solution focused coaching

The differential effects of solution-focusedand problem-focused coaching questions:a pilot study with implications for practice

Anthony M. Grant and Sean A. OConnor

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the differential effects of problem-focused and

solution-focused coaching questions by means of a literature overview and results of an exploratory pilot

study.

Design/methodology/approach In a problem-focused coaching session 39 participants complete a

range of measures assessing self-efficacy, their understanding of a problem, positive and negative

affect, and goal approach. They then respond to a number of problem-focused coaching questions, andthen complete a second set of measures. The 35 participants in a solution-focused session complete a

mirror image of the problem-focused condition, responding to solution-focused coaching questions,

including the Miracle Question.

Findings Both the problem-focused and the solution-focused conditions are effective at enhancing

goal approach. However, the solution-focused group experience significantly greater increases in goal

approach compared with the problem-focused group. Problem-focused questions reduce negative

affect and increase self-efficacy but do not increase understanding of the nature of the problem or

enhance positive affect. The solution-focused approach increases positive affect, decreases negativeaffect, increases self-efficacy as well as increasing participants insight and understanding of the nature

of the problem.

Practical implications Solution-focused coaching questions appear to be more effective than

problem-focused questions. Although real-life coaching conversations are not solely solution-focused or

solely problem-focused, coaches should aim for a solution-focused theme in their coaching work, if they

wish to conduct effective goal-focused coaching sessions that develop a depth of understanding, build

self-efficacy, reduce negative affect, increase positive affect and support the process of goal

attainment.

Originality/value This is the first study to explore this issue.

Keywords Solutions, Coaching, Problem solving

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Coaching is increasingly being used as a means of enhancing performance, development

and well-being, and effective questioning lies at the very heart of the coaching conversation.

But what constitutes effective questioning in coaching? Should such questions should

primarily be focused on analysing problems and exploring unhelpful thinking patterns

(Neenan, 2008), or should they be focused on constructing solutions (Berg and Szabo,

2005)? To date there has been no research on this issue. In this paper, in order to better

inform coaching practitioners and trainers, we present a brief overview of the literature and

the results of a pilot study which examined the relative impact of problem-focused and

solution-focused coaching questions on individuals levels of understanding, self-efficacy,

affect and goal approach.

Coaching is generally understood as being a collaborative, action-oriented conversation

that facilitates the enhancement of life experience, goal attainment, self-directed learning

PAGE 102 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 42 NO. 2 2010, pp. 102-111, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0019-7858 DOI 10.1108/00197851011026090

Anthony M. Grant and Sean

A. OConnor are both based

at the Coaching

Psychology Unit, School of

Psychology, University of

Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

and performance in the coachees professional and/or personal life (Spence and Grant,

2007). Given the above conceptualisation of coaching, coaching questions that are truly

effective should have the effect of enhancing motivation, developing understanding,

increasing positive affect and self-efficacy for change, as well as helping the coachee to

move closer towards their goals or objectives. But what is the best way to create such

effects?

Solution-focused approaches: asking how to?

Many coaches will be familiar with the ask-tell matrix first popularised by Whitmore (1992).

The matrix consists of two orthogonal dimensions an ask-tell dimension and a

how-why dimension (see Figure 1) and this provides a useful framework for discussing

the differences between solution-focused and problem-focused coaching questions.

Solution-focused approaches to coaching emphasise the importance of keeping the

coaching conversation focused on the asking how to quadrant (see Figure 1). The

solution-focused approach posits that coaches should spend most of the time asking

questions that elicit thoughts from the coachee about how to best attain their goals, rather

than asking why questions that explore causality. The underpinning theory here is that one

does not need to know the aetiology of a problem in order to be able to construct solutions

and move towards goal attainment. Indeed, some solution-focused proponents would argue

that problem exploration can have a detrimental effect on the coachee (Jackson and

McKergow, 2002).

Although the research into solution-focused approaches is still young (Corcoran and Pillai,

2009), there is emerging support for its effectiveness. Recent meta-analyses of counselling

applications of solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) found that SFBT demonstrated positive

effects (Kim, 2008; Stams et al., 2006). There is also a growing interest in using

solution-focused approaches in non-therapy areas. Bell et al. (2009) reported on a

successful solution-focused intervention deigned to reduce golfers putting yips (e.g. jerk in

the putting stroke). Visser and Butter (2008) found solution-focused approaches in

organisational coaching and consultancy to be strongly associated with success. In addition

there are an increasing number of books that outline solution-focused approaches to

organisational and personal coaching (Grant, 2006; Jackson and McKergow, 2002; Szabo

and Meier, 2009).

Asking why?: understanding the essence of the problem

In the problem-focused approach the underpinning assumption is that the coachee needs

knowledge of the problem aetiology in order to gain the understanding necessary for goal

progression. In this approach the coaching conversation is more focused on the asking

Figure 1 The ask-tell matrix

VOL. 42 NO. 2 2010 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAININGj PAGE 103

why quadrant (see Figure 1). There are a range of theoretical frameworks that can be used

in problem-focused interventions, including root cause analysis (e.g. Wilson et al., 1993) and

psychodynamic approaches (e.g. Kilburg, 2004).

With regard to coaching and related helping modalities, cognitive-behavioural theory (CBT)

is perhaps one of the more common theoretical frameworks associated with a

problem-focused approach. Cognitive-behavioural theory rests on the notion that

problematic emotions and behaviours stem primarily (although not exclusively) from

cognitive processes, and that such problems can be solved by understanding how such

thoughts arise, and then systemically changing ones thinking patterns, behaviours, and by

also changing the environment where possible (Froggatt, 2006). The kinds of questions that

stem from a CBTapproach would ask about the origin and chronology of the problem, would

seek to uncover details of the thoughts associated with the problem, and would explore the

impact of those thoughts on the individual. There is a considerable amount of research both

clinical, counselling and organisational settings showing that the CBT approach can be

highly effective with a wide range of problems (Ost, 2008; Proudfoot et al., 2009).

The aims of the current study

Our aims were to examine the impact of problem-focused and solution-focused coaching

questions and to determine which is more effective. To this end we conducted a pilot study

that was designed to emulate a problem-focused and a solution-focused interaction within a

coaching session. That is, we did not conduct a whole coaching session; rather, we asked a

series of problem-focused and solution-focused coaching questions.

Method

Participants

Participants were 39 mature-age students in postgraduate courses in the Faculties of

Science and Economics and Business at an Australian University who participated as part of

course requirements.

Measures

Positive and negative affect were measured using a 12-item version of the Positive and

Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988). Positive affect descriptors were

happy, inspired, cheerful, pleased, enthusiastic and determined. Negative

affect descriptors were angry, downhearted, anxious, frustrated, irritable and

dissatisfied with self. Participants indicated the degree that best reflects the way you feel

right now.

Self-efficacy was assessed with the single item Right now I feel very confident that I know

how to solve this problem.

Understanding of the problem was assessed with the single item; I understand the nature of

this problem.

All the above questions used a six-point response scale (1 very slightly or not at all;6 extremely).

Coaching questions that are truly effective should have theeffect of enhancing motivation, developing understanding,increasing positive affect and self-efficacy for change.

PAGE 104 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAININGj VOL. 42 NO. 2 2010

Goal approach was assessed by asking the participants to please rate how close you feel

you are to actually solving this problem right now. Participants responded on a 0-100 per

cent point scale where 0 per cent represented not solved at all and 100 per cent

represented completely solved.

Procedure

Both problem-focused and solution-focused sessions were conducted in a group setting

using a self-coaching format. Both sessions were 30 minutes long.

Problem focused coaching session. Participants described a real-life problem, completed

the measures, responded to a series of coaching questions designed to elicit

problem-focused and self-reflective thinking, and then completed a second set of

measures identical to the first set.

Participants responded to the following request:

Please take five minutes to write about a problem that you have that you would like to solve. It

should be one that is frustrating for you and one that you have not, as yet, been able to solve. This

problem should be real and personal, but something you feel comfortable sharing about. It might

be a dilemma, that is a situation in which you feel caught between two or more possible courses of

action, or a situation that you dont feel like you have a good deal of insight into.

Participants then completed the pre-session measures. Following this, the participants were

then asked to respond to the following questions:

1. How long has this been a problem? How did it start?

2. What are your thoughts about this problem?

3. How do you react when you have those thoughts?

4. What impact is thinking about this issue having on you?

These questions were selected because they focus the respondents attention on the

problem, and it has been argued that doing so leads to insight and the ahh experience

(Jung-Beeman et al., 2008). Participants then completed the post-session measures.

Participants did not have access to their previous responses.

Solution-focused coaching session. One week after the problem-focused session was held,

a solution-focused session was conducted. The solution-focused session was designed to

be a mirror image of the problem-focused session. Participants described a different real-life

problem and then completed the measures. They then responded to a series of coaching

questions designed to elicit solution-focused thinking and then finally completed a second

set of measures identical to the first. Participants where then asked to respond to the

following solution-focused questions:

Think about a possible solution to the problem you have just described. Now, imagine the solution

had somehow magically come about. Describe the solution.

Describe some ways you could start to move towards creating this solution.

What are your thoughts about this solution?

How do you react when you have these thoughts?

What impact is thinking about this solution having on you?

These questions were selected because they focus the respondents attention on possible

solutions and encourage the formation of positive intentions rather than fostering a

problem-focused self-reflective process (e.g. de Shazer, 1994). Participants then completed

the post-session measures. Participants did not have access to their previous responses.

Results

Paired t-tests were used to examine the impact of the coaching sessions with in each group.

An independent sample t-test was used to examine the difference in goal approach. Alpha

was set at 0.05. All p-values are two-tailed. There were no significant differences between

groups on any pre-coaching measures.


Problem-focused coaching session

Thirty-nine participants completed the questionnaires. Means, standard deviations and

difference in pre-post scores are presented in Table I.

There was no significant differences in pre-post scores for positive affect (t1; 38 1:83;NS). However, there was a significant decrease in negative effect (t1; 38 2:31; p 0:02).There was also a significant increase in self-efficacy (t1; 38 3:07; p 0:004).Unexpectedly, there was no change for the item I understand the nature of this problem

(t1; 38 1:92; NS). However, there was a significant increase in goal approach(t1; 38 3:22; p 0:003). The mean goal progression increased from 45 per cent to50.94 per cent following the problem-focused coaching questions.

Solution-focused coaching session

Thirty-five participants completed the questionnaires (four participants were absent).

Means, standard deviations and difference in pre-post scores are presented in Table I.

There was a significant increase in pre-post scores for positive affect (t1; 34 3:58;p 0:001) and a significant decrease in negative effect (t1; 34 2:56; p 0:015).Therewas also a significant increase in self-efficacy 1; 34 3:66; p 0:001). There was anincrease for the item I understand the nature of this problem (t1; 34 2:61; p 0:01).There was a significant increase in goal approach (t1; 34 6:08; p , 0:001). The meangoal progression increased from 41.12 per cent to 56.29 per cent following the

solution-focused coaching questions.

Comparing increases in goal approach scores

Although both problem and solution-focused sessions increased participants goal

approach scores, a comparison of the pre-post difference scores for the two groups

indicated that the increases in the solution-focused group were greater than the increases

for the problem-focused group (t1; 65 3:35; p 0:001). The solution-focused groupsgoal approach scores increased on average 16.00 per cent compared to the

problem-focused groups mean increase of 5.94 per cent (see Table II and Figure 2).

Discussion

Both the problem-focused and the solution-focused sessions were effective at enhancing

goal approach. However, a comparison of the pre-post difference scores for the two groups

Table I Problem-focused coaching questions outcome measures

Pre PostMeasures Mean SD Mean SD Pre-post difference t p

Positive affect 18.97 5.49 20.08 6.02 1.11 t1; 38 1:83 NSNegative affect 18.90 8.41 16.59 7.37 22.31 t1; 38 2:31 0.02Confidence in solving problem 3.03 1.47 3.58 1.17 0.55 t1; 38 3:07 0.004Understand the nature of this problem 3.87 1.21 4.15 1.15 0.28 t1; 38 1:92 NSGoal approach 45.00 19.83 50.94 23.05 5.94 t1; 38 3:22 0.003

Table II Solution-focused coaching questions outcome measures

Pre PostMeasures Mean SD Mean SD Pre-post difference t p

Positive affect 18.60 5.07 21.51 6.01 2.91 t1; 34 3:58 0.001Negative affect 17.31 6.14 15.02 6.67 22.29 t1; 34 2:56 0.015Confidence in solving problem 2.97 1.33 3.80 1.25 0.83 t1; 34 3:66 0.001Understand the nature of this problem 3.70 1.29 4.08 1.21 0.38 t1; 34 2:61 0.01Goal approach 41.12 21.59 56.29 22.94 15.17 t1; 34 6:08 ,0.001


indicated that the increases in the solution-focused group were significantly greater than the

increases for the problem-focused group. The solution-focused groups goal approach

scores increased on average 16.00 per cent compared to the problem-focused groups

mean increase of 5.94 per cent (see Table III and Figure 3). Thus in terms of goal approach, it

would appear that the solution-focused approach was superior to the problem-focused

condition.

The problem-focused questions: asking why? reduces negative affect

The problem-focused coaching questions were effective at reducing negative affect and

enhancing self-efficacy. However, positive affect did not change and this finding is in accord

Figure 2 Change in pre-post scores for solution-focused and problem-focused questions

Figure 3 Change in goal approach scores for problem- and solution-focused groups

Table III Pre-post goal approach scores for problem- and solution-focused groups

Problem-focused Solution-focusedMean SD Mean SD t p

Goal approach (pre-post difference scores) 5.94 10.43 16.00 13.76 t1; 65 3:35 0.001


with past research which has found that expressing ones problems can be cathartic and

reduce negative affect (Pennebaker et al., 1990).

The differential effect on positive and negative affect seen in the present study illustrates the

important of using a full range of assessments in coaching interventions; assessments that

span both the negative and the positive range. As in this case, coaching may reduce

negative feelings but not actually enhance positive feelings or wellbeing, and without a

broad approach to measurement the true impact will not be observed (for a useful

discussion on this point, see Keyes, 2005).

The problem-focused approach was also effective in increasing goal approach: in merely

thinking about the problem and thinking about their associated thought processes,

participants felt as if they had moved closer to their goal. This is especially noteworthy given

that participants did not write about any goal approach behaviours or formulate any action

steps.

It is surprising that the self-reflection inherent in the problem-focused questioning did not

lead to increased understanding of the nature of the problem itself. One would expect that

reflecting on the problem would lead to an increase in understanding of that problem; but

this was not the case. Furthermore, there was no significant relationship between

understanding of the nature of the problem and goal progression (r 0:044; NS),suggesting that an understanding of the nature of the problem is not necessary for goal

progression.

The solution-focused questions: asking how to? feels more positive

The solution-focused coaching questions impacted on a greater number of variables than

the problem-focused questions, and the solution-focused approach increased participants

insight and understanding of the nature of the problem. In addition, there was a significant

increase in positive affect, which was not evident in the problem-focused condition. Thus, in

relation to emotional impact, and arguably in general, the solution-focused approach

appeared to be superior to the problem-focused approach.

Past research supports this pilot studys findings. In the only prior study to have compared

specific solution-focused techniques to problem-focused approaches, Wehr (2009) asked

participants to focus on a specific personal problem that they would like to solve.

Subsequently one group generated exceptions to the problem and the other group

generated examples of problems. Following this, participants in the solution-focused group

felt significantly better than those in the problem-focused group. Furthermore, when a similar

study was conducted over a period of one week, memory recall task participants in the

solution-focused group recalled more successful situations than problem situations, and the

solution-focused group recalled significantly more successful situations than the

problem-focused group. In addition, the solution-focused group had higher levels of

confidence in their ability to deal with the problem (Wehr, 2009).

In both Wehr (2009) and the present study, solution-focused approaches were associated

with greater levels of positive affect. Isen (1987) notes that individuals in a positive mood

react more cooperatively and show greater insight and more adaptive responses in social

situations. It may be that the positive affect associated with the solution-focused approach

facilitates the development of understanding, and this is an important point for practitioners

to bear in mind.

In terms of goal approach, it would appear that thesolution-focused approach was superior to theproblem-focused condition.


Implications for practice

This paper has some useful implications for practitioners. We suggest that coaches aim for a

solution-focused theme in their work with clients. This is not to say that we should ignore the

existence of problems: solution-focused does not mean problem-phobic! In reality,

problem-focused and solution-focused approaches overlap, coaching conversations are

not solely solution-focused or solely problem-focused. Coaches move between these

approaches to best meet the needs of the coachee. Many clients want to talk about their

problems. Having the time and space to talk about problems can be cathartic, and stopping

them from doing so can alienate them. Indeed, just thinking about problems seems to help

coachees move towards their goal. However, and this is an important point for coaches,

consultants and trainers to bear in mind, although a problem-focused approach may reduce

negative feelings, it may not increase positive feelings: we of course assume that it is

important that clients feel energised by their coaching sessions.

Limitations of the present study and future research

In a pilot study such as this there are inevitable limitations and these should be taken into

account in interpreting the findings. Firstly, the sample size is somewhat small. While sample

sizes of thirty-nine and thirty-five are sufficient to detect medium to large effect sizes in

within-subject designs they may be on the small size in terms of producing reliable

correlational statistics (Cohen, 1992). We recommend that further research use larger

sample sizes. Secondly, the participants in the study took part as part of their course

requirements. It would be useful to replicate this study using actual coachees, rather than

mature age students. Thirdly, the measures are purely self-report. Future research could use

objective behavioural indictors of goal progression in addition to the self-report measures

used in the present study. Fourthly, because the participants completed the exercises one

week apart, the results of the solution-focused session may be partly due to a practice effect

as the participants had done a similar exercise one week before. Despite these limitations,

this paper has given some insights into how to ask more effective questions in coaching and

will hopefully provoke further work along these lines.

Summary

Although both problem-focused and the solution-focused conditions are effective at

enhancing goal approach, the solution-focused group had significantly greater increases in

goal approach compared to the problem-focused group. Problem-focused questions

reduced negative affect and increased self-efficacy. However, the solution-focused

questions were overall more effective, providing the same benefits as the

problem-focused condition while also increasing positive affect and participants

understanding of the nature of the problem. Overall it seems that while both

problem-focused and solution-focused questions are effective, generally, solution-focused

coaching questions are more effective than problem-focused questions. Thus, we suggest

that coaches aim for a solution-focused theme in their coaching work if they wish to conduct

effective goal-focused coaching sessions that build self-efficacy, reduce negative affect,

increase positive affect and support the process of goal attainment.

Coaching is becoming increasingly established as a positive change methodology.

However, there is still much to learn about what constitutes effective coaching practice and

how coaching works. This paper represents a small step in developing such knowledge, and

Although a problem-focused approach may reduce negativefeelings, it may not increase positive feelings.


we look forward to further research that uncovers the psychological mechanics of successful

coaching practices.

References

Bell, R.J., Skinner, C.H. and Fisher, L.A. (2009), Decreasing putting yips in accomplished golfers via

solution-focused guided imagery: a single-subject research design, Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-14.

Berg, I.K. and Szabo, P. (2005), Brief Coaching for Lasting Solutions, W.W. Norton, New York, NY.

Cohen, J. (1992), A power primer, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 155-9.

Corcoran, J. and Pillai, V. (2009), A review of the research on solution-focused therapy, British Journal

of Social Work, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 234-42.

de Shazer, S. (1994), Words Were Originally Magic, Norton & Co., New York, NY.

Froggatt, W. (2006), A brief introduction to cognitive-behaviour therapy, available at: www.rational.

org.nz/ (accessed 31 January 2008).

Grant, A.M. (2006), Solution-focused coaching, in Passmore, J. (Ed.), Excellence in Coaching:

The Industry Guide, Kogan Page, London, pp. 73-90.

Isen, A.M. (1987), Positive affect, cognitive process and social behavior, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.),

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 203-53.

Jackson, P.Z. and McKergow, M. (2002), The Solutions Focus: The SIMPLE Way to Positive Change,

Nicholas Brealey, London.

Jung-Beeman, M., Collier, A. and Kounios, J. (2008), How insight happens: learning from the brain,

NeuroLeadership Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 20-5.

Keyes, C.L. (2005), Complete mental health, Revue Quebecoise de Psychologie, Vol. 26 No. 1,

pp. 145-63.

Kilburg, R.R. (2004), When shadows fall: using psychodynamic approaches in executive coaching,

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 246-68.

Kim, J.S. (2008), Examining the effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy: a meta-analysis,

Research on Social Work Practice, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 107-16.

Neenan, M. (2008), From cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) to cognitive behaviour coaching (CBC),

Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 3-15.

Ost, L.-G. (2008), Cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety disorders: 40 years of progress, Nordic

Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 5-10.

Pennebaker, J.W., Colder, M. and Sharp, L.K. (1990), Accelerating the coping process, Journal of

Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 528-37.

Proudfoot, J.G., Corr, P.J., Guest, D.E. and Dunn, G. (2009), Cognitive-behavioural training to change

attributional style improves employee wellbeing, job satisfaction, productivity, and turnover, Personality

and Individual Differences, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 147-53.

Spence, G.B. and Grant, A.M. (2007), Professional and peer life coaching and the enhancement of

goal striving and wellbeing: an exploratory study, Journal of Positive Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 3,

pp. 185-94.

Stams, G.J., Dekovic, M., Buist, K. and de Vries, L. (2006), Efficacy of solution-focused brief therapy:

a meta-analysis, Gedragstherapie, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 81-94.

Szabo, P. and Meier, D. (2009), Coaching Plain & Simple: Solution-focused Brief Coaching Essentials,

W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY.

Visser, C. and Butter, R. (2008), The effectiveness of solution-focused working in coaching and

consultancy, Gedrag en Organisatie, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 35-55.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A. (1988), Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 54

No. 6, pp. 1063-70.


Wehr, T. (2009), The phenomenology of exception times: qualitative differences between

problem-focused and solution-focused interventions, Applied Cognitive Psychology, in press.

Whitmore, J. (1992), Coaching for Performance, Nicholas Brealey, London.

Wilson, P.F., Dell, L.D. and Anderson, G.F. (1993), Root Cause Analysis: A Tool for Total Quality

Management, American Society for Quality Improvement, New York, NY.

About the authors

Anthony M Grant PhD is a Coaching Psychologist and the Director of the CoachingPsychology Unit at the University of Sydney, Australia. His teaching, research and coachingpsychology practice focuses on the use of evidence-based behavioural science in theenhancement of performance, wellbeing and organisational change. Anthony Grant is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Sean A. OConnor (MApplSc) is completing his PhD in Coaching Psychology at theCoaching Psychology Unit, at the University of Sydney, Australia. His thesis explores theimpact of leadership development on group dynamics and the quality of connectivity withinthe organisational network. He is an active practitioner, educator and academic researcher.


To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

solution focused coaching

Documents