they questioning the fee, the service or you?
For a bike fitting business, this is a practical question. How do we explain the value of our work, protect a viable fee and keep the conversation useful? The way we respond can affect the decision the rider makes and the time we spend resolving uncertainty afterwards.
At the IBFI Global Conference 2026, I invited participants to explore this scenario through three questions: what are you thinking, what are you feeling and what are you deciding to do? The responses gave us a way to examine professional judgement from inside the interaction: how we bring our expertise to a conversation while staying open to what the other person knows and needs.
The interpretation behind the response
In the first round, the thinking summary included explaining or justifying value, mixed signals and professional credibility. The feelings summary held positive responses alongside frustration, defensiveness, pressure and discomfort. Possible actions included clarification, holding ground, changing the price and pausing.
There was already a range of responses. The exercise was not about identifying a correct personality type or a single ideal answer. It was about noticing the relationship between our own interpretation and the actions available to us.
For the second round, participants imagined hearing the same words while holding this idea: “This is about their coping, not my worth.” The client’s words had not changed. We had introduced a different perspective from which to hear them.
The second thinking summary included curiosity about what lay behind the comment and possible financial discomfort. The action summary included asking and understanding, expressing appreciation, offering choice and holding a boundary. Mixed feelings were still present. Feeling steadier did not require every uncomfortable feeling to disappear.
These are reflections from an experiential workshop, not evidence of lasting changes in practice. The summaries do not establish how often each response occurred or what participants later did with clients. They do offer material for professional enquiry: how does the meaning I give a comment affect what I can hear and choose next?
Keeping enquiry open
The prompt about coping is useful when it loosens the connection between a price comment and our own worth. It also needs care. We do not know why a client has raised the comparison. They may be concerned about affordability, asking about differences between services or simply making an observation. Treating any one explanation as certain would close down the enquiry again.
A response might begin: “I’m glad the fit has been useful. What would you like to understand about the price difference?” That gives the client room to explain what matters to them, without requiring them to disclose more than they wish. We can then explain our service, discuss the options we actually offer and keep the boundary that applies.
Empathy does not commit us to changing a fee. It can help us recognise our own reaction and explore with the rider what decision they are trying to make. Equally, a boundary can be expressed without turning the exchange into a defence of our personal value. The task is to hear the concern and respond with professional clarity.
Working alongside the rider
The fitter brings technical knowledge, assessment skills and professional judgement. The rider brings knowledge of their own experience, priorities and circumstances. We need both to understand what a useful outcome would look like and to judge whether a change is helping.
Working as a guide alongside the rider means making our reasoning available: explaining what we have noticed, offering a recommendation and inviting feedback we can use. A question might be: “Given what you want from your riding, I suggest we try this change. What do you notice, and how does it relate to the difficulty you described?” We can then assess the response together and decide what to test next.
Co-creation takes shape in that exchange. We develop a shared understanding of the goal and a workable plan, with clear responsibilities. The fitter remains accountable for the quality of their advice, recognises the limits of their competence and refers when appropriate. The rider remains free to ask questions, express a preference or decline an option. A shared decision does not require us to agree with every request; it requires us to explain our judgement and hear the rider’s response.
What this means for your business
The business value lies in what a more grounded conversation enables us to do. In the price scenario, asking what the rider is actually comparing gives us a chance to explain the service in a way that is meaningful to them. We remain responsible for the services and terms we offer; the rider can decide whether those options meet their needs. We can make a deliberate commercial decision rather than offer a discount simply to relieve our own discomfort.
Clear expectations also matter after the appointment. What is included in the fee? What should the rider try, what feedback do we need and when should they contact us? Making those agreements explicit can help prevent avoidable misunderstandings and repeated clarification. Hearing a concern early gives us a chance to address it while the relationship is still open. Agreeing a plan together gives us something specific to review. If the outcome differs from what we hoped, we can ask what happened and reconsider the next step.
A rider who can describe what happened and why the next step makes sense to them has a clearer account of the service to share with someone else. That is a plausible route towards trust, return visits where appropriate and referrals. It depends on the quality of the fit and follow-up as well as the conversation.
We can test the value in our own businesses. Choose one recurring difficulty and try a specific change, such as agreeing the follow-up plan before the rider leaves. Review the time spent clarifying it later, whether the agreed actions happened and what the rider understood. If unnecessary work decreases while the rider receives useful support, that is a business benefit worth noticing. Our conference exercise did not measure revenue or retention; it identified responses we can take into practice and evaluate.
Listening when feedback is unexpected
The same question arises beyond price. A rider reports that a change does not feel better. Their priorities differ from ours. They return with feedback we were not expecting. In each case, our response can either make room for information or narrow the conversation before we have understood it.
In his IBFI article on the art and science of bike fitting, Curtis Cramblett describes listening to the cyclist’s experience, making a targeted change and rechecking what matters to that rider. Contact Point explores what it takes for the practitioner to remain available to that process, particularly when the answer challenges an expectation in real time.
The IBFI’s syllabus places communication, rider feedback and professional judgement within professional development. These skills deserve practice in the situations where we use them: discussing uncertainty, explaining a recommendation and agreeing what happens next.
Developing practice together
The same attention belongs in our relationships with colleagues. In a commissioned workshop titled, ‘Taking Our Work to the Next Level’, with Foundation Fit in April 2026, we began with real experiences: what had gone well, where people felt effective and what they had learned about themselves.
We explored different approaches and the beliefs that influence how we show up. The work included listening without immediately fixing, recognising what each person contributes and considering how we all shape the professional environment. We considered how different working styles could contribute to shared learning while retaining clear professional expectations.
The group identified possible next steps, including protecting time to review fits and asking what had worked well. Another was to make the next action explicit for both parties: what will the rider do, and what will the fitter do? These were intentions to take into practice, rather than measured outcomes.
For me, this connects individual reflection with collective development. A team needs opportunities to discuss experience and test its assumptions. Collaboration also includes being able to question a recommendation, explain a disagreement and identify when further expertise is needed. A practitioner working alone can also seek that exchange with peers. We can ask what makes our work meaningful and how we want to contribute to the wider profession. For a business with several fitters, making those agreements visible can support clearer handovers and follow-up. Reviewing a difficult case together gives the team a chance to improve its process, rather than leave each fitter to resolve the same problem alone.
Practising steadiness
At the end of the IBFI workshop, I asked participants what helps them stay steady in moments like this. Their response summary included pausing and breathing, grounding rituals, focusing on facts and process, connecting with someone, and rest and recovery.
This was a reminder that practitioners already carry useful resources. A phrase or pause may help in the moment; reflecting with a colleague may help afterwards. The work is to notice what supports a considered response and make it available when we need it.
Try returning to a recent demanding conversation. Write down what the person said, separating it from the meaning you gave it. Notice what you felt and what you did. Then consider another plausible interpretation. What question could you ask to check it? What boundary would still need to be clear?
That reflection can turn an uncomfortable exchange into something we can learn from. We can practise hearing the concern, explaining our judgement and agreeing a next step while keeping responsibility appropriately shared.
Continuing the conversation
Contact Point’s live online workshop on Monday 23 November 2026, 19:00–20:30 UTC will build on the conference exercise through professional judgement under pressure. A 6-session live online course from January to February 2027 will explore relational practice in bike fitting, including how we work with clients and develop with colleagues. Bring a recurring conversation that costs you time or makes it difficult to explain your service. We will work with participants’ experience, practise alongside one another and develop approaches to test in our own settings. The aim is to leave with a clearer way to approach the conversation and a practical question to explore with the rider or team.
The human relationship is what I call the fourth contact point. It is where technical expertise meets lived experience: feedback is heard, expectations are discussed and a plan takes shape together. Giving it deliberate attention includes reflecting on our own practice and creating opportunities to learn with others.
To register interest in either programme, contact gillian@torkecycling.com or visit contactpoint.my.canva.site. Course dates, session schedules and fees will be announced on the website.
About the author
Gillian Corke, BA (Hons) Dunelm, is an independent educator, author and professional trainer, and with 20 years experience at Torke Cycling. A Positive Discipline Trainer and Lynn Lott Encouragement Consultant Trainer, she brings nearly thirty years of music education and work in embodied learning and trauma-informed relational practice to Contact Point’s professional learning for bike fitters.
Comments