Cos'è il Co-ching?

From the evolution of the American tradition of NLP Coaching, the GROW model developed by John Whitmore, the famous author of the bestselling book: the coaching manual, has been consolidated.

​

The G.R.O.W. model is incompatible with the Donut Economy (and its dynamization)

​

1. Structural incompatibility with the static doughnut

The G.R.O.W. model is born from an implicit paradigm: there is a defined objective (Goal), a measurable reality (Reality), a finite set of options (Options), and an executive will (Will) that closes the loop. It is a linear, closed, and target-driven model—designed to maximize the distance traveled between point A and point B in the shortest possible time.

Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics, on the other hand, introduces a radically different geometry: not an arrow, but a ring. The desirable space for human action is not a goal to be reached, but a band to be inhabited—bounded internally by the social floor (what no human being should miss) and externally by the ecological ceiling (what the biosphere cannot tolerate being exceeded). In this space, there is no fixed "optimal goal": there is a permanent tension between two thresholds that shift over time.

G.R.O.W. has no tools for this. Its Goals phase assumes that the objective is determinable a priori and stable. Its Reality phase captures the situation as static data. Its Will phase produces an action plan oriented towards execution—not towards adaptive navigation of a complexity that changes its thresholds as one moves. In short: G.R.O.W. optimizes within a closed system. The Donut is an open system with shifting boundaries.

​

2. The Dynamic Donut: Revolution, Rotation, and the Loop of the Aeons

If the static Donut already challenges G.R.O.W., its dynamization renders it definitively inapplicable.

Let's imagine the Donut not as a flat figure, but as a trajectory in space-time:

The revolution—the movement of the planet around the sun along an elliptical orbit—draws, seen from above, a donut. But the orbit is never identical: it is elliptical, perturbed by the gravity of other bodies, never perfectly closed. Each solar year is a slightly different loop. Economic, ecological, and social cycles have the same nature: they repeat but do not replicate. G.R.O.W. has no cyclical memory or the ability to read perturbations as structural information.

• Rotation—the planet rotating on its axis, generating the sidereal day—transforms the donut into a sphere when set in rotation. The sphere is the shape of fullness: every point on the surface is equidistant from the center, no direction is privileged. In a spherical view of the economy, no capital is hierarchically superior to others. G.R.O.W., however, has an implicit hierarchy: performative capital (the Will, the execution plan) is the point of arrival, and everything else serves its purpose.

The combination of revolution and rotation generates an infinite loop of eons and perspectives that relativizes three fundamental concepts:

• Ecology—understood as the science of interactions between organisms and the environment, which measures the impact and direct and indirect, intended and unintended, externalities acting on ecosystems and their equilibrium. In this dynamic vision, every human action is embedded in a network of feedback loops that extend far beyond the horizon of the G.R.O.W. action plan.

• Effectiveness—in its fourfold sense: energetic (how much energy is used), energy-intensive (how much is consumed irretrievably), energy-generating (how much is generated), and energonic® (capable of integrating and harmonizing energy systemically, transforming consumption into a cycle). G.R.O.W. measures effectiveness as target achievement. This vision measures it as the quality of the energetic relationship with the system.

• Efficiency—and here lies the most crucial distinction.

​

3. R.A.R.E.® vs. V.A.F.E.®: Two Efficiency Paradigms

G.R.O.W. structurally produces V.A.F.E.® efficiency—Vulnerable, Arid, Fragile Efficiency. It is the efficiency of strict optimization: it eliminates redundancy, reduces margins, and focuses resources on the shortest path to the goal. It is efficient as long as the context does not change. When it changes—and in the dynamicized Donut, it always changes—this efficiency reveals itself as structured fragility. It has rendered the system barren of reserves, vulnerable to shocks, incapable of adapting without disruption.

R.A.R.E.® efficiency—Resilient, Abundant, Redundant Efficiency—is, on the other hand, the form of efficiency consistent with the spherical vision. It does not eliminate redundancy: it recognizes it as a strategic reserve. It does not minimize margins: it interprets them as room for adaptation. It does not optimize the shortest path: it favors the most robust path. It is the efficiency of healthy ecosystems, of neural networks, of economies that survive crises without collapsing. It is efficiency that allows us to inhabit the Donut's belt without breaching its edges—neither by excess nor by lack of.

With respect to the 17 United Nations SDGs, this distinction is not academic: it is operational. Most failures in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals are not due to a lack of intention, but to V.A.F.E. operating models applied to problems that require R.A.R.E. logic—optimized water systems that collapse at the first drought, efficient food supply chains that break down at the first logistical shock, target-driven social policies that produce unforeseen side effects on adjacent systems.

​

4. The operating model: TRC® as a systemic response

The operating model proposed by Slow Finance—consistent with the economic paradigm of the Dynamicized Donut—is the TRC® (Real Theory of Correlativity), developed by expanding the QIP framework of D'Ariano and Faggin (Quantum Information Panpsychism). It is not a quantum metaphor: it is a method that recognizes the relational and informational nature of reality as a premise for any organizational action.

The TRC® indicates that every organization—individual or collective—must always act within its own sphere of influence along three non-hierarchical, but simultaneous, axes:

(i) Direction—where one is going. Not as a fixed objective, but as an orientation in the field: the vector that maintains the coherence of movement even when the path curves.

(ii) Meaning—why one moves. The value-based basis that legitimizes action and distinguishes it from mere reaction to external stimuli. This is what G.R.O.W. never intends to question.

(iii) Meaning—what movement produces in the larger system. Not just the direct impact, but the resonance in the ecosystem—the positive and negative externalities, the expected and unexpected feedbacks, the signature that action leaves in the loop of eons.

 

These three axes are not sequential stages like the phases of G.R.O.W.: they are simultaneous axes of a sphere. Acting with direction without meaning produces velocity without roots. Acting with meaning without meaning produces intention without impact. Acting with meaning without direction produces dispersion. Only their integration generates what the S.L.O.W. model calls, in its final movement, a wise decision—not simply executed, but inhabited.