Guest post by Coert Visser

Solution-focused principles and techniques, orginally developed in psychotherapy, have found their way into coaching, over the last decade. While an evidence base of solution-focused brief therapy is beginning to come off the ground, little research is done on the effectiveness of solution-focused coaching (one researcher who is already doing interesting research in this area is Anthony Grant). It is important that an evidence base on solution-focused coaching is built, too. Individual clients, client organizations and society at large rightfully demand that solution-focused professionals not only discover things that work but also justify what they do by scientifically testing their claims.

Standard effectiveness research approaches involve randomized controlled experiments in which the treatment of interest is compared with a reference approach and a control group. A recent review summarizes this type of coaching research, which is still in its infancy. While this approach is indispensable it is not the only useful approach and it is not without weaknesses. For one thing, this type of research requires the existence of generally accepted definitions of the treatments (coaching procedures) that are researched. This type of research comparing coaching approaches does say something about the relative effectiveness of these approaches but does not say much about the relative contribution of the constituent elements of these approaches because these are not examined separately in these types of experiments but in combination with each other.

Research aimed at a micro level of coaching can be an important addition to these standard research approaches. One example is micro-analysis research done by Janet Beavin Bavelas and her colleagues. Micro-analysis research will, in the near future, I predict, be supported by software to analyze language used in coaching conversations. As this type of research will develop a much more nuanced and specific kind of knowledge will emerge about what works and what not.

Survey based research also offers some interesting opportunities to analyze the specific interventions and behaviors of solution-focused coaches. Recently I published such a study: Testing the Association between Solution-Focused Coaching and Client Perceived Coaching Outcomes. I designed a web-based survey and administered it to 200 clients of coaches. The survey consisted of a list of 28 coach behaviors, 14 of which were solution-focused behaviors and 14 of which were behaviors solution-focused coaches would deliberately avoid. I asked clients to describe what their coaches had done and what they had not done (without referring to the solution-focused approach or any other approach, by the way). In addition to that, I asked clients to describe on several dimensions how effective the coaching had been. Solution-focused coach behaviors turned out to be were strongly positively correlated to positive coaching outcomes. Non-solution-focused coach behaviors, on the other hand, turned out to be moderately negatively correlated to positive coaching outcomes.

Then, I used a statistical technique called multiple regression analysis which gave insight into which specific coach behaviors were predictive of coaching success. This showed that the following 10 solution-focused coach behaviors in particular were associated with positive coaching outcomes:

  • The coach responded with understanding to what I said (coach understandingness)
  • The coach let me decide whether the coaching should be continued or terminated (client continuation choice)
  • The coach focused on topics that I found useful to talk about (client topic choice)
  • The coach encouraged me to describe how I wanted my situation to become (desired situation description)
  • The coach encouraged me to describe what I wanted to be able to do differently (positive future behavior description)
  • The coach gave me positive feedback (complimented me on what I had done well) (positive behavior feedback)
  • The coach encouraged me to choose which step(s) forward I would to take (client chosen action)
  • The coach used the same words as I had used (language matching)
  • The coach checked several times whether our conversation was useful to me (client usefulness check
  • The coach asked questions about what I had already done that had worked well (exploration of what worked)

The number of non-solution-focused coach behaviors that was predictive of positive outcomes was smaller. Three coach behaviors were, as expected, negatively associated with coaching outcomes:

  • The coach told me whether the coaching should be continued or terminated (coach continuation choice),
  • The coach gave me negative feedback (criticized me on what I had done wrong) (negative behavior feedback), and
  • The coach chose what topics we talked about (coach topic choice).

Surprisingly (and interestingly), two non-solution-focused coach behaviors were, contrary to this study’s expectations, positively associated with coaching outcomes:

  • The coach analyzed with me what the causes of my problem might be (problem cause analysis)
  • The coach asked questions about when my problems were at their worst (problem peak focus)

I hope this is a good (while modest) beginning of survey based research into the effectiveness of solution-focused interventions in coaching. The details of the study can be found in the full article. Soon, I hope to publish a study into the effects of the coaching approach on coaches themselves

5 thoughts on “Solution-Focused Coaching & Positive Outcomes

  1. Did positive outcome include behaviour changes vs perceived value of the coaching session?

    I vaguely remember some research on designing instruction (introduce a plausible but incorrect concept before introducing the correct concept) that would not be as enjoyable for the student but actually leads to better understanding and knowledge retention.

  2. Hi Jason,
    As dependent variables were only used client satisfaction and client perceived outcomes

    The following three general questions about client satisfaction and client perceived coaching outcomes were asked:

    1) How satisfied are you with the process of the coaching?,

    2) How satisfied are you with the attainment of the coaching goal(s)?,

    3) If your manager was involved in the choice for coaching, how satisfied was your manager with the overall results of the coaching?

    Also, respondents were asked to indicate on Likert scales, ranging from 1) ‘this became much worse’ to 5) ‘this became much better’ what effect the coaching had on the following items:

    1. My satisfaction with my work/job
    2. My satisfaction with my organization/company
    3. My satisfaction with my personal relationships
    4. My ability to adjust in stressful situations
    5. My ability to think flexibly
    6. My ability to be creative
    7. My ability to learn new knowledge
    8. My ability to persist at difficult tasks
    9. Other people’s appreciation of me

  3. Again, very interesting Coert – a lot of food for thought.

    Since your study is about the perception clients have, not about effectiveness per se, I was wondering…
    What if the 2 non-solution-focused behaviors you mention associated to perceived positive outcomes are there because of clients’ expectations about being heard?
    What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>