The SANE Model of Philosophical Coaching

SANE is a mnemonic I developed for bringing philosophical inquiry into executive coaching sessions. Each letter represents a major tradition of Western philosophy — Socrates, Aristotle, Nietzsche, and the Existentialists — and a corresponding guiding question. The questions have no right or wrong answers. Their purpose is to surface hidden assumptions, clarify values, and illuminate the relationship between how a client thinks and how they lead.

My approach draws on philosophical traditions beyond the Western canon as well. I have written about the relevance of Taoist concepts — particularly wu-wei, the practice of effortless natural action — for executives navigating transitions into senior strategic roles. The SANE framework provides the core structure; the depth and direction of inquiry is customized for each client.

Guiding question: What is the most challenging question someone could ask me about my current approach?

Socrates believed that the unexamined life is not worth living — and that genuine self-knowledge requires the willingness to be uncomfortable. The Socratic method proceeds through questioning: surfacing hidden assumptions, exposing contradictions, and pressing past easy answers to find something truer and more defensible.

In coaching, this takes the form of probing questions that a client might prefer not to be asked. What am I assuming that might not be true? Where am I avoiding a difficult conversation? What would I most not want a trusted colleague to notice about my leadership? Clients who engage seriously with Socratic inquiry often describe it as both unsettling and clarifying — the discomfort of seeing what has been obscured, followed by the relief of having something real to work with.

Guiding question: What character virtues are most important to me and how will I express them?

Aristotle argued that a good human life is one of eudaimonia — often translated as flourishing or well-being — and that this requires the development and expression of character virtues: courage, honesty, practical wisdom, fairness, and others. Virtues, for Aristotle, are not innate; they are habits developed through repeated practice. We become honest by acting honestly, courageous by acting courageous.

For leaders, the Aristotelian question is fundamentally about identity: what kind of person do I want to be, and is the way I am leading consistent with that? Articulating core values is also, as I have written in the Harvard Business Review, one of the most effective and underutilized strategies for managing stress. Leaders who know what they stand for are far less destabilized by uncertainty, criticism, and adversity than those who have not done this work.

Guiding question: How will I manage my self-interest and act in accordance with my chosen values and highest good?

Nietzsche is often misread as a champion of raw self-interest, but his actual concern was self-mastery and authenticity. His concept of the will to power is not about dominating others — it is about the disciplined effort to become fully oneself, to create a life guided by values one has genuinely chosen rather than simply inherited from family, culture, or convention.

In coaching, this translates into a rigorous examination of what drives a client’s ambition and decision-making. Whose expectations am I living up to, and are they my own? What would I do differently if I were free of the need for external validation? How do I navigate the tension between my own advancement and the wellbeing of my team and organization? These are not comfortable questions, but they are essential for any leader who wants to lead authentically rather than reactively.

Guiding question: How will I take full responsibility for my choices and the outcomes to which they lead?

Jean-Paul Sartre and the Existentialists argued that human beings are radically free — and that this freedom carries an inescapable responsibility for our choices. Sartre described what he called bad faith: the tendency to deny freedom by blaming circumstances, other people, or forces beyond our control for outcomes we could have shaped differently. Authentic existence, by contrast, means owning the choices one has made and accepting their consequences.

In a leadership context, existentialist inquiry is about accountability without excuse. It asks clients to look honestly at where they have abdicated responsibility, rationalized failure, or allowed themselves to be shaped by circumstances rather than the other way around. This is demanding work — but clients consistently report that it is among the most freeing insights they gain in coaching: recognizing that they have more agency than they had believed.