Ontological Coaching: Flores and Ways of Being

Ontological coaching explores a person’s way of being: how their interpretations, language, emotional experience and bodily experience shape what they notice and the actions they consider possible. It offers a lens for inquiry, not a complete explanation of someone’s life or a guarantee of permanent transformation.

Fernando Flores’s work on language, commitments and coordination is an important influence. Broader ontological coaching traditions also involve Julio Olalla, Rafael Echeverría and other practitioners, with differences between schools. This guide develops the distinctions through one complete workplace request, including a counteroffer, a changed dependency, an unsatisfied condition and a completed close.

Understand what changes when the observer changes

In this tradition, the observer is the person interpreting a situation, not an impartial spectator outside it. Consider two interpretations of a colleague’s reply: “They are avoiding responsibility” and “They have not yet accepted the proposed deadline.” Each makes different questions seem relevant.

The first may lead to accusation or giving up. The second invites checking the actual conversation, authority and capacity. That does not make the second interpretation automatically correct. The client needs evidence, and a more useful interpretation can still leave a genuine performance problem visible.

Newfield Network’s foundational paper A New Look describes an interpretive approach and a proposed coherence between language, emotions and body. These are claims within that coaching tradition. They should not be presented as proof that every difficulty is created by interpretation or that a coach can read a person’s inner state from posture.

A practical change in observation might be recognizing that an expectation was never an accepted promise. The client can then ask for a commitment instead of repeatedly resenting a supposed broken one. The useful outcome is a more accurate conversation and an action to review, not a declaration that the person’s whole identity has changed.

This perspective can complement practical planning. It does not require portraying other coaching as superficial task management, nor assuming that every action-focused conversation ignores meaning. For related work on interpretations, see the guide to suspending assumptions in dialogue.

Language can act, as well as describe

Flores’s Conversations for Action presents communication as a way people create commitments and coordinate future work, rather than merely exchange information about wishes they already hold. This is a philosophical and practical account of coordination, not a claim that saying the right words creates unlimited resources.

“I accept the revised delivery date” can change what the parties are committed to do. “I think the date is unrealistic” evaluates it. “The file arrived at 11:00” makes a claim that can be checked. Those statements do different work even when they concern the same document.

A Stanford-hosted interview with Flores illustrates his emphasis on explicit requests and promises. The following distinctions are practical coaching explanations. They are not a complete or universally agreed taxonomy of every human utterance.

An assertion can be mistaken; calling it an assertion does not certify truth. An assessment can be well grounded; calling it an evaluation does not make it arbitrary. Ask what evidence, standard and purpose support it, and which counterexamples or limits matter.

A declaration also depends on context and authority. A team member cannot approve a purchase outside their remit merely by declaring it approved. A coach cannot announce that a client’s legal, employment or clinical status has changed. Make the actual decision rights visible.

Ground an assessment without making it an immutable fact

Flores’s published chapter on assessments and assertions connects evaluation with people’s concerns and possible future action. For coaching, that invites a disciplined question: what is this assessment for? “The guide is not ready” can help protect a partner review. Used without a standard or example, it may instead leave a colleague unable to act.

Ground the assessment through four practical checks. Name its domain: ready for an internal brainstorm is different from ready for external use. State the standard: the required sections and current approved source. Identify supporting observations: which item is missing or inconsistent. Then look for relevant counterevidence: which parts meet the standard, and where the broader label would be unfair.

In the fictional case below, Leena can assess that a delivered guide is not yet ready for the specified review because one screenshot uses the previous typography. She can also acknowledge that the inventory and other screenshots meet the requirement. The grounded finding is narrower and more actionable than “Alex cannot be trusted.”

Evidence does not remove the evaluative element. Another purpose might permit a provisional screenshot, while this agreed external-review purpose requires the approved version. That does not mean any interpretation is equally useful or that the original condition can be changed secretly. The standard and its authority need to be discussable.

The coach should apply the same discipline to their own assessment. “You avoid conflict” is an offered interpretation, not privileged access to the client’s identity. Explain what prompted it, check whether it fits and accept correction. The model loses its reflective value if only the client’s interpretations are open to question.

Listen for the commitment the other person actually made

“I will try,” “I see why that matters” and “I promise to deliver this by Tuesday” are not interchangeable. In real conversation, meaning also depends on context, established working practices and what people understand. Do not police vocabulary while ignoring how the parties coordinate.

Ask both sides what they understood. A polite request may be heard as an instruction from a manager. A deadline may be assumed from a standing process even when not repeated aloud. The useful inquiry is whether the relevant commitment is shared, feasible and sufficiently clear for the work.

A counteroffer is valuable information. It can reveal a dependency, a different interpretation of the result or a capacity problem. If the requester treats every counteroffer as disloyalty, clearer wording alone will not create a trustworthy coordination process.

When a task is assigned through formal authority, say so honestly. Clarify priority, resources and how a conflict can be raised. Do not disguise an impossible demand as a freely chosen promise because the employee said yes under pressure.

Listening also includes understanding the concern behind the words. A requester may say “I need it early,” while their practical concern is preserving enough time for a review they promised to someone else. The performer may hear an arbitrary preference when the deadline actually protects another commitment. Ask what the requested result enables, rather than assuming the same sentence carries the same meaning for both people.

That inquiry is reciprocal. The performer’s question about an input or priority may identify a dependency the requester cannot see. It is useful to hear the question before classifying it as unwillingness. Understanding the concern does not require agreeing to every request; it helps make an informed acceptance, decline or counteroffer possible.

Worked case: Leena grounds an assessment before requesting

Leena, Alex, their colleagues and all results below are fictional. Leena coordinates a partner launch. Alex prepares design material. Leena has three coaching sessions over four weeks, focused on one recurring coordination difficulty and its review.

Leena says, “Alex never delivers when needed, so I have to chase everything.” The coach asks for a recent exchange. Leena had written, “A draft early next week would be useful.” Alex replied, “I will try.” Leena expected Monday; the file arrived Tuesday.

The coach does not decide that Alex is reliable or unreliable as a person. They distinguish the file’s recorded arrival, Leena’s standard for a useful review window and the commitment actually exchanged. The message did not explicitly establish Monday, and the response did not clearly accept it.

Coach: What is the purpose of your assessment?

Leena: I need enough time to review material before a partner sees it.

Coach: Which part of the situation remains a real concern?

Leena: We are working with different assumptions about when something must be ready.

Coach: What have you assumed about making the request explicit?

Leena: That asking for a response makes me demanding. I hint, then privately expect a firm commitment.

Coach: What might you investigate instead?

Leena: Whether Alex can agree a specific result and tell me what prevents it.

This is a change in how Leena observes her own participation. It does not make her responsible for every prior delay or erase Alex’s responsibilities. The new conversation will test what can actually be agreed.

Bring mood and bodily experience into the inquiry carefully

Flores’s published chapter excerpt Managing Moods proposes viewing moods in connection with assessments of future prospects and the commitments people create together. Treat this as his interpretive account. It is not a complete biological explanation of emotion or evidence that a coach can choose a client’s preferred state.

In Leena’s case, the coach asks how the upcoming conversation seems to her. She names frustration and an expectation that nothing will change. The useful inquiry is what that expectation makes her inclined to do: hint again, chase afterward or avoid asking about capacity.

They do not require her to become ambitious, serene or grateful. Leena can remain frustrated and still make a clearer request. Equally, frustration might point to a genuine repeated problem that needs management attention. The coach checks the situation rather than assigning a mood from a sentence.

With permission, the coach asks whether noticing physical experience would add anything. Leena says she notices rushed speech while preparing the request and would prefer a short pause to read her draft. She declines a posture exercise. The coach accepts that choice and returns to the conversation.

The pause is a practical preference, not proof of nervous-system regulation or an embodied transformation. Bodily inquiry should be voluntary, accessible and within competence. Do not infer dishonesty from tension, prescribe touch or intense breathing, or explain persistent distress and health concerns solely through a theory of way of being.

A written exercise or ordinary conversation is a valid alternative. The meaning-making coaching guide offers a different philosophical lens; a client does not need to accept either worldview to discuss a practical difficulty.

Make the request and negotiate an actual promise

Leena’s first draft asks for a complete launch guide by Tuesday at 12:00, including an asset inventory, typography and three example screenshots. Alex explains that final brand approval from Pia is expected Tuesday at 15:00, so final screenshots cannot responsibly be completed by noon.

Alex offers an alternative: a clearly marked provisional inventory and draft sections by Tuesday at 12:00, followed by a final guide using the approved source and all three screenshots by Wednesday at 11:00. The partner review is currently Tuesday afternoon, so Leena cannot accept the new timing without checking that commitment.

Leena asks partner director Omar whether the review can move to Wednesday at 14:00. Omar confirms it can. Pia confirms the expected approval time. Only then do Leena and Alex accept the split delivery.

Leena’s request: Please deliver the provisional inventory and draft sections by Tuesday 12:00, marked as provisional. For the final guide, use Pia’s approved source, include the three agreed screenshots and deliver by Wednesday 11:00. I need time to check it before the partner review at 14:00.

Alex’s response: I accept that split delivery, with final production dependent on Pia’s approval expected Tuesday 15:00. If that input is likely to change, I will raise the effect on delivery rather than leave you assuming the original time still holds.

Leena’s confirmation: Agreed. The draft is not the final guide, and final means the agreed sections and screenshots match the approved source. I will review the delivered material and tell you whether those conditions are met.

The exchange has a requester, a performer, specified results, times and a known dependency. It also preserves the other commitments. Leena did not silently move a partner meeting or treat an unconfirmed input as secured capacity.

This is an original coaching example, not a legal contract template. Real work may require additional organizational procedures and approvals. A clear sentence cannot replace them.

Respond when a dependency changes

The provisional material arrives on Tuesday at 11:30, correctly marked. At 10:15 that morning, however, Pia has told Alex that approval will not be available until Wednesday at 10:00. Alex needs three hours after approval to produce the final guide and screenshots. The Wednesday 11:00 commitment is now infeasible.

Alex tells Leena on Tuesday, while there is still time to adjust. They do not quietly replace the deadline in a tracker and call the original promise fulfilled.

Alex: Pia now expects approval at Wednesday 10:00. The three-hour final-production block means I can offer the final guide at 13:00, provided that input arrives as stated. I cannot keep 11:00 under the changed condition.

Leena: I need one hour to review and time for a correction if necessary. I will check whether the partner can move to 15:00 before accepting.

Omar confirms Wednesday 15:00, and Leena reserves 13:00–14:00 for review plus 14:00–14:30 for a possible correction. Pia confirms the revised input time. Leena accepts 13:00 as the new final-delivery commitment, with the stated dependency. If approval misses 10:00, Alex will report that immediately and the plan will be reconsidered.

In this fictional outcome, approval arrives at 09:50 Wednesday. Alex works from that source and delivers the final guide at 13:00. The revised schedule has been explicitly accepted. It does not erase the fact that the original delivery arrangement changed, nor guarantee the same flexibility on another project.

Renegotiation here is not permission to postpone indefinitely. If a request cannot be met or a revised plan is not accepted, the appropriate owner must decide what to change, stop or escalate. The person relying on the work needs an honest state, not reassuring language.

Distinguish reported completion from accepted completion

Alex reports the final guide complete at 13:00. Leena’s review finds one screenshot using the previous typography, while the other sections match the approved source. Because the agreed final result requires all three screenshots to match, she does not close the item as satisfactory yet.

Leena: I have checked the guide. The inventory and two screenshots meet the agreed condition. Screenshot 3 still uses the previous type style. Please update it to Pia’s approved source and return it by 14:15. Can you commit to that correction?

Alex: Yes. I can make that correction by 14:15.

Alex returns the corrected file at 14:10. Leena checks it by 14:20, confirms that the specified condition is met and closes this coordination item before the reserved correction window ends. The partner review takes place at 15:00 with the accepted guide.

The final record says the corrected result was accepted at 14:20. It does not pretend that the first 13:00 file met every condition. Nor does it turn satisfaction with this specific deliverable into a global judgment that Alex will always be reliable.

The distinction matters because a task can be marked done by its performer while the requester still lacks the agreed result. Conversely, the requester should not add new conditions afterward and call them part of the original promise. A new requirement needs its own conversation.

Keep a completed request-and-commitment record

For another engagement, use the fields with the real people, conditions and authority. “Pending acceptance” is a useful state when that is what happened. It is more informative than forcing every exchange into a binary successful-or-failed relationship judgment.

Review the changed observation and the organizational limits

At the final coaching session, Leena identifies a specific change: she no longer treats an implied wish plus “I will try” as an explicit accepted deadline. She also notices that she can invite a counteroffer without automatically hearing it as refusal to cooperate.

The practical evidence is narrower than a claim of transformation. One coordination item was negotiated, changed openly, corrected and closed. It took several people’s decisions, and it still included an error. No comparison group, causal estimate or organization-wide trust measure exists.

The approval dependency remains a process issue. Leena and the project owner agree to include the source-approval milestone earlier in the next launch plan. They do not declare that better language removes the need for approval or that Alex should absorb every delay through extra hours.

The three-session, four-week coaching engagement closes. Leena keeps the request record and a preparation question: “What has actually been accepted, and what still needs checking?” The next project review belongs to the existing work process, not an unstated additional coaching service.

Contrast: an assessment may point to a real boundary

In a separate fictional case, director Soren says a cross-team commitment is unsafe because the required independent review has not happened. The coach should not assume this is resignation, a negative observer or an inability to create possibility.

Soren’s task is to check the actual requirement and use the appropriate authority route. His assessment can be grounded in the missing review, relevant standard and consequence of proceeding. The useful conversation may be a clear refusal to declare readiness until the condition is met.

This is where philosophical inquiry needs practical limits. Examining interpretation should not erase evidence, power, rights or constraints. A broader range of possible actions can include declining, pausing, obtaining specialist support or leaving a commitment unmade.

Organize the selected practice in Coachful

Coachful is our #1 recommendation for bringing the client’s session preparation, chosen goal and selected follow-through together. Use it to support the coaching practice while organizational commitments and approvals remain in their appropriate systems.

The demo My Coaching view shows preparation and next actions. Leena could prepare one specific exchange and choose what to discuss. She does not need to upload Alex’s messages, private emotional detail or confidential project files merely to demonstrate participation.

1. Record the coaching goal. For Leena, the goal concerns checking and negotiating real commitments, not becoming a permanently different person.
2. Select a preparation task deliberately. After discussion, save the client’s request draft or question about an actual commitment.
3. Separate reflection from evidence. The client’s interpretation of a colleague is not a verified organizational finding.
4. Review the actual result. Note accepted conditions, changes and remaining questions. A completed coaching task is not proof that an external colleague accepted the request.
5. Close the agreed scope. Identify the client’s continuing practice and the existing owner of workplace follow-up.

The demo goal screen shows linked tasks, habits and reflection tabs. It does not show Leena’s fictional project or automatically manage a Flores commitment cycle. Explore Coachful’s goal and review features for the supporting workflow.

Troubleshoot without turning the model into a script

• The language feels unnatural: use ordinary words that leave the result, timing and response clear. Technical vocabulary is not the outcome.
• The client disputes your interpretation: treat yours as an offered interpretation too. Return to evidence and the client’s purpose.
• The other person cannot commit: investigate capacity and authority, then negotiate or escalate appropriately. Repeating the request more precisely cannot manufacture resources.
• Reported completion is disputed: compare it with the conditions actually agreed. Separate a missing condition from a new request.
• Mood or body work is unwelcome: respect the refusal and choose another route. Do not label it proof of resistance or a limiting way of being.

Frequently asked questions

What does way of being mean in ontological coaching?

It is a lens for exploring how interpretations, language, emotional and bodily experience shape what a person notices and does. It is not a diagnosis or a complete explanation of every outcome.

Did Fernando Flores create every ontological coaching practice?

No. His work on language, coordination and commitments is an important influence within a wider tradition involving other thinkers and schools. Distinguish the specific source and practice rather than attributing every model to one person.

Are assessments less useful than facts?

They do different work. A well-grounded assessment can guide a decision when its standard, purpose and evidence are clear. An assertion can also be wrong, so it still needs checking.

Does a clear request guarantee cooperation?

No. Capacity, authority, priorities and the recipient’s choices still matter. An honest decline or counteroffer may be more useful than a pressured acceptance that cannot be fulfilled.

Must the client change their mood or posture?

No. Inquiry should be voluntary and relevant. A client can work through ordinary conversation or writing, and the coach should not impose an emotional destination or bodily performance.