5 Executive Coaching Models Used By Experts (Explained by Experts)

Most articles on coaching models describe what each acronym stands for and leave it there. We take a different approach. As MCC-credentialed coaches who have used these frameworks across hundreds of engagements, we explain where each model genuinely helps, where it breaks down, and why the model you choose matters far less than how your coach uses it.

The International Coaching Federation estimates that the coaching industry now exceeds $4.5 billion globally, with executive coaching as its fastest-growing segment. For a comprehensive overview of the process itself, the executive coaching guide covers what to expect from an engagement from intake through sustainability planning. Along with that growth has come an alphabet soup of coaching frameworks — GROW, CLEAR, OSKAR, STEPPA, and dozens more.

What Are Executive Coaching Models?

A coaching model is a structured framework that guides the conversation between coach and client. It gives the coaching engagement a repeatable shape. These frameworks work in concert with the assessment tools coaches use to establish a data baseline before the conversation begins. — a beginning, middle, and end — so that sessions stay purposeful rather than wandering.

Organizations adopt coaching models for the same reason they adopt any process: predictability. When an HR director hires five external coaches, having a shared framework creates a common language for evaluating outcomes. When a coach is building their practice, a model provides scaffolding while they develop their own style.

But here is where most discussions of coaching models go wrong. They treat the model as the point. It isn’t. The model is a starting place. The International Coaching Federation identifies core competencies like maintaining presence, active listening, and powerful questioning — none of which are model-specific. A coach who follows GROW rigidly but cannot read the room will produce worse outcomes than a coach who sets the model aside when the moment demands it.

The question is not which model is best but whether your coach has the skill and judgment to know when any model stops being helpful. That skill is grounded in what an executive coach actually does in practice, which goes beyond any single framework. That distinction shapes everything that follows.

The model is the scaffolding, not the building. Skilled coaches let it recede once the relationship develops.

5 Executive Coaching Models Used by Practitioners

Each of the models below has a legitimate place in executive coaching. We describe them honestly — what they do well, what they don’t, and what we’ve observed using them in practice.

The GROW Model

Sir John Whitmore popularized GROW in the 1980s, and it remains the most widely taught coaching framework worldwide. The acronym maps the coaching conversation through four stages:

• Goal: Define a specific, measurable outcome for the session or engagement
• Reality: Assess the current situation honestly — strengths, constraints, and gaps
• Options: Generate possible paths forward without premature evaluation
• Will: Commit to specific actions with timelines and accountability

Where GROW works well: Performance-oriented engagements with clear metrics. An executive who needs to hit quarterly targets or develop a specific leadership capability often benefits from GROW’s structured progression. It also serves new coaches well because its steps are intuitive.

Where GROW breaks down: When the real issue isn’t the stated goal. A VP of Engineering says she wants better delegation skills, but the underlying problem is that she doesn’t trust her team’s competence. GROW will cycle through goal-setting and options without surfacing that trust deficit. The model assumes the client knows what they need — which is often exactly what coaching needs to explore.

The STEPPA Model

Angus McLeod introduced STEPPA in 2003 to address what he saw as GROW’s blind spot: emotion. The six-stage framework places feelings at the center of the coaching process:

• Subject: Define the topic of discussion
• Target: Set a clear desired outcome
• Emotions: Surface how the client feels about the subject — as motivator or barrier
• Perception: Explore the client’s current viewpoint and expand it through questions
• Plan and Pace: Build an action plan with realistic milestones
• Adapt/Action: Execute the plan while staying responsive to changing circumstances

Where STEPPA works well: Transitions, role changes, and situations where the executive’s emotional state is a primary factor. A CFO processing a major reorganization through change management will benefit from explicitly naming the anxiety, loss, or ambivalence that GROW might skip past.

Where STEPPA breaks down: Executives who are uncomfortable with emotional vocabulary may resist the model. In highly analytical cultures — engineering, finance, legal — the explicit emotions step can feel forced. The model also assumes emotions are accessible to the client, which requires a level of self-awareness not everyone has developed.

The OSKAR Model

Mark McKergow and Paul Z. Jackson developed OSKAR in 2002, rooted in solution-focused therapy. Rather than analyzing problems, it directs attention to what’s already working:

• Outcome: Define the desired future state
• Scale: Rate current progress on a 1–10 scale
• Know-how: Identify existing skills, resources, and past successes
• Action: Take concrete steps, building on what already works
• Review: Evaluate progress and recalibrate

Where OSKAR works well: Executives who feel stuck or overwhelmed. The scaling question (“Where are you now? What would one point higher look like?”) creates movement when big goals feel paralyzing. It’s also effective for leaders who default to deficit thinking — always focused on what’s broken rather than what they can leverage.

Where OSKAR breaks down: When there is a genuine performance gap that needs direct confrontation. An executive whose leadership style is creating team attrition needs more than appreciative inquiry. OSKAR can inadvertently validate approaches that need to change.

The CLEAR Model

Peter Hawkins created CLEAR in the early 1980s, emphasizing relational depth over procedural steps. It’s the most relationally oriented of the five models:

• Contract: Establish what this session is about and what success looks like
• Listen: Deep, active listening — not just to words but to emotion and body language
• Explore: Ask probing questions that surface underlying patterns and assumptions
• Action: Develop a concrete plan from what the exploration revealed
• Review: Evaluate the session and the working relationship itself

Where CLEAR works well: Senior leaders dealing with complex, ambiguous situations where the problem itself isn’t clear. A CEO navigating board dynamics, culture change, or stakeholder conflict benefits from CLEAR’s emphasis on exploration before action. The review step also strengthens the coaching relationship over time.

Where CLEAR breaks down: When the executive needs rapid, structured progress. CLEAR’s exploratory nature can feel slow to action-oriented leaders. In short-term, results-focused engagements, clients sometimes perceive the listening-and-exploring phases as unproductive — even when the real value is being created there.

The ACL Model (Action-Centered Leadership)

John Adair developed Action-Centered Leadership in 1973, originally as a leadership theory rather than a coaching model. It focuses on three overlapping domains that every leader must balance:

• Task: Setting goals, defining standards, monitoring performance
• Team: Building cohesion, managing conflict, developing group capability
• Individual: Addressing personal needs, development, and motivation

Where ACL works well: Executive team coaching where the leader needs to rebalance attention across these three domains. A COO who excels at task execution but neglects individual development will see Adair’s framework make the imbalance visible and actionable.

Where ACL breaks down: It’s a diagnostic lens more than a coaching process. ACL tells you what to focus on but not how to have the coaching conversation. Most coaches use it alongside a process model like GROW or CLEAR rather than as a standalone framework.

Quick Comparison

How to Choose the Right Coaching Model

If you’re evaluating coaches or coaching programs, the framework question will come up. Here’s how to think about it practically.

Match the model to the challenge, not the coach’s preference. A coach who only uses GROW is like a surgeon who only does one procedure. Ask prospective coaches: “How do you decide which approach to use with a given client?” The answer tells you whether they’re following a script or exercising professional judgment.

Consider the executive’s self-awareness. Leaders with strong self-awareness can engage with exploratory models like CLEAR. Leaders who are action-first may need GROW’s structure initially, with a gradual shift toward deeper work as trust develops.

Assess the organizational culture. Engineering-driven organizations often respond better to frameworks with clear steps and measurable outcomes. Relationship-oriented cultures may prefer CLEAR’s or STEPPA’s emphasis on emotions and exploration.

Factor in the engagement timeline. Short-term performance coaching (3–6 months) typically calls for GROW or OSKAR. Longer developmental engagements (12+ months) benefit from CLEAR or STEPPA’s capacity for deeper exploration. Understanding the coaching investment also helps align expectations with the scope of work.

A coach who only uses GROW is like a surgeon who only does one procedure.

But the most important factor is one that no model comparison can capture: the coach’s ability to set the model aside when the conversation needs it.

We call this the difference between inflicting coaching and inviting it. When a coach locks into a model and follows it regardless of what the client brings, that’s inflicting. An invitational approach sounds more like: “I have a tool that might be useful here. Would you like to try it?” The client consents. The coach adapts. The model serves the relationship — not the other way around.

As one of our MCC coaches puts it: “Every model falls apart the moment a client acts differently than the model predicts. The worst thing a coach can do is follow the model when the client has gone a completely different direction. You need to be with the client, not with your model.”

You need to be with the client, not with your model.

This is also why standardizing on a single methodology across an organization rarely works. You educate your coaches, give them tools and coaching strategies, and then let them be professional. Rigidity is a hammer-and-nail problem. People vary. Claiming to value diversity while treating everyone with the same model contradicts the premise.

The ASPIRE Model: How Tandem Coaching Works

Our own approach — ASPIRE — grew out of the recognition that no single model covers the full arc of executive development. ASPIRE stands for Assess, Strategize, Plan, Inspire, Reflect, and Evolve.

Rather than prescribing a rigid sequence, ASPIRE gives our coaches a shared language while preserving the flexibility that real coaching demands. A coach might spend an entire session in “Reflect” if that’s where the client needs to be. Another engagement might move quickly through “Assess” and “Strategize” because the executive already has strong self-awareness.

What makes ASPIRE different is what it does not do. It does not assume the client’s issue is the stated issue. It does not push toward action before the executive is ready. And it does not treat coaching as something we do to a leader — it’s something we do with them. Explore how our coaching approach works in practice, or see our full range of executive coaching solutions.

Frequently Asked Questions