Coaching Schools: The Difference Between Ontological, Systemic, and Solution-Focused Approaches

When someone says, “I’m receiving coaching,” a single image usually comes to mind: a goal, a few questions, and an action plan. Yet the literature on coaching consists not of a single method, but of schools of thought that differ significantly from one another. Some aim to change the client’s behavior, while others question how the client makes sense of themselves and the world. Both are forms of coaching, but the questions they ask are not the same.

Two Fundamental Axes: Behavior or Meaning?

Reinhard Stelter of the University of Copenhagen draws attention to a distinction when discussing the development of coaching. On one side stands goal-oriented, performance-focused coaching; this tradition sets a clear goal, assesses reality, lists options, and ties them to a decision for action. On the other side is the approach that views coaching as a process of making sense; here, the goal is not necessarily to produce behavioral change, but rather to help the client jointly examine their own story, identity, and relationship with the world.

This distinction is not abstract; in practice, it translates into two different question formats. In the first, the coach asks: “Where do you want to go, and how will you get there?” In the second, the coach asks: “How do you explain this issue to yourself—is another narrative possible?”

Ontological coaching: language is an action

Ontological coaching is an approach developed by Fernando Flores, Rafael Echeverría, and Julio Olalla, drawing on the ideas of Heidegger and Humberto Maturana. According to this school of thought, a person changes not by setting direct goals, but by becoming aware of their own way of “being” and their habits of interpreting the world. Language here does not merely convey information; it constructs reality. A word is also an action. For this reason, an ontological coach focuses less on what the client says and more on the interpretation from which that statement arises.

Solution-Focused and Positive Psychology Coaching

Solution-focused coaching was adapted to the field of coaching from Steve de Shazer’s work in brief therapy. Rather than digging into the root of the problem, it focuses on helping the client describe the future they desire and how they can approach that future using the resources they already possess. Here, the client is regarded as the “expert on their own case.”

Positive psychology coaching, on the other hand, draws from Martin Seligman’s research on well-being; it focuses on strengths rather than weaknesses, and on meaning and connection rather than deficiencies. The two approaches often overlap, as both position the client not as a victim of the problem but as the owner of the solution.

Systemic and Narrative Coaching

Systemic coaching views the individual not in isolation but as a node within their family, team, or organization. It argues that to understand a person’s behavior, one must also understand the network of relationships in which they are embedded. Narrative coaching, on the other hand, focuses on the story the client tells about themselves; it treats identity not as a fixed reality, but as a narrative that can be continually rewritten. Both approaches ask the question, “Is the problem in the person or in the relationship?” from different perspectives.

The GROW Model: Structure and Limitations

The GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Will), developed by John Whitmore, remains the most widely used coaching framework because it is clear and teachable. However, the literature points to a gap in this model: a missing bridge that links intention to lasting behavior. A person may reach a clear decision during a session, but turning that decision into a habit in daily life is a separate endeavor. For this reason, researchers propose expanded versions such as GROWS, which add a step for sustaining behavior to the model.

Standards Choose the Process, Not the School of Thought

The International Coaching Federation (ICF), in its core competency framework updated in 2025, does not rely on any specific school of thought. It groups the eight competencies into four areas: foundational, relationship-building, effective communication, and fostering learning and development. This means that the ICF holds coaches accountable to a process rather than a school of thought; regardless of the approach the coach uses, the quality of the relationship established with the client and the way the coach listens take precedence. Other professional organizations, such as the EMCC, similarly operate portfolio systems based on relational rather than technical competencies.

Cevvela’s Perspective

• Coaching is not a single method but a field centered on at least two distinct questions (behavior or meaning).
• Ontological coaching views language as action and examines the client’s habit of interpretation.
• Solution-focused and positive psychology coaching regard the client as the owner of the source, not the problem.
• The GROW model offers a clear structure, but the step that links intent to lasting behavior requires separate work.
• Professional organizations like the ICF do not favor a specific school of thought but prioritize the quality of the relationship and active listening.

{{contact}} To discuss this topic with Cevvela {{/contact}}