This page goes through the method piece by piece: what I do, and what the research says about it, with a link to every study. No study has tested the Two Compasses as a whole. The limits are at the bottom.

Does coaching work?

What the research says. Yes, on average, with moderate effects.

The relationship matters most

What I do. Every collaboration starts with a free 30-minute conversation, so we can both see whether we’re a fit before anything else.

What the research says.

Ontological coaching: language, emotions and the body

What I do. I was trained in ontological coaching, and it shapes how I listen. A person’s way of being shows up in three connected domains: the language they use, especially the stories they tell themselves; their emotions and background moods; and their body, how they breathe, hold themselves and move. A change that lasts usually needs all three. So we work with the sentence your head says, the mood underneath it, and what your body does when you think about the step.

Where it comes from. Ontological coaching grew out of the work of Fernando Flores, Rafael Echeverría and Julio Olalla, building on the philosophy of language, and was developed for coaches by Alan Sieler. A central distinction is between assertions, statements that can be checked against the facts, and assessments, judgements that sound like facts but are opinions. “I’ve sent three proposals and had no reply” is an assertion. “Nobody wants this” is an assessment. That distinction sits under “Check it” in the method.

What the research says about ontological coaching directly. It’s early. Randomised trials have only recently begun.

What the research says about each domain. Each of the three domains has strong support in mainstream psychology.

Language

Emotions and moods

The body

How the sessions are structured

What I do. Sessions follow the same shape: what did you move on, what did both compasses say, what story is your head telling about it, which reading serves your summit, and what’s the next move with a date. I ask more than I tell. You set your own steps.

What the research says.

  • Learning from experience works as a cycle: do something, reflect on it, make sense of it, try again. The loop in the method follows that cycle. Kolb, Experiential Learning, 1984 (book)
  • Changing results often needs a change in the assumptions behind an action, beyond the action itself. That’s what choosing a new story does. Argyris, 1977 (opens in a new tab)
  • Goal-focused coaching, which links goals to action steps and regular review, is the best-supported structure in coaching psychology. Grant, 2012, International Coaching Psychology Review, 7(2), 146–165
  • In a small experiment, coaching questions focused on solutions did more for people’s positive feelings and confidence than questions that dwelt on the problem. Grant & O’Connor, 2010 (opens in a new tab)
  • People sustain change longer when the motivation is their own than when it comes from pressure or guilt. That’s why I don’t push. Ryan & Deci, 2000 (opens in a new tab)

Summit: a destination that’s concrete, and yours

What I do. We describe where you’re heading in both compasses: how an ordinary day should feel, and what a camera would see. We check whether the goal is yours or someone else’s.

What the research says.

Move: small real steps, and momentum

What I do. Every session ends with one move, a date and a place. Moves are small enough to happen this week. Progress builds on itself.

What the research says.

Outer compass and the story your head tells

What I do. Signals have no words, so your head supplies them. We catch the sentence, check it against the facts, and choose the reading closest to the facts that still moves you forward. Then we test it with the next step.

What the research says.

Outdoors and on the move

What I do. Much of the work happens walking, often in the Slovenian mountains. Remote clients walk alone between calls.

What the research says.

Why this often hits around midlife

What is coaching worth?

The most quoted figures come from the ICF Global Coaching Client Study (2009), carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the International Coaching Federation with over 2,100 clients in 64 countries:

  • Companies that could calculate a return reported a median ROI of seven times their investment.
  • 68% of individual clients said they at least made back what they spent. Those who gained financially reported an average of 3.44 times their spend.

These are clients’ own estimates, and the coaching industry commissioned the study. Treat them as a rough guide. The randomised trials above are stronger evidence that coaching changes things. ICF research (opens in a new tab)

What the research doesn’t show

I’d rather you hear the limits from me.

  • The method as a whole hasn’t been trialled. The evidence supports its parts, and coaching in general.
  • Ontological coaching is early in its research. Its first randomised trials are recent and come mostly from one group, with nurses. Its domains have strong support in psychology, but the approach as a package needs more testing.
  • Coaching research leans on workplace settings and self-reports. Effects shrink when outcomes are observed by others, and some publication bias is likely.
  • Body signals can mislead. They’re information to check, and sometimes they’re wrong.
  • Most nature studies are short-term or correlational. They show associations and short-term effects, not lasting change.
  • Coaching isn’t therapy. If you’re dealing with depression, anxiety, trauma or addiction, a doctor or therapist is the right first step, and I’ll say so.

How I check my own work

The Expedition Diagnostic is built to be tested: item checks after the first 100 to 150 people, comparisons with my own ratings after conversations, and a follow-up two weeks later asking whether people made their move. I’ll publish what I learn here.