Ontological coaching

1. Introduction

Version followed: Rafael Echeverría's ontology-of-language school of ontological coaching as taught by Newfield Consulting (Santiago de Chile; pedagogical model of Echeverría and Alicia Pizarro, who directs ECORE, the school Echeverría founded [source: Newfield Consulting 2018]), supplemented by Alan Sieler (Newfield Australia) for mood and body work and by Fernando Flores' conversation-for-action cycle (as reported by Reilly in Walden 1997) for requests, promises and breakdowns. Echeverría, Flores and Julio Olalla (Newfield Network) are named as the three founders [source: Durán Pereira et al. 2024]. Source status: Echeverría's own published articles and interviews on the Newfield Consulting site, Flores' request–promise cycle, a study guide to chapter 3 of Ontología del lenguaje (speech acts), two university course programmes (UNLU 2016; UTN Reconquista 2020), the EMCC Global Code of Ethics and Spanish-language secondary descriptions of OSAR, learning levels and quiebre are cited below. Ontología del lenguaje itself, Sieler's Coaching to the Human Soul and Flores' and Olalla's own books have no open authorised edition; OSAR, learning levels, grounding criteria and the mood typology therefore rest on secondary sources or synthesis [uncertain].

What it is. Ontological coaching is a coaching discipline, not a psychotherapy and not a single technique set. It grew out of Chile from the late 1980s (pioneers Flores, Echeverría and Olalla; spread across Latin America from 1990) and rests on the biology of cognition (Maturana), philosophy of language (Austin, Searle) and existential philosophy (Nietzsche, Heidegger) [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing D'Addario 2017 and Anzorena 2016; Clutterbuck 2014; Sieler 2003; Echeverría interview 2014]. Echeverría calls it a kind of "fenomenología asistida" (assisted phenomenology): the coach helps a person observe how they themselves make sense of things, which they cannot easily see alone [source: Echeverría 2014; Echeverría interview 2014].

How change happens. People are treated as "observers": the results they get follow from the actions available to them, and those actions follow from the kind of observer they are (their distinctions, judgments, moods and bodily dispositions). When repeated action fails, the move is not more effort but a change in the observer, which opens actions that were previously not visible [source: Leal et al. 2017 citing Samelnik & Selman 2002 and Echeverría 2006; Sieler 2003]. The observer is constituted in three interrelated domains, language, emotion (mood) and body, and lasting change needs shifts in all three [source: Echeverría 2014; Echeverría 2017; Sieler 2003]. Because language is treated as action that generates reality ("lenguaje es acción"), the coaching conversation itself is the intervention [source: Echeverría 2017; Echeverría 2014].

For the psychotherapist. The model's authors frame the coachee as a healthy person seeking transformational learning, not treatment [source: Echeverría 2014; Sieler 2003]. If you use it, use it as coaching under a coaching contract, or borrow its distinctions inside therapy and label that clearly as your own integration [synthesis].

2. Framework

Core map: observer – (system) – action – results. Coaching works mainly in the domain of being (the observer), not doing (actions) or having (results) [source: Leal et al. 2017 citing Samelnik & Selman 2002, p. 31]. Echeverría adds that the coach explores two largely hidden conditions, the observer and the social systems the person belongs to, to find the obstacle [source: Echeverría 2014]; a Spanish-language management article likewise says coaching works in "dos ámbitos, el observador y el sistema" [source: Gestiopolis, secondary]. University training programmes teach this as the PAR model (percepción–acción–resultados; observer–action–result) [source: UNLU programme 2016]. A Spanish-language overview presents the same map as OSAR (observador, sistema, acción, resultado), with the rule that changing results requires changing the observer, not only the actions [source: Aprender21 2026, secondary, gives no attribution]. The founding text that defines the OSAR acronym (often credited to Echeverría or to Newfield training) is not drawn on here [uncertain].

Engagement-level phases (coaching process). Sources describe three overlapping versions; this guide follows the combined sequence below.

Agreement and bond. Goal: establish the coachee's own objectives, the relationship of trust and the coaching agreement. Coach listens to the goals the coachee brings [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing D'Addario 2017, p. 50; Leal et al. 2017 citing Samelnik & Selman 2002, p. 32]. Move on when the coachee has a stated aspiration they own and a working sense of trust [synthesis].
Observing the interpretive structure. Goal: make visible the judgments through which the coachee reads the situation, other people, the system, themselves, their relationships, the future and the past; also observe their actions [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing Anzorena 2016, p. 138; Samelnik & Selman via Leal 2017]. Move on when the coachee can state their own story about the problem as an interpretation rather than as fact [synthesis].
Understanding the structure of coherence behind the breakdown (quiebre). Goal: see how language, mood and body fit together to keep producing the unwanted result; detect what is missing for the result [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing D'Addario 2017, p. 89; Samelnik & Selman via Leal 2017]. Tools: questions, agreements, examples, observations offered back [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019; Sieler 2003]. Move on when the coachee sees a new possibility for action they did not see before [synthesis].
Action and practice. Goal: design conversations and actions aligned with the commitment and put the learning into practice at work, home or study [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing Anzorena 2016, p. 153; Samelnik & Selman via Leal 2017]. Includes embodied rehearsal [source: Sieler 2003].
Evaluation, maintenance and close. Goal: review results, support the person until results are achieved, and end without creating dependence [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing D'Addario 2017, p. 50 and p. 369; Samelnik & Selman via Leal 2017].

Session structure (single coaching conversation). Opening (setting the context), exploration–understanding–interpretation, expansion (new possibilities), closing [source: UNLU programme 2016, Level 2 Unit 3]. Echeverría likens the conversation to a dance where the coachee sets the pace [source: Leal et al. 2017 citing Echeverría 2003, p. 2].

Session count and format. Not specified in the published sources [uncertain]. University training requires 10 practice conversations as coach and 5 as coachee for certification [source: UNLU programme 2016]. Practical default: individual sessions of 60–90 minutes, every one to three weeks, reviewed after about six sessions [synthesis]. Ontological coaching is also delivered to teams and organisations [source: UNLU programme 2016; Echeverría interview 2014].

3. Guiding principles

The coachee sets the goals; the coach facilitates. Never import your own treatment goals; contrast with consulting, where the consultant proposes the route [source: Echeverría 2014].
Coaching is assisted self-observation. Your job is to help the person see how they observe, not to tell them what is true [source: Echeverría 2014].
The coachee is healthy; this is learning, not treatment. If the presenting problem is a disorder, you are outside the model [source: Echeverría 2014; Sieler 2003].
Language is action. Treat what the client says (judgments, requests, promises) as acts with consequences, not as reports [source: Echeverría 2017].
Three domains, one way of being. Track language, mood and body together; insight in language alone rarely holds [source: Sieler 2003; Echeverría 2014].
Your interpretations are provisional. Offer observations as your reading, held with humility [source: Echeverría 2014].
The relationship carries the work. Emotional connection, respect and trust determine whether the intervention succeeds [source: Echeverría 2014; Leal et al. 2017].
The coachee sets the pace. Follow, don't push [source: Leal et al. 2017 citing Echeverría 2003].
Obstacles are usually internal and circular, not motivational. Look for the vicious circle, not for more willpower [source: Leal et al. 2017 citing Echeverría 2000].
Learning is discontinuous. Expect plateaus and sudden shifts; don't read a plateau as failure [source: Leal et al. 2017 citing Echeverría 2000, p. 96].
Learning begins with a declaration of ignorance. Help the coachee say "I don't know how to do this yet"; Echeverría treats this declaration as the first step of any learning [source: UBA guide 2009 on Ontología del lenguaje ch. 3].
Listening is the 'queen' competence. Spend more of the session listening than speaking; silence counts [source: Echeverría 2017].
Non-directive, no imposed solutions; set aside your own judgments and values. Ask, don't prescribe [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing D'Addario 2017 and Anzorena 2016].
Avoid dependence. Build the coachee's own capacity to observe [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019].
Body work only with permission. Ask before suggesting posture changes [source: Sieler 2003].
Ethics is part of competence. Newfield certifies on ethical conduct (respect, positivity, trust, humility), not on skills alone [source: Echeverría interview 2014].
Stay inside the model. Anzorena lists visualisation, NLP perceptual positions, constellations, empty chair and psychodrama as not part of ontological coaching; if you add them, label them as integration [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing Anzorena 2016, p. 180].

4. Intervention inventory

Note on sourcing: the sources confirm which distinctions and tools the school teaches (observer–action–results, speech acts, grounding of judgments, requests/offers/promises, listening as hearing plus interpreting, advocacy and inquiry, moods, body, conversation design, session structure), drawing on Echeverría's own Newfield articles and interviews, Flores' request–promise cycle (Reilly in Walden 1997), a study guide to chapter 3 of Ontología del lenguaje (assertions, declarations, requests, offers, promises), university course programmes, and secondary descriptions of OSAR, learning levels and quiebre. The step-by-step procedures of Ontología del lenguaje (1994) and Sieler's Coaching to the Human Soul are not reproduced in any of these; where steps go beyond the sources they are marked [synthesis] or [uncertain]. All example wording is illustrative.

4.1 Coaching agreement and establishing the bond

Purpose / when: Opening of the engagement; also whenever goals drift. Sets the coachee's own objectives and the trust the work depends on [source: Echeverría 2014; Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing D'Addario 2017, p. 50].
Steps: (1) Explain that this is coaching, not therapy, and what that means for both of you [synthesis]. (2) Ask what the person wants to achieve and what is missing for them to get it [source: Clutterbuck 2014; Samelnik & Selman via Leal 2017]. (3) Clarify any sponsor (employer) and what will and won't be reported [synthesis]. (4) Run a brief referral screen (see 4.19) [source: ICF 2024; synthesis for timing]. (5) Agree frequency, duration and how you will review progress [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "What do you want to be able to do, or to have happen, that you can't yet? … And what would tell you this coaching was worth it?"
Watch for: Goals set by someone else (a boss, a partner) that the coachee doesn't own; a request that is really for treatment of distress. Working when the coachee states the aim in their own words and with some energy [synthesis].

4.2 Structuring the coaching conversation

Purpose / when: Every session [source: UNLU programme 2016, Level 2 Unit 3].
Steps: (1) Opening: set the context and agree what this conversation is for. (2) Exploration, understanding, interpretation: hear the story, observe language, mood and body, build a working interpretation of the coachee's way of being. (3) Expansion: open new distinctions and possibilities for action. (4) Closing: agree actions, practices or requests the coachee will make, and check what they are taking away [source: UNLU programme 2016; content of each phase partly synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): Opening: "Where would you like to get to by the end of today?" Closing: "What do you see now that you didn't see when you walked in? What will you do with that before we meet?"
Watch for: Skipping exploration and jumping to advice (which turns coaching into consulting) [source: Echeverría 2014]. Working when the session ends with a concrete next action the coachee chose [synthesis].

4.3 Ontological listening

Purpose / when: Throughout. Listening is the 'queen' of conversational competences and the main way the coach detects what the coachee cannot see [source: Echeverría 2017; Leal et al. 2017 citing Echeverría 2000].
Steps: (1) Treat listening as hearing plus interpreting: notice that you are building an interpretation, not receiving facts [source: UNLU programme 2016]. (2) Listen for the coachee's judgments, the actions they consider possible and impossible, their mood, and their body (posture, voice, breathing) [source: Sieler 2003; Echeverría 2014]. (3) Listen to silences, which can say more than words [source: Echeverría 2017]. (4) Check your interpretation with the coachee rather than assuming it [source: Echeverría 2014 on provisional interpretations; steps 4 synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Here's what I'm hearing, and tell me if I've got it wrong: you say you 'can't' ask your director for more staff. Is that a fact, or how it looks from where you stand?"
Watch for: Your own judgments of the coachee leaking in; the coachee feeling interpreted rather than heard. Working when the coachee says "yes, that's it" or corrects you with something new [synthesis].

4.4 Tracing observer → action → results

Purpose / when: Early, once a recurring unwanted result is clear. Moves the focus from results and actions to the observer that makes certain actions visible or invisible [source: Leal et al. 2017 citing Samelnik & Selman 2002; UNLU programme 2016 (PAR model)].
Steps: (1) Name the result the coachee keeps getting. (2) List the actions they have tried. (3) Ask what they believe about the situation, others and themselves that makes those actions seem the only ones. (4) Note the system they act within (team, family, organisation) and how it rewards the pattern [source: Echeverría 2014 on observer and social systems]. (5) Distinguish first-order learning (changing the action: what do I have to do differently?) from second-order learning (changing the observer: who would I have to be for this to become possible?), which is described as the core territory of ontological coaching; a third order (a deeper change in the observer's identity) is also named, and the levels are credited to Gregory Bateson [source: Aprender21 2026, secondary]. A "tercer orden o transformacional" level also appears in the critique Vidas diseñadas [source: Culturales review]. Echeverría's and Sieler's own definitions are not drawn on here, and schools may number the levels differently [uncertain].
Example language (illustrative): "You've tried asking nicely and you've tried insisting, and the result is the same. What kind of observer would see a third option here?"
Watch for: Blaming the system entirely or the self entirely. Working when the coachee names a belief or judgment as one possible way of seeing, not the way things are [synthesis].

4.5 Mapping the interpretive structure

Purpose / when: Phase 2. Makes visible the judgments that hold the problem in place [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing Anzorena 2016, p. 138].
Steps: Ask in turn for the coachee's judgments about (1) the situation, (2) the other people, (3) the system, (4) themselves, (5) the relationships, (6) the future, (7) the past [source: Anzorena 2016 via Nava Rodríguez 2019]. Write them down verbatim. Then ask which of these judgments most closes off action [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "What's your judgment of yourself in this? … And of where this is heading? … Which of these, if it were different, would change most?"
Watch for: The coachee presenting judgments as facts. Working when the person starts saying "my judgment is…" spontaneously [synthesis].

4.6 Distinguishing assertions from declarations and judgments

Purpose / when: When a coachee treats an opinion as fact, or doesn't see that they can declare something new. Language both describes (assertions) and transforms (declarations) [source: Echeverría 2017; UNLU programme 2016 Unit 2]. In Echeverría's scheme, assertions are true or false within a shared space of distinctions and can be backed or refuted by a witness; declarations are not true or false but valid or invalid depending on the speaker's authority, and they create a new state of affairs [source: UBA guide 2009 on Ontología del lenguaje ch. 3]. His own examples of declarations include hiring, firing, condemning and absolving [source: Newfield Consulting 2020 interview]. Flores' school puts the distinction this way: an assertion is something you are willing to prove and concerns the past; an assessment cannot be proved, concerns the future and is made for the sake of action [source: Reilly in Walden 1997].
Steps: (1) Take a statement the coachee made. (2) Ask whether it describes something observable that a witness could confirm or refute (an assertion) or is an assessment of it (a judgment) [source: UBA guide 2009; Reilly in Walden 1997]. (3) Ask who has the authority to make the relevant declaration, and whether the coachee has it [source: UBA guide 2009 on validity resting on authority; question form is synthesis]. (4) Point out declarations they could make (e.g., "no", "enough", "I'm starting this", or the declaration of ignorance, "I don't know how to do this yet", which the school treats as the first step of learning) that would change their situation by being said with authority [source: Echeverría 2017; UBA guide 2009 for the declaration of ignorance; the other example declarations are synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "'The project failed' — is that something anyone could check, or your assessment? … What would change if you declared it finished and started a new one?"
Watch for: Turning this into a logic lesson. Working when the coachee separates facts from assessments without prompting [synthesis].

4.7 Grounding judgments

Purpose / when: When a limiting judgment (of self or others) is held as truth. The school teaches judgments, their grounding (fundamentación) and their link to ways of being [source: UNLU programme 2016 Unit 2]. Because judgments cannot be verified directly, they are assessed by whether they are well founded, and the coach asks what evidence supports them [source: Aprender21 2026, secondary]. In Flores' school people often mistake assessments for assertions, and "most action takes place against assessments" [source: Reilly in Walden 1997]. Echeverría holds that people need to be able to make judgments, which give life meaning [source: Newfield Consulting 2020 interview]; the aim is better-grounded judgments, not no judgments [synthesis]. Opinions are to be tested rather than assumed [source: Ash 2022].
Steps (Echeverría's own grounding criteria are not given in the sources used, so steps 2–6 are the writer's synthesis [synthesis]): (1) Ask what the judgment is for: what action it is meant to guide [source: Reilly in Walden 1997 on assessments made for the sake of action]. (2) Ask in which domain it applies (at work? with this person? always?). (3) Ask what standard it is measured against. (4) Ask for observable facts that support it. (5) Ask for facts that contradict it. (6) Decide together whether it is well grounded, poorly grounded, or needs testing by a request for information.
Example language (illustrative): "You've said you're 'bad at leading'. Bad by what standard, in which situations, and what's the evidence for and against?"
Watch for: Grounding used to argue the coachee out of a valid judgment (e.g., a genuinely unsafe workplace) [synthesis]. Working when the judgment becomes narrower, more specific, or opens an action [synthesis].

4.8 Requests, offers and promises (coordinating action)

Purpose / when: When the problem is a breakdown in coordination: delegation, overload, unmet expectations. Requests, offers and promises are the acts through which people coordinate action [source: Echeverría 2017; UNLU programme 2016]. In Flores' model the basic unit of work is a four-stage cycle between a customer and a provider: (1) request or offer; (2) negotiation ending in agreement and a commitment; (3) performance and the provider's declaration of completion; (4) the customer's assessment and declaration of satisfaction [source: Reilly in Walden 1997]. Echeverría's account of a promise names a speaker, a listener, an action to be carried out to the listener's satisfaction, and a time factor; trust depends on the promiser's sincerity and competence [source: UBA guide 2009 on Ontología del lenguaje ch. 3]. Sieler's case example centres on a manager who could not make clear requests [source: Sieler 2003].
Steps: (1) Identify a request the coachee is not making, or is making unclearly [source: Sieler 2003]; typical breakdowns are unstated requests, accepting a request one has not understood, and unclear conditions of form and time [source: UBA guide 2009]. (2) Draft it with its elements: who asks whom (customer and provider), for the sake of what, exactly what would satisfy it (conditions of satisfaction), and by when; without a completion time it is only a speculation [source: Reilly in Walden 1997; UBA guide 2009]. (3) Explore the emotion that comes when they imagine asking (Sieler's client felt anger) [source: Sieler 2003]. (4) Rehearse it aloud, if needed with body work (4.13). (5) Prepare for the responses: acceptance, or negotiation towards a revised agreement; a refused request produces no promise [source: Reilly in Walden 1997; UBA guide 2009]. The fuller typology of responses (decline, counteroffer, commit-to-commit) belongs to Flores' wider work, which is not drawn on here [uncertain]. (6) The coachee commits to make the request before next session and to close the loop by declaring whether they are satisfied with what was delivered [source: Reilly in Walden 1997; Ash 2022 on committing within a defined time].
Example language (illustrative): "Say the request as you'd say it to her. … What exactly are you asking for, and by when? … How would you both know it's been done?"
Watch for: Vague requests that leave the listener guessing; promises the coachee makes without the sincerity or competence to keep them, which erodes trust [source: UBA guide 2009]; loops never closed with a declaration of satisfaction [source: Reilly in Walden 1997]. Working when coordination outcomes change in the coachee's real world [synthesis].

4.8a Declaring breakdowns and renegotiating or revoking promises

Purpose / when: When a promise the coachee made (or received) cannot be kept. In Flores' model a breakdown is declared as soon as a party concludes the promise cannot be met, and someone must take responsibility for repairing it; breakdowns are treated as opportunities to improve [source: Reilly in Walden 1997].
Steps: (1) Help the coachee notice early that the promise is at risk and declare it to the other party rather than letting the deadline pass [source: Reilly in Walden 1997]. (2) If they must renege: apologise, offer something to make up for the cost to the other person, and stay open to a new request [source: Reilly in Walden 1997]. (3) Agree who takes responsibility for the repair [source: Reilly in Walden 1997]. (4) Afterwards, explore what led to the over-promise: a lapse of sincerity (agreeing without intending to do it) or of competence (agreeing without the capacity) [source: UBA guide 2009 on sincerity and competence; this application is synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "You can see now the report won't be ready Friday. What would it sound like to tell her today, apologise, say what you can offer instead, and ask what she needs now?"
Watch for: Shame-driven avoidance (hoping the deadline slides unnoticed); over-apologising without a new commitment. Working when the coachee renegotiates before the deadline and the relationship holds [synthesis].

4.9 Balancing advocacy and inquiry

Purpose / when: When a coachee only argues their view or only asks others. Echeverría draws on Argyris: advocacy (making one's view known) and inquiry (opening to what others observe and mean) [source: Echeverría 2017; UNLU programme 2016, 'the art of inquiring and proposing'].
Steps: (1) Replay a recent difficult conversation. (2) Mark each turn as advocacy or inquiry. (3) Notice the imbalance. (4) Redesign the opening with both: state your view and the reasoning, then genuinely ask for theirs [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "In that meeting, how much of what you said was telling, and how much was asking? … How might you open it differently?"
Watch for: Inquiry used as a disguised argument. Working when the coachee reports learning something new from the other person [synthesis].

4.10 Designing conversations (for possibilities vs. for coordinating action)

Purpose / when: When the coachee is stuck because they are having the wrong kind of conversation. Echeverría distinguishes conversations that generate possibilities where none are visible from conversations that coordinate action toward an objective already identified, and treats designing and sequencing conversations as a competence [source: Echeverría 2017]. Coaching designs conversations that align the coachee's actions with their commitment [source: Samelnik & Selman via Leal 2017].
Steps: (1) Identify the conversation the coachee keeps having (e.g., complaining about a colleague). (2) Ask whether they need new possibilities or coordinated action. (3) Map the conversations that are missing and with whom. (4) Sequence them: first possibilities, then coordination [synthesis for steps 1–4].
Example language (illustrative): "Which conversation haven't you had yet? With whom? Is it to find options, or to agree who does what?"
Watch for: Coordination conversations attempted before the parties share a picture of the possibilities. Working when the coachee leaves with a named conversation, person and date [synthesis].

4.11 Speaking about what is usually left unsaid

Purpose / when: When a relationship or team is stuck around an undiscussed issue. Following Argyris, Echeverría lists the ability to talk effectively about what we habitually silence as a conversational competence [source: Echeverría 2017].
Steps (synthesis): (1) Ask what is not being said, and by whom. (2) Explore the judgments and moods that keep it unsaid (fear of consequences, resentment). (3) Ground those judgments (4.7). (4) Design the opening sentence, combining advocacy and inquiry (4.9). (5) Rehearse; agree whether and when to have it.
Example language (illustrative): "What's the thing nobody in that team says out loud? … What do you fear would happen if you said it?"
Watch for: Pushing a coachee into a disclosure that is unsafe (e.g., in an abusive or retaliatory setting): the coachee decides [synthesis].

4.12 Observing and shifting moods

Purpose / when: When a persistent emotional background is closing off action. Moods are lasting background states that disclose which actions seem possible (Heidegger); emotions are what is felt now [source: Sieler 2003; Clutterbuck 2014]. Sieler teaches a 'Some Basic Moods of Life' model; his case shows resentment and anxiety [source: Sieler 2003]. Echeverría ties resignation to a sense of powerlessness and to the presumption that our way of being cannot change [source: Newfield Consulting 2020 interview]. Resentment, resignation, acceptance and ambition are the four moods taught in a university course built on the ontological model [source: UTN Reconquista 2020 programme], and a practitioner account names the same four as working moods [source: Ash 2022; secondary]. The judgments said to underlie each mood in Echeverría's own text are [uncertain].
Steps: (1) Name the mood with the coachee rather than for them [synthesis]. (2) Ask what the mood makes seem possible and impossible [source: Sieler 2003 on moods as predispositions]. (3) Elicit the judgments that sustain it: for resignation, the judgment that nothing can change, which Echeverría links to the belief in an unchangeable self [source: Newfield Consulting 2020 interview]; for resentment, a judgment of having been treated unfairly [source: Ash 2022; secondary; framing as underlying judgments partly synthesis]. (4) Ground those judgments (4.7). (5) Locate the mood in the body (4.13). (6) Explore what declaration, request or conversation would move toward acceptance (of what cannot change) or ambition (toward what can) [source: Ash 2022; synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "When you talk about the merger, what's the mood underneath? … From inside that mood, what looks possible? … What would you have to accept, and what could you still go after?"
Watch for: A 'mood' that is in fact a depressive episode or anxiety disorder (persistent low mood, sleep and appetite change, hopelessness): stop and screen (4.19) [source: ICF 2024; synthesis]. Working when the coachee reports a different background mood in real situations and different actions follow [synthesis].

4.13 Body (corporality) work and embodied rehearsal

Purpose / when: When insight in language has not changed behaviour; moods are embodied and shape what action is available [source: Sieler 2003; Echeverría 2014 on corporality as one of three components].
Steps: (1) Observe posture, chest, shoulders, voice as the coachee talks about the issue [source: Sieler 2003]. (2) Offer the observation and ask permission before any physical suggestion [source: Sieler 2003]. (3) Invite a small change in posture (e.g., opening the chest, aligning the shoulders) [source: Sieler 2003]. (4) Have the coachee re-say the key sentence (e.g., the request) from the new posture and notice changes in tone and wording [source: Sieler 2003]. (5) Repeat in practice so the new way of being is felt, not just understood [source: Sieler 2003]. (6) Agree a between-session body practice [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "I notice your shoulders come up as you describe asking him. May I suggest something physical? … Try letting your chest open a little and say the request again. What's different?"
Watch for: No touch; trauma survivors may experience posture instruction as intrusive or triggering; offer, never insist, and stop if the coachee becomes distressed or dissociated [synthesis]. Working when voice and wording shift spontaneously, as in Sieler's case [source: Sieler 2003].

4.14 Tracing the origin and story of a pattern

Purpose / when: When a reaction seems out of proportion to the present situation. In Sieler's case the coach explored where the client learned the pattern (family, underlying story) [source: Sieler 2003].
Steps: (1) Ask when the coachee first remembers responding this way. (2) Explore the story they learned about, for example, asking for help. (3) Ask how that story serves or limits them now. (4) Return to the present: what would a different observer do here? [steps 1–4 synthesis on Sieler's example].
Example language (illustrative): "Where did you learn that asking for things leads to trouble? … Is that story still true in this job?"
Watch for: Drifting into extended biographical or trauma exploration: this is the point where coaching shades into therapy; keep it brief and present-focused, and consider referral if trauma material surfaces [synthesis].

4.15 Working with the breakdown (quiebre) and its structure of coherence

Purpose / when: Phase 3. The coach helps the coachee understand the structure of coherence that makes what happened a breakdown (quiebre) for them, one they cannot resolve on their own [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing D'Addario 2017, p. 89]. The concept comes from Flores (1982): a breakdown is the moment a way of being is put in question, which exposes the practical structures underneath and opens the chance to change them [source: Culturales review of Vidas diseñadas]. A Spanish-language overview defines quiebre as the interruption of 'transparency' (action flowing without conscious effort) and treats it as a learning opportunity, not a failure [source: Aprender21 2026, secondary]; Flores' school likewise holds that breakdowns are opportunities to improve [source: Reilly in Walden 1997]. Echeverría's own definition in Ontología del lenguaje is not drawn on here [uncertain].
Steps (synthesis): (1) Name the breakdown in one sentence. (2) Gather what is coherent with it: the judgments (4.5), the mood (4.12), the bodily disposition (4.13), the conversations held and avoided (4.10). (3) Reflect back how these fit together. (4) Ask where a change in one domain could break the circle.
Example language (illustrative): "Look at it all together: the judgment that she won't listen, the resignation, the slumped way you sit when you talk about her, and the conversation you keep postponing. How do these hold each other up?"
Watch for: Nava Rodríguez mentions a 'catharsis' level here without defining it [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019, pp. 370–371]; strong emotion is expected, but sustained overwhelm signals a need to slow down or refer [synthesis].

4.16 Legitimising the coachee's view and restating beliefs

Purpose / when: Before challenging a belief. Training programmes teach validating the coachee: legitimising their view and helping them restate their belief [source: UNLU programme 2016, Level 2 Unit 2].
Steps (synthesis): (1) Acknowledge that their view makes sense given how they observe. (2) Ask them to state the belief as a belief ("I believe that…"). (3) Invite an alternative wording that is equally honest but opens more action.
Example language (illustrative): "Given what you've been through with this team, it makes sense you'd see it that way. If you were to put that as a belief rather than a fact, how would you say it?"
Watch for: Validation that becomes collusion. Working when the coachee can hold two versions side by side [synthesis].

4.17 Offering observations and new distinctions

Purpose / when: When the coachee lacks a distinction that would let them see differently. Coaching aims to give new distinctions that make the person a more powerful observer; the coach offers observations back and provides distinctions [source: Sieler 2003]. Coaches use questions and recommendations [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing D'Addario 2017, p. 50].
Steps: (1) Ask permission to offer an observation [synthesis]. (2) Offer it as your interpretation [source: Echeverría 2014]. (3) Introduce the distinction briefly (e.g., assertion vs judgment, request vs complaint). (4) Ask the coachee to apply it to their own situation now. (5) Note that language-only work is insufficient: follow with mood or body work [source: Sieler 2003].
Example language (illustrative): "Can I offer a distinction that might be useful? There's a difference between complaining about what someone didn't do and making a clear request for what you want next. Which have you been doing?"
Watch for: Lecturing. Working when the coachee uses the distinction in their own words later [synthesis].

4.18 Action design, practice and follow-up

Purpose / when: Phase 4. Learning is put into action at work, home or study [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing Anzorena 2016, p. 153]; the coach supports the person until results are achieved [source: Samelnik & Selman via Leal 2017].
Steps: (1) Coachee chooses one action (a request, declaration, conversation or body practice). (2) Coachee commits to a time [source: Ash 2022]. (3) Next session, review what happened: result, mood and body during the action [source: Sieler 2003 on follow-up of shifts at work and home]. (4) Adjust and repeat [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "What will you do, by when? … Last time you were going to ask for that budget. What happened, and what did you notice in yourself as you did it?"
Watch for: Repeated non-completion (see section 5).

4.19 Referral screen and referral conversation

Purpose / when: At intake and whenever signs appear. ICF states psychotherapy is outside the scope of coaching and that referral is part of the coach's ethical responsibility [source: ICF 2024].
Steps: (1) Watch for ICF's indicators (listed in section 5) [source: ICF 2024]. (2) If unsure, consult a supervisor or a mental health professional [source: ICF 2024]. (3) Raise it using ICF's sequence: be direct and calm; express concern and care; point to specific behaviours; listen closely; encourage seeking help; normalise therapy; make the referral [source: ICF 2024]. (4) If imminent danger to self or others: contact local emergency services and stay with the person; ask about access to means of harm; listen without judging or arguing; use crisis lines [source: ICF 2024]. (5) Agree in writing whether coaching pauses or continues alongside treatment, with the client's consent to any liaison [synthesis; ICF overview does not address concurrent coaching].
Example language (illustrative): "I've noticed you've mentioned not sleeping for weeks and feeling there's no point. I care about how you're doing, and this sounds like more than coaching is designed to help with. Would you be willing to see someone who specialises in this? I can help you find them."
Watch for: Reframing clinical symptoms as 'moods' or 'quiebres' to keep coaching going [synthesis].

4.20 Evaluation, maintenance and closure

Purpose / when: Final phase; avoids dependence [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing D'Addario 2017, p. 50 and p. 369].
Steps (synthesis): (1) Compare results with the original aims. (2) Ask what has changed in how the coachee observes, not only in what they did. (3) Identify the distinctions and practices they will keep using alone. (4) Agree how they will notice a relapse into the old pattern. (5) End, or agree a spaced follow-up.
Example language (illustrative): "Looking back to where we started, what can you see now that you couldn't then? Which of the practices will you keep?"
Watch for: Open-ended continuation without a goal. Working when the coachee can coach themselves through a new breakdown using the distinctions [synthesis].

5. Handling problems

The primary sources say little about difficulties beyond trust, respect and pace; most guidance below is [synthesis] unless tagged otherwise.

The coaching–psychotherapy boundary as published

Model's authors: Echeverría describes the coachee as "perfectamente sana" (perfectly healthy) and frames the work as transformational learning, distinct from therapy, instruction and consulting [source: Echeverría 2014]. Sieler states that ontological coaching "is not psychotherapy", while acknowledging parallels with narrative, existential and family therapy [source: Sieler 2003]. Echeverría links the crisis of meaning to suicide risk but gives no referral guidance [source: Echeverría interview 2014].
A contrary claim to reject: one Latin American paper asserts that ontological coaching can substitute for psychological and psychiatric treatment, without empirical support [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019, pp. 364, 373 as reported]. Do not adopt this; it conflicts with the founders' own framing and with ICF [synthesis].
ICF: psychotherapy is outside the scope of coaching; referring is part of the coach's ethical responsibility; coaches work within their boundaries and collaborate with mental health professionals when appropriate [source: ICF 2024].
EMCC Global Code of Ethics (Global Code of Ethics for Coaches, Mentors and Supervisors, V4, updated 2021; PDF dated December 2025): members operate within the limit of their professional competence and refer the client to a more experienced or suitably qualified practitioner when needed; they end the engagement where the client would be better served by a different form of professional help; coaching, mentoring and supervision are not "counselling, psychotherapy or medical intervention"; members engage in regular supervision; and at contracting they explain when confidentiality cannot be kept, including danger to self or others [source: Global Code of Ethics V4, EMCC France copy]. The code does not address mental-health referral specifically. Whether the Association for Coaching co-signs the current version was not confirmed in the text, and the AC's own guidance is not drawn on here [uncertain].

Concrete signs that a coachee needs referral to clinical care

ICF indicators [source: ICF 2024]: marked mood changes (irritability, anger, anxiety, sadness); declining performance at work or school; withdrawal from relationships and activities; changes in weight or appearance, including neglected hygiene; sleeping too much or too little; expressing hopelessness or suicidal thoughts.
ICF conditions that warrant referral [source: ICF 2024]: anxiety, depression, eating disorders, posttraumatic stress, substance abuse, suicidal ideation, thought disorders; also any issue outside the coach's competence, that interferes with daily functioning, blocks coaching progress, or is psychological and involves deep-seated emotions. Judge by duration, frequency and intensity, and consult when unsure [source: ICF 2024].
Model-specific signs [synthesis]: a 'mood' of resignation that does not move with grounding or action and comes with sleep, appetite or energy change (possible depression); 'resentment' rooted in ongoing abuse, harassment or domestic violence (a safety matter, not a mood to accept); body work that triggers flashbacks, panic or dissociation; story-tracing (4.14) that opens trauma memories; judgments about others that are fixed, bizarre or persecutory (possible psychosis); action plans driven by grandiosity, sleeplessness and pressured speech (possible mania); goals that depend on stopping drinking or drug use the person cannot control.
Response: follow the referral steps in 4.19; for imminent risk, act on emergency procedures first [source: ICF 2024]. As a psychotherapist, decide explicitly whether you are switching role to therapist (new contract, assessment, consent) or referring onward; don't blur the two in one contract [synthesis].

Stuck coachee (same breakdown, no movement)

Return to the observer: the coachee may be trying new actions from the same observer (4.4) [synthesis based on Leal et al. 2017].
Check the other two domains: if work has been all in language, move to mood (4.12) or body (4.13) [source: Sieler 2003 on language-only work being insufficient].
Check the system: the organisation may reward the pattern (Echeverría's 'social systems' condition) [source: Echeverría 2014]; consider a three-way conversation with the sponsor, with consent [synthesis].
Expect discontinuous learning; name plateaus as normal [source: Leal et al. 2017 citing Echeverría 2000].
Revisit the goal: is it still the coachee's own? [source: Echeverría 2014; synthesis].

Resistance and defensiveness

Treat it as information about the observer, not opposition [synthesis].
Restore the emotional climate: Leal et al. identify openness, trust and respect as key to overcoming resistance to change [source: Leal et al. 2017].
Slow down; the coachee sets the pace [source: Leal et al. 2017 citing Echeverría 2003].
Check whether your interpretations have hardened into verdicts; restate them as provisional [source: Echeverría 2014].
Legitimise the coachee's view before offering alternatives (4.16) [source: UNLU programme 2016].

Overwhelm and strong emotion in session

Pause the content; return attention to breath, feet and the room [synthesis].
Name the emotion with the coachee, without pushing for 'catharsis' [synthesis; see 4.15 note].
If the person becomes dissociated, panicked or unable to orient, stop coaching work, ground, and assess whether referral is needed (4.19) [synthesis].
After the session, consider whether the issue is in coaching scope [source: ICF 2024 'deep-seated emotions' criterion].

Non-adherence (agreed actions not done)

Treat the broken promise itself as data: what judgment or mood made the action seem impossible or unwise? [synthesis drawing on 4.8 and 4.12].
Check whether the promise was ever a real commitment, or a request from you the coachee could not decline [synthesis]. If a promise can no longer be kept, practise declaring the breakdown and renegotiating it with whoever is affected (4.8a) [source: Reilly in Walden 1997].
Shrink the action, rehearse it in session (4.13), and set a time [source: Ash 2022 on time-bound commitments; synthesis].
After repeated non-completion, revisit the goal and the coaching agreement (4.1) [synthesis].

Ruptures in the coaching relationship

Echeverría ties the success of coaching to the strength of the emotional connection; a rupture is a priority, not a detour [source: Echeverría 2014].
Use the model on yourself: state what you observed (assertion), your assessment, and a request; then inquire about the coachee's view (4.6, 4.8, 4.9) [synthesis].
Own provisional interpretations that landed as judgments [source: Echeverría 2014; synthesis].
Seek supervision; Newfield's advanced training includes supervised practice [source: Echeverría interview 2014].

Modality-specific difficulties

Dependence: the coachee keeps booking with no goal. Return to closure criteria (4.20) [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019].
Coach's judgments and values intruding: the school asks coaches to set them aside; take it to supervision [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019; synthesis].
Distinctions used as jargon or blame: e.g., a manager using 'ungrounded judgment' to dismiss staff. Bring it back to the coachee's own observing [synthesis].
Body work without consent or with touch: Sieler requires permission; avoid touch altogether in this adaptation [source: Sieler 2003; synthesis].
Mixing in techniques from other modalities (visualisation, NLP, constellations, empty chair, psychodrama): Anzorena treats these as outside ontological coaching; if a psychotherapist adds them, tell the client and label them [source: Nava Rodríguez 2019 citing Anzorena 2016, p. 180; synthesis].
Organisational sponsor wants reports: agree confidentiality limits in writing at the start; report goals and progress, not content [synthesis].
Ethical standards vary between schools: Echeverría calls on schools and associations to review abuses, hear complaints and regulate the discipline [source: Echeverría interview 2014]; check the complaints route of the school that certified you [synthesis].

Sources

Pages used:

Books and texts cited (through the pages above):

Echeverría, R. (1994; 6th ed. 2002). Ontología del lenguaje. Dolmen/Granica.
Echeverría, R. (1994). Actos de lenguaje, Vol. 1: La escucha. Granica.
Echeverría, R. (2000). La empresa emergente. Granica.
Echeverría, R. (2003). Coaching: una competencia a desarrollar en las organizaciones.
Echeverría, R. Ética y coaching ontológico.
Samelnik, G. & Selman, J. (2002). El coaching ontológico.
D'Addario, M. (2017) and Anzorena, O. (2016), as cited by the aacademica paper (full titles not confirmed) [uncertain].
Sieler, A. Coaching to the Human Soul: Ontological Coaching and Deep Change, Vol. 1. Newfield Australia.

← Previous · VI-142Co-active coaching Next · VI-144 →Solution-focused and cognitive-behavioural coaching