As a professional coach specializing in the ontological approach, I am sometimes asked: What is the difference between the cognitive-behavioral (CBT) approach and the ontological approach to coaching?
This article discusses differences in the underlying philosophies, coaching methodology, focus areas, and the areas of applications. The distinctions are purely from my observations as a practitioner.
1. Philosophical Foundation that informs the approach
CBT is grounded in cognitive-behavioral therapy principles while the ontological approach is grounded in the study of being (ontology) and existential philosophy. The CBT approach works with the client to address thought patterns that influence emotions and behaviors. In the CBT approach to coaching, challenges and breakdowns are byproducts of dysfunctional thinking patterns.
In contrast, the ontological approach focuses on working with clients to explore ways of being (defined as the coherence between an individual’s language, emotions, and body). In the ontological approach to coaching, challenges and breakdowns are byproducts of disempowering ways of being. An example of a disempowering way of being is an individual showing up daily at work in resentment after being passed over a promotion despite consistently outperforming expectations. In resentment, an individual is prone to feel victimized rather than to explore factors that might have stopped the promotion from happening.
2. Coaching Methodology
The CBT coaching process focuses on the coach and client identifying negative thought patterns that exist and seeing the impact of these negative thought patterns. The process involves the client taking ownership of replacing the negative thought patterns with newer, empowering, and positive thoughts. The ontological coaching process focuses on a deep inquiry approach into the client’s worldview and habitual way of interacting with the world. The process often involves the client learning new distinctions, practicing generative conversations, and practicing new ways of being.
READ ARTICLE: MUSINGS ABOUT ONTOLOGICAL COACHING
3. Focus Areas
In the CBT approach to coaching, it is natural to dive into co-creating solutions to solve the problem or to reduce the symptoms that the client is facing. This approach is powerful in tackling mental health issues by exploring better-coping strategies.
In contrast, the ontological approach to coaching focuses more on personal transformation and holistic development. This approach might not be suitable for clients looking to solve short-term pain points. In ontological coaching, a key distinction lies in the coach working with the client to enhance embodied self-awareness, not just conceptual self-awareness. This integrated approach helps clients uncover their prevailing mood, and body shapes, and master assessments. By doing so, the interventions lead to sustainable change.
4. Areas of Applications
The CBT approach to coaching addresses a range of psychological issues ranging from performance anxiety to stress management. This approach works powerfully for clients seeking concrete solutions to challenges, especially in mental health.
In contrast, the ontological approach to coaching caters to clients seeking support in leadership development, professional and personal growth, and navigating life transitions. The ontological approach works powerfully for clients seeking holistic development and personal transformation at a deeper level.
In summary, the cognitive-behavioral approach to coaching is more commonly employed to address challenges faced in the mental health space. The CBT approach has a track record of helping clients change thought patterns to alter behavior. The ontological approach to coaching focuses on a broader and longer-term horizon, emphasizing shifts in being and bringing embodied self-awareness to clients to effect a transformative change.
Written by Victor Seet
Victor is an accredited ICF Advanced Certified Team Coach (ACTC) and Professional Certified Coach (PCC) based in Singapore. Victor coaches teams to leverage their collective strengths, get clear on ways of engagement and ways of working to strengthen team and interpersonal dynamics. He intentionally integrates the strengths-based approaches and emotional agility into his team and 1-1 coaching and facilitation workshops.
