Narrative Coaching Framework: Four Phases in Practice

A narrative coaching framework helps a coach follow how a client understands experience, experiments with another possibility and brings learning into everyday life. It should make the person’s choices more considered, without requiring them to replace a difficult account with a cheerful one.

David Drake’s model names four phases: Situate, Search, Shift and Sustain. This guide explains their distinct purposes, offers original questions and follows a complete fictional case through an initial repair, a recurrence and an honest closing review.

Know what this framework can and cannot tell you

Drake’s 2021 paper, Rethinking our Work with Leaders: Using Developmental Threshold Zones in Coaching, presents the phases within a broader account of development. The model provides an orientation for attending to the client and the story, not evidence that four prescribed appointments will produce a particular result.

Use this article’s questions and worksheet as original practical aids, rather than a complete reproduction of Drake’s training or a validated assessment. Do not rate the client’s maturity from the phase you think they occupy. A useful question can be offered, declined, corrected or revisited.

This guide concentrates on the four-phase conversation. The broader narrative coaching methodology guide discusses different narrative traditions. Narrative therapy associated with Michael White and David Epston has its own history and professional context; similar terminology does not give a coach clinical competence.

Drake’s 2020 interview with CoachCast emphasizes experiential listening and slowing the rush toward a solution. That is the developer’s account of practice, not a controlled comparison proving that slower conversations always work better. Sometimes the client needs a direct factual answer, an urgent action or another professional’s help.

Separate an event, an interpretation and an identity claim

Consider three statements: “I agreed to the request,” “They would have thought less of me if I asked questions,” and “I am only useful when I can say yes.” The first describes an action. The second interprets other people’s likely response. The third makes a wider claim about the person.

They can influence each other without having equal evidential support. Someone may have agreed in writing, may have experienced earlier criticism and may still not know what this colleague would have said to a question. Exploring the story should preserve those distinctions.

A narrative account also has an audience. The client may be trying to explain themselves to a manager, preserve a relationship, justify a decision or understand an unfamiliar role. Ask what telling the story is doing here, rather than assuming it is a faulty belief waiting to be corrected.

The alternative is not automatically the opposite. “I always say yes” need not become “I never owe anyone help.” A more useful account could preserve reliability while making capacity, information and consent part of a responsible promise. It must remain open to the world’s response.

Situate: meet the client in the account they bring

Drake links Situate with attending to the narrator, the story and the present encounter: what is happening. The practical task is to understand enough before deciding what needs to change.

Invite a particular episode. A recent email, meeting or decision can give the conversation a setting and a sequence. Ask where the client wants to start and which details matter to them. They do not need to disclose painful history to make the work legitimate.

These original questions can help:

• “Which moment would help me understand what this is like for you?”
• “What happened before you made that choice?”
• “What are you hoping I understand by hearing this?”
• “What would make this conversation useful today?”

Reflect tentatively and allow correction. “It sounds as though you felt unable to question the request” leaves room for “I could question it; I wanted the approval.” That correction changes the inquiry. It is not an interruption to the coach’s progress.

A useful working record might distinguish the actual request, the client’s response, their current interpretation and what they want to explore. It need not contain a complete life history. The coach should know which version of the account the client has actually endorsed.

Search: explore what needs attention

Drake associates Search with the story’s purpose and possibilities: what if. The client explores what they need to experience or address, rather than merely collecting arguments against their first account.

Ask which details the current explanation includes and excludes. A person who calls themselves unreliable may also have honored a difficult commitment. That does not cancel the missed one. Both can help clarify the kind of reliability they value.

Look for a live question rather than a compulsory positive exception. “When have you ever been confident?” can feel like a demand to disprove the client. “What is different about the occasions you can ask for information?” may reveal differences in authority, preparation or relationships.

Original questions include:

• “What does this account help you protect, and what does it make harder?”
• “Which important detail does your headline leave out?”
• “What might be true alongside this explanation?”
• “What information would you need before choosing another response?”

The search can identify an external condition. The HSE Management Standard on role emphasizes clear responsibilities, compatible requirements and a route for raising uncertainty. A client should not be coached to reinterpret an unresolved authority conflict as merely a personal story.

Stay with uncertainty when necessary. “I do not yet know whether this role is workable” can be more accurate and useful than a confident declaration of a new identity.

Shift: experiment with a response that matters

Drake describes Shift as working with what matters and experimenting with what the search has revealed. An insight becomes material for trying something, rather than proof that a lasting change has already occurred.

The experiment can be modest and directly related to the episode. Invite the client to try the first sentence of a question, read two versions of an email or explain a decision from a different position. The examples here are ordinary original rehearsals, not a prescribed therapeutic procedure.

Ask permission before role-play. Agree who the coach will represent and how the client can stop. A written version may be preferable. Do not supply praise as evidence that the real recipient will respond favorably.

These questions keep the experiment grounded:

• “Which part of that wording feels like yours?”
• “What does it promise that you cannot yet know?”
• “What would you want to say if the other person disagrees?”
• “Would you like to try another version, keep this one or stop?”

A shift may preserve the old value while changing its expression. Reliability can include correcting an overpromise. Care can include declining work that cannot be done well. The client decides whether the alternative fits; a fluent sentence alone does not establish that it does.

Sustain: bring the learning back into the world

Drake describes Sustain through integration and the essential next steps: what works. In practice, the person needs an opportunity to act, appropriate support and a way to examine what actually follows.

Choose a specific situation, not a permanent identity performance. Record the action, the other person’s role, any needed authorization and the review question. “I will ask who can approve the time before confirming” is more examinable than “I will be a confident leader.”

Distinguish what the client can choose from what another person must accept. A rehearsal does not supply a manager’s resource approval, a colleague’s availability or a customer’s agreement to a change. A written request can be complete while the resulting decision remains pending.

At review, ask what the client did, how the recipient responded and what the client now makes of it. Keep a recurrence or disappointing response in the account. Supporting learning does not mean protecting the new story from inconvenient facts.

The phases are an orientation, not a test of whether the client has reached the correct point. If new experience changes what they understand, return to that experience. A client can also decide that the method or the service has done enough.

Complete fictional case: reliability after a premature yes

This example is invented. Noelle has moved from delivering training to coordinating a learning program. She works with coach Ash in two 60-minute sessions on 4 and 18 November 2026. The agreement includes no between-session coaching. Her manager Kerr controls release of staff time; event organizer Drew controls the orientation arrangements.

On 29 October, Drew asked Noelle to take two orientation mornings on 12 and 19 November. She replied “Yes, I can take those” without checking format, preparation or trainer availability. She now knows Drew expects two full mornings on site, while she had imagined short online sessions. Her unqualified answer is real; the misunderstanding does not remove her responsibility to correct it.

Situate the current story and correct the coach’s first account

Noelle tells Ash, “A program lead should be the person who makes things happen. If I ask what is involved, they will wonder why I was promoted.” She wants to understand why she keeps promising before checking, and to deal honestly with the orientation commitment.

Ash: It sounds as though you need permission to set a boundary.

Noelle: That is not quite it. I had permission to ask. I wanted Drew to see that promoting me was useful.

Ash: So asking was possible, and saying yes mattered because of what you hoped it would show?

Noelle: Yes. But now people are planning around it.

Ash withdraws the first interpretation. They keep Noelle’s wish to contribute alongside the actual obligation she created. They agree that the session should help her choose a responsible next conversation, not prove she has become a different kind of person.

Search for the value and the omitted conditions

Noelle initially calls the problem “being too helpful.” Asked what that description leaves out, she says she also enjoys being the person who solves things. She does not want a new story that treats generosity or ambition as mistakes.

They distinguish three parts of reliability: taking a request seriously, establishing what can actually be provided, and communicating an accurate commitment. Her original story emphasizes the first and skips the second. Saying yes is neither the whole responsibility nor something she can now pretend did not happen.

Noelle chooses this provisional account: “I contribute by making the promise dependable, including when I have to correct my own answer.” She rejects Ash’s suggestion of “I can say no without explanation.” In this case, an explanation and repair are owed.

There are factual questions too. What format does Drew need? What time can Kerr release? Is another trainer available? Those questions require real conversations, not more confidence in the rehearsal.

Shift through a rehearsal the client can use

Noelle chooses to write the opening rather than role-play the whole conversation. Her first version says, “You were unclear about the mornings.” She notices that this shifts responsibility onto Drew. She revises it:

“I said yes before checking what the two mornings required. I understood something shorter and online, but I did not ask. I need to correct that now. Can we clarify what each group needs while I check the time and trainer availability with Kerr?”

Ash asks how she would respond to disappointment. Noelle writes: “I understand that you planned around my answer. I cannot make an unconfirmed arrangement dependable by repeating it. I will bring you the actual options once I have checked them.” She decides that wording fits the accountability she wants to preserve.

They do not predict that Drew will appreciate the correction. The purpose is to communicate accurately and seek an agreed arrangement. Noelle chooses to contact Drew and Kerr on 5 November.

Sustain through actual decisions and delivery

On 5 November, Drew confirms the original full-morning expectation and says changing it is inconvenient. Kerr can release Noelle for 90 minutes online on 12 November, but cannot release a trainer on 19 November. Colleague Owen separately agrees to join the 12 November session for 45 minutes within time Kerr has approved.

Noelle gives Drew those actual options. Drew accepts the 90-minute online session for the first group and agrees to postpone the second group until another date is authorized. On 6 November, Noelle sends the exact revised arrangement; Drew acknowledges it. He sends the second group a postponement notice. The record does not establish that every invitee has read that notice.

The first orientation takes place online on 12 November for 90 minutes, with Owen present for the agreed 45 minutes. This confirms that the revised event was held. It does not establish participants’ learning, a lasting identity change or the total labor cost of coordination and preparation.

On 13 November, another colleague, Tilda, asks Noelle for a “quick fifteen-minute briefing” on 19 November. Noelle immediately agrees. She has not checked preparation or her other duties. This is a recurrence, not a further example of always checking before committing.

On 16 November, Kerr points out the conflict with Noelle’s existing work. Noelle contacts Tilda: “I agreed too quickly again. I cannot provide that briefing on Thursday within the time available. I am sorry I made it sound confirmed.” Tilda says she is disappointed and will use an existing briefing this time. She does not agree that her request was unreasonable.

Noelle acknowledges that distinction rather than trying to turn Tilda’s response into praise. She makes no replacement-date promise. The second orientation’s new date also remains unconfirmed.

Review the account without writing out the recurrence

At the 18 November session, Noelle starts with “I am someone who asks before saying yes now.” Ash asks whether that wording includes the Tilda exchange. Noelle changes it:

“I can ask and repair a promise, even when someone is disappointed. I corrected the orientation arrangement, but I still said yes too quickly to the briefing. Asking first is something I want to practice, not something I have permanently become.”

Her completed review separates the evidence:

Noelle chooses one next behavior: before confirming another request, write down its scope, preparation, authority and time requirement. She will ask Kerr about unresolved role priorities at their existing 23 November meeting. Kerr has already accepted that meeting; its conclusions remain future.

Ash’s coaching ends on 18 November as agreed. Noelle does not owe a final success story or an extra written reflection. Any further coaching would require a new agreement rather than being silently added to the two sessions.

An original story-to-choice worksheet

Use this short record if the client wants one. A spoken reflection or the client’s own notes can also be enough. Do not require a written personal history as the price of useful coaching.

The worksheet supports an inquiry, not a conclusion that the earlier person was defective. Keep the client’s words distinguishable from the coach’s suggestion. If the client rejects the summary, revise it or remove it from the working record.

For a separate exploration of priorities, the values-clarification exercise can help. Do not make every difficult choice an identity project when the person mainly needs a practical decision.

Use Coachful for the record the client actually chooses

Coachful is our #1 recommendation for delivering an original coaching worksheet, organizing selected actions and returning to the client’s chosen review. This is our editorial recommendation as Coachful’s publisher. The workspace does not determine which narrative is true or certify that the client has completed a developmental phase.

1. Deliver a deliberate resource. Use Clients > client > Worksheets & resources and Assign. Confirm the intended account and access. Copying a private link does not grant access, and a staff preview is not the client’s answer.
2. Distinguish delivery from session preparation. Delivered session resources appear in My Content; a separate prep worksheet appears under the next session in My Coaching. Attaching that prep worksheet does not itself send an email or notification. Tell the client which route you have actually used.
3. Record a selected action, not an identity verdict. A goal-linked task can describe checking scope before confirming a request. A completed task does not show how the conversation went or that the person has become permanently confident.
4. Review the actual account. Keep the original promise, recipient response, repair and remaining unknowns visible. Ask what the client wants in a shared worksheet rather than requesting every personal detail.

Review Coachful’s features for the wider delivery workflow. Software access does not create an entitlement to additional coaching or permission to share the client’s account with a sponsor.

Troubleshoot without taking over authorship

The alternative sounds impressive but false. Ask which words do not fit. Reduce the claim until it can include contrary evidence. “I can sometimes pause and ask” may be more useful than “I am fearless.”

The coach wants a breakthrough more than the client does. Return to the agreed purpose. The client may want an accurate email, a pause, a specialist referral or to end the work. None requires an inspiring closing declaration.

The environment repeatedly contradicts the new account. Investigate the conditions. In a contrasting hypothetical case, a manager explicitly punishes staff for asking required safety questions. An individual’s new confidence story does not resolve that organizational problem or make reporting concerns unnecessary.

Distress becomes central. Pause the planned exercise and discuss appropriate support within competence. The ICF Code of Ethics calls for accurate representation of qualifications, clear roles and attention to the value and limits of the engagement. Do not use narrative terminology to provide unqualified treatment.

Frequently asked questions

Does narrative coaching rewrite the past?

No. It can explore meanings and available choices while preserving events and commitments. Noelle’s original yes remains part of the record even after a revised arrangement is agreed.

Does every session need all four phases?

No. Use the map to orient attention rather than divide the hour into compulsory stages. New information, a client’s correction or a choice to stop can change what is useful next.

What makes a shift more than positive wording?

The client finds it credible enough to try, it preserves relevant facts and it changes a practical choice. The real recipient’s response and any later recurrence still need review.

Can the client reject the coach’s summary?

Yes. In the example, Noelle corrects both the initial boundary interpretation and the proposed alternative. Her corrections shape the work rather than being treated as resistance to it.

How can progress be reviewed without a narrative score?

Examine particular actions, actual responses and the client’s own interpretation. Distinguish a rehearsal, a real attempt, a completed event and a future plan. Do not convert them into a personality or clinical outcome claim.