ReciproCoach

Mirroring vulnerability in coaching

Meet our Supervisor: Ann Wright, PCC

Thinking is often seen as synonymous with coaching. We coaches frequently refer to ourselves as “thinking partners” and unanimously recognise coaching sessions as a “thinking space”. Given one argument that suggests many clients could do equally well without their coaches if they would simply stop and take time to think, it is no surprise, in contrast, that critical thinking is becoming increasingly recognised as a fundamental capability that could give coaches a competitive edge over mere thinking time. Indeed, coaches who have developed their own critical thinking capacity are in a better position to take reflection a step further and move into the realms and amplified outcomes of critical thinking.

This issue of Coaching Research in Practice delves into a recent study of critical thinking among coaches and clients and highlights the essential elements that have been shown to foster an optimum critical thinking environment in coaching. Given the value placed on critical thinking in today’s rapidly changing world and for coaching professionals themselves, this article gives coaches important insight into cultivating a critical thinking environment in coaching sessions.

Be quick! This issue of Coaching Research in Practice is freely accessible to all ReciproCoach members for one week. Thereafter, this article, like all other past issues of Coaching Research in Practice, will require a paid subscription to read. Most paid ReciproCoach memberships include full access to the Coaching Research in Practice library.

Read full article on our website.

Give LESS to get more

Meet a Mentor: Betsy Block, PCC

Are you adapting your coaching to your client?

How can coaching change personality?

This article is a reprint of a Coaching Research in Practice (May, 2018). All ReciproCoaches receive complimentary limited-time access to each new issue (10 per year). For unlimited access to more than 10 years of Coaching Research in Practice archives, purchase a membership or a subscription.

For a long time, personality was believed to be fixed, determined largely by genetics. However, more recent research challenges this view and argues that personality is changeable and significantly influenced by our environment. Given that personality influences life outcomes, if personality is changeable, then this in turn suggests that individuals’ lives may be improved through interventions that aim to increase positive personality characteristics and decrease the negative.

This issue of Coaching Research in Practice highlights a recent study exploring the impact of a coaching intervention that was intentionally designed to facilitate personality change. It provides insight into the facets of personality, which personality characteristics may and may not change, and provides some relevant suggestions for coaching practice.

COACHING RESEARCH:

In their recent study of a 10-week coaching program designed to facilitate volitional personality change, Allan, Leeson, De Fruyt and Martin (2018) explain “that a person’s personality is best described along five major dimensions, i.e., neuroticism (or emotionality), conscientiousness, extraversion, openness and agreeableness” (p. 81). They elaborated:

People high in conscientiousness tend to be self-disciplined, organized and deliberate. Agreeable individuals are more sympathetic and co-operative towards others. Neuroticism is reflected in a tendency to experience higher levels of negative emotions such as stress, anxiety, sadness and anger. Individuals higher in openness will tend to be more open to new ideas and behaviours as well as demonstrating a preference for novelty and culture. Extraverted people are generally more sociable, energetic and assertive. (p.81)

Furthermore, Allan et al. explain that in order for personality to be considered to have changed there must be “changes in thoughts and/or feelings and/or behaviours in response to certain situations” (p. 80) and that these changes “must occur in multiple situations where individual differences would be expected to occur and these changes must become enduring over time” (p. 81). Thus came about their study in which 54 participants, ranging in age from 18 to 64, completed a 10-week coaching program that involved 10 steps:

-Assessing their current personality and values, using the NEO PI-R
-Discovering their current self and personality functioning
-Identifying their ideal self and exploring the discrepancies between that and their current self
-Selecting a realistic number of facets to target for personality change
-Assessing their attitude to change
-Developing and implementing a coaching plan
-At week 5, reassessing personality, using the NEO PI-R, evaluating progress and planning remaining 5 weeks of program
-Completing the coaching by applying step 6
-At final coaching session, reassessing personality and progress and developing a maintenance plan
-After three months, reassessing personality, using the NEO PI-R

It’s important to understand that the NEO PI-R “is a widely used and well researched measure of the five factor model of personality. It measures the five domains of personality as well as six more specific traits (facets) within each domain. For example, the domain of conscientiousness is further split into the six facets of competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline and deliberation” (p. 81). It is also important to note that the NEO PI-R was self-reported in this study.

Through the above process, the following occurred:

-Neuroticism decreased both by the 5-week mark and again at the 10-week mark, and this was maintained until the 3-month mark. This included changes in levels of anger, vulnerability, depression, impulsiveness, self-consciousness and anxiety.

-Conscientiousness increased between weeks 1 and 10, but was not maintained until the 3-month mark. This included changes in levels of competence, dutifulness, achievement striving and self-discipline.

-Extraversion increased between weeks 5 and 10 and 1 and 10, and this was maintained until the 3-month mark. This included changes in levels of warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness and positive emotions.
Agreeableness or openness did not change.


The findings of this study therefore suggest that coaching may positively impact personality characteristics such as neuroticism, conscientiousness and extraversion.

IN PRACTICE:

Perhaps the most important point for practice from Allan et al.’s research is the evidence that personality characteristics can be positively impacted by coaching programs. In particular, characteristics that tend to result in negative life experience such as neuroticism can be decreased, while characteristics that tend to result in positive life experience such as conscientiousness and extraversion can be increased.

This evidence is most useful to the coaching mindsets of both the coach and the client. If both know that personality change is a proven outcome of coaching, then this in turn will influence their expectations i.e. they will expect personality change. In turn, this will make personality change more likely. This evidence also underscores the understanding of coaching outcomes and their significance in the marketing and sale of coaching programs.

Thus, you might consider including a discussion of potential change in personality characteristics as a part of your client intake processes and you may review your website and marketing material in the view of updating to include the possible outcome of personality change.

Reference:

Allan, J., Leeson, P., De Fruyt, F., & Martin, S. (2018). Application of a 10 week coaching program designed to facilitate volitional personality change: Overall effects on personality and the impact of targeting.International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 16(1), 80-94. doi: 10.24384/000470


Translating coaching research into coaching practice,

Kerryn Griffiths (PhD – The Process of Learning in Coaching)
Global ReciproCoach Coordinator

Here are the learning and development opportunities coming up at ReciproCoach in February:

Open-Channel Questioning with MCC, Melanie Parish (2024/02)
General Coaching - Experienced Coaches (2024/2.1)
General Coaching - Student/New Coaches (2024/2.2)
ACC/PCC Group Mentoring (2024/2.2)
ACC Group Mentoring (2024/2.3)
ICF ACC Individual Mentoring (2024/2)
ICF PCC Individual Mentoring (2024/2)
PCC Group Mentoring (2024/2.4)
ACC Group Mentoring (2024/2.5)
PCC/MCC Group Mentoring (2024/2.6)
Casual Group Supervision Session (2024/2.1)
Creating the Coaching Agreement - Group Mentoring with MCC, Fran Fisher (2024/2)
How to WIN and KEEP Clients (2024/2)
Ongoing Monthly Supervision Group (2024/3.1)
ACC Group Mentoring (2024/3.1)

Meet a Mentor: Camilla Cesari, MCC

Tell us what you loved or learned in your last ReciproCoach experience.

Whether you last participated in peer coaching, mentoring or supervision, by sharing what you loved or learned in that experience, you might inspire another coach to join ReciproCoach or join a new round.

The secret ingredient for self-efficacy and goal attainment in coaching

This article is a reprint of a Coaching Research in Practice (October, 2020).

As coaches, we’re well aware of the importance of focusing on solutions rather than problems. Most coaches would consider their coaching to be solution-focused. Plus anecdotal evidence, as well as research, suggests that a solution-focused, as opposed to a problem-focused approach, is most effective … or is it?

This issue of Coaching Research in Practice showcases a recent piece of quantitative research that compares the impact of solution-focused versus problem-focused questions and considers the impact of a third factor. In fact, it suggests that the latter trumps both solution- and problem-focused questions in increasing self-efficacy and goal attainment.

COACHING RESEARCH

In their 2018 paper “Broadening and building solution-focused coaching: feeling good is not enough”, Grant and O’Connor acknowledge the long-standing efficacy of problem-focused techniques to resolve problems. They also highlight that “solution-focused approaches have been highly influential in shaping much contemporary coaching practice” (p. 167).

Grant and O’Connor point out that research to date (including their own) demonstrates that “solution-focused coaching questions are generally more effective than problem-focused questions in terms of enhancing positive affect, reducing negative affect, building self-efficacy, helping people develop action plans and fostering goal attainment” (p. 169).

However, in this study, Grant and O’Connor question an inherent assumption: Given that research indicates that solution-focused coaching induces positive affect, they question whether it is the solution-focus or the positive affect that leads to the other outcomes such as increased self-efficacy and goal attainment. To examine this, they conducted a quantitative study of 512 undergraduate psychology students to measure the impact of:

-problem-focused coaching questions (PF);
-solution-focused coaching questions (SF);
-a positive affect induction (PA) and
-solution-focused coaching questions plus a positive affect induction (SF + PA). (p. 170)

The study involved participants being asked to identify a personal problem that they would like to solve and being randomly assigned to a group with problem-focused, solution-focused, positive affect induction or combined solution-focused plus positive affect induction conditions. In each of the four groups, participants responded to a set of questions: the first group responded to set of questions focused on the problem, the second group’s questions were focused on the solution, the third set of questions aimed to “induce positive affect rather than to focus participants’ thoughts on the problem or on solutions to that problem” (p. 172) and the fourth group responded to questions which combined the solution-focused question set with the positive affect induction question set. Each question set incorporated measures for positive and negative affect i.e. how they were feeling, self-efficacy i.e. confidence in solving the problem, goal approach i.e. how close they were to the goal/solving the problem, and action steps i.e. action steps to reach goal/solving the problem.

Here are the key findings:

-“SF, PA and SF + PA conditions significantly increased positive affect, but the PF condition did not” (p. 173). Furthermore, “PA was significantly more effective at increasing positive affect than SF + PA” (p. 173) and while “PA was significantly more effective at decreasing negative affect than SF + PA and SF … PF was significantly less effective at reducing negative affect than the other three conditions” (p. 174).
-“SF + PA, SF and PA conditions significantly increased self-efficacy, but the PF condition did not” (p. 176). Furthermore, “SF + PA, SF and PA were equally effective at increasing self-efficacy”, while “PF was significantly less effective at increasing self-efficacy than the other three conditions” (p. 176).
“All four conditions significantly increased goal approach” (p. 176) and while “SF + PA was significantly more effective at increasing goal approach than SF … which in turn was significantly more effective than PF … there was no statistically significant difference between PA and PF or between PA and SF” (p. 177).
-“SF + PA was more effective in terms of the number of action steps than PA … and SF… which in turn were significantly more effective than PF … [but] there was no statistically significant difference between PA and SF” (p. 177).


In summary, “PA induction and SF coaching questions were equally effective at enhancing positive affect, increasing self-efficacy, enhancing goal approach and developing action steps. These results also show, that while positive affect makes a valuable contribution to coaching outcomes, combining PA induction with SF questions produces superior outcomes than PA or SF questions alone in terms of self-efficacy, goal approach and action steps” (p. 177).

IN PRACTICE

Even though most coaches are already convinced of the benefits of solution-focused coaching as opposed to problem-focused coaching, there are still two particular new points for practice from this research:

-Coaching that combines a solution focus with positive affect induction is likely to be more effective in goal attainment than a solution-focused approach alone i.e. “SF + PA was significantly more effective at increasing goal approach than SF” (p. 177).
-Coaching that combines a solution focus with positive affect induction is likely to result in more action steps (but whether or not that is an indicator of coaching efficacy would be another research study).

Therefore, and as Grant and O’Connor suggest, “coaches can be reassured that explicitly including some kind of positive affect induction process into their coaching sessions will not negatively impact on the coachee’s goal striving compared to just using SF questions alone” (p. 178). In fact, based on these findings, it would be reasonable to expect that it may actually be beneficial to action-based progress as well as goal attainment. Thus, and again as Grant and O’Connor suggest, this may help some coaches “allow the coaching conversation to steer away from a tight focus on solution-construction or goal-identification” (p. 178). This may include “encouraging the coachee to talk about past successes, asking coaches to spend a few minutes savouring anticipated pleasant upcoming events or getting the coachee to reflect on their personal strengths” (p. 180).

Thus, if you’ve ever had a tendency to hold rigidly tight to a goal, finding a solution or a particular solution-focused model such as GROW, the recognition of the importance of positive affect in progress and goal attainment may allow you to be more willing to ‘stop to smell the roses’ while on the path towards the solution. As Grant and O’Connor suggest, “deliberately take the time to gently steer the coaching conversation towards topics or issues that induce positive affect and that are congruent with the coachee’s personal values. In doing so, coaches can do so with the confidence that they are using evidence-based approaches to enhance both well-being and goal-striving ability of their coachees – and that surely is the aim of the coaching enterprise” (p. 180).

Access more than 100 issues of Coaching Research in Practice, and stay informed about new coaching research.

Reference:

Grant, A., & O’Connor, S. (2018). Broadening and building solution-focused coaching: feeling good is not enough. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 11(2), 165-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2018.1489868



Translating coaching research into a coaching practice,

Kerryn Griffiths, PhD (The Process of Learning in Coaching)
ReciproCoach Founder and Global Coordinator

Why coaches love ReciproCoach group supervision

Does goal-setting form a part of every coaching engagement?

This article is a reprint of a Coaching Research in Practice (March, 2015).

Coaching is by and large assumed to be a goal-directed process and most of the existing body of coaching research reflects this assumption. However, some research suggests not only that goals can be detrimental to particular coaching outcomes, but that culture, coach training and coaching experience shape, or at least influence, a coach’s orientation to using or not using goal-setting.

This issue of Coaching Research in Practice reviews a recent paper that highlights the risks of goal-setting and reports on a study which reveals the factors affecting coaches’ goal orientation.

COACHING RESEARCH:

In their literature review, David, Clutterbuck and Megginson (2014) highlight potential risks that can result from goal-setting, including “narrowed focus”, “inappropriate time horizon”, “increased risk-taking behaviour”, “unethical thoughts and action tendencies” and “the inhibition of learning (in the case of performance goals)” (p. 136), as well as “increases in stress, feelings of failure, using goals as a ceiling for performance, ignoring non-goal areas, short-range thinking, and dishonesty/cheating” (p. 137).

With this in mind, David, Clutterbuck and Megginson embarked on their study of goal orientation among 194 coaches, including 45 from Europe and 149 from the United States. Each participant completed a 5-minute survey that aimed to examine the degree to which formal coach education, length of experience and other demographic factors impacted their goal orientation. Here’s a summary of the research findings:

-“U.S. [coaches] are more likely than European coaches to begin coaching by setting goals for the entire assignment, to preserve those goals throughout the engagement, to refer back to established goals in subsequent sessions, and to use them to determine the appropriateness and effectiveness of the coaching intervention, as well as when to conclude coaching” (p. 139). The authors suggested this may be a result of the traditions from which coaching originated: The European coaching field has been more strongly influenced by psychology and psychoanalysis; the US coaching field has been more strongly influenced by goal-setting theory, which originated in the US.

-“The longer a European coach had been practicing, the lower his or her score on goal orientation” (p. 139). The researchers suggested this may be due to the tendency for coaches to “let go of standard models like SMART and GROW, to engage in a more emergent form of coaching” (p. 141) as they grow in experience and competency.

-Coaches who had learned to coach through experience alone, used goal-setting significantly less frequently than those who had taken a long coaching course. The authors suggested that this finding may be due to explicit goal-related frameworks taught in formal coach education, or that coaches who are naturally more goal-oriented may also be more likely to enrol in longer, formal courses (p. 142). Notably, the way in which the researchers determined that the coach participants actually engaged in the coaching process (as opposed to mentoring, consulting or counselling, for example) was not clear, in that participants were recruited from their professional networks and “were active in their own development, either through attending conferences or through a higher education course” at the time of the research (p. 138).

IN PRACTICE:

This research highlights three important points for practicing coaches:

-Although common, goal-setting need not form a part of every coaching engagement. By recognising this, a coach may decide whether or not goal-setting forms part of his/her particular coaching approach and whether or not to use it with any particular client.
-Coaches need to be aware of the potential risks of goal-setting. With such awareness, coaches are in a better position to watch out for any consequences of those risks and, when they occur, to help raise their clients’ awareness of them.
-Goal-setting models may be very valuable to new coaches, but attachment to such models should not be at the expense of engaging in emergent coaching, once the coach has reached a level of experience and competency from which s/he can work effectively in an emergent coaching realm.

Lastly, although not mentioned by the researchers, the findings of this research pointed to another avenue for necessary research: The coaching field needs a study to examine the impact of coaching with and without goals. If you are aware of any such research, I encourage you to let us know via our online discussion. If you are a coach who coaches specifically with and/or without goals, I also invite you to share your observations with us via our online discussion.

Access more than 100 issues of Coaching Research in Practice, and stay informed about new coaching research.

Reference:

David, S., Clutterbuck, D., & Megginson, D. (2014). Goal orientation in coaching differs according to region, experience, and education. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 12(2), 134-145. Retrieved March 23, 2015, fromhttp://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/documents/vol12issue2-paper-10.pdf



Translating coaching research into coaching practice,

Kerryn Griffiths, PhD (The Process of Learning in Coaching)
ReciproCoach Founder and Global Coordinator

Support your clients’ inner thinking

Does it really matter whether your questions and goals are positively or negatively framed?

This article is a reprint of a Coaching Research in Practice (October, 2017).

As coaches, our natural instinct is to focus on the outcomes that our clients desire and when setting goals, we believe it’s more effective to frame them positively, rather than negatively.

This issue of Coaching Research in Practice continues on from last month’s issue, Are you inadvertently focusing on problems rather than on solutions? but dives deeper into the impact of solution-focused (SF) versus problem-focused (PF) questions in relation to approach (positively framed) versus avoidance (negatively framed) goals.

COACHING RESEARCH:

In their 2016 paper Approaching solutions or avoiding problems? The differential effects of approach and avoidance goals with solution-focused and problem-focused coaching questions, Braunstein and Grant highlight existing research that supports the case that “SF techniques provide useful mechanisms for facilitating intentional change” (p. 95). Interestingly however, they also identify current research which supports the effectiveness of PF approaches. In particular, “many therapies and change methodologies emphasise the importance of analysing the cause of clients’ problems” (p. 95) and “within an organizational context, PF approaches are used to solve various workplace problems” (p. 95). This suggests that “it may be the case that identifying and addressing the underlying cause of a problem will lead to the development of a truly comprehensive solution” (p. 95).

In addition to the research on SP versus PF approaches, Braunstein and Grant highlighted another body of research relating to the impact of different types of goals on individuals. In particular, the research suggests that “broadly speaking, individuals may be motivated by an approach goal, that is, one focused on pursuing a positive outcome or state, or by an avoidance goal, that is, one focused on avoiding a negative outcome or state” (p. 96). In general, the evidence concludes that “approach goals tend to be beneficial, whereas avoidance goals tend to be detrimental” (p. 96) and that “avoidance goals, compared to approach goals are likely to have more negative effects on well-being and potentially impede the process of making positive, goal-directed behavioural change” (p. 97).

Thus, Braunstein and Grant embarked on their study with 140 under-graduate psychology students to test whether asking SF questions is more effective than asking PF questions, and to empirically test the effects of approach versus avoidance goals in a coaching setting. They measured positive and negative affect, self-efficacy and perceived goal progress among research participants who considered a current problem through the lens of SF versus PF questions and approach versus avoidance goals. Here are the results of their study:

Hypothesis #1: SF questions lead to significantly better coaching outcomes than PF questions.

-“Compared to PF questions, SF questions resulted in a significantly greater increase in positive affect … perceived goal progress … and a greater decrease in negative affect … regardless of goal condition (approach vs. avoidance): as such, Hypothesis 1 was supported” (pp. 101-102).
-“In the SF condition there was a significant increase in positive affect … and perceived goal progress … and a significant decrease in negative affect. In the PF condition there were no significant changes in positive affect, … negative affect … or perceived goal progress … however, there was an increase in self-efficacy” (p. 102).

Hypothesis #2: Approach goals lead to significantly better coaching outcomes than avoidance goals.

-“There were no significant differences between the approach goal and avoidance goal conditions on measures of positive affect, … negative affect, … self-efficacy, … or perceived goal progress, … regardless of coaching question condition (SF vs. PF). As such, Hypothesis 2 was not supported” (p. 102).

Hypothesis #3: The benefits of being asked SF coaching questions, compared to PF coaching questions, will be significantly greater when individuals have an approach goal, rather than an avoidance goal.

-“There were no significant interactions between coaching question and goal type for positive affect, … negative affect, … self-efficacy, … or perceived goal progress … As such, Hypothesis 3 was not supported” (p. 102).

IN PRACTICE:

In the light of these empirical outcomes, our practice points for this coaching research are simple:

If you want to enhance your clients’ positive affect, self-efficacy and perceived goal progress, ask SF rather than PF questions. If you’re not sure whether you’re asking SF rather than PF questions, record a session and join a group mentoring session to get the perspective of others. Remember that “PF questions need not be entirely excluded from coaching conversations, but that they are simply not as effective as SF questions for facilitating change” (p. 106).

As the study findings indicate approach goals versus avoidance goals within a coaching context may not be better or worse than the other, “both the client and coach can be flexible in their method of goal setting, and not rigidly focused on only articulating approach goals” (p. 106).

Thus, the moral of this research is clear – positive versus negative framing of goals may not matter too much, but SF questions surely do!

Access more than 100 issues of Coaching Research in Practice, and stay informed about new coaching research.

Reference:

Hraunstein, K., & Grant, A. M. (2016). Approaching solutions or avoiding problems? The differential effects of approach and avoidance goals with solution-focused and problem-focused coaching questions.Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 9(2), 93-109, DOI: 10.1080/17521882.2016.1186705

Translating coaching research into coaching practice,

Kerryn Griffiths (PhD – The Process of Learning in Coaching)
Global ReciproCoach Coordinator

Are your questions directing your clients, without you even knowing it?

Directing is pretty much the opposite of coaching, yet most coaches, including MCCs, subtly direct their clients via their questions, without even knowing it.

We all have preferred ways of learning and communicating, and coaches are no exception. These preferences often result in habitual channels of questioning that can subtly direct our clients.

If you’re a visual person, for example, your questions will frequently explore what your clients see. Similarly, feeling-oriented coaches will often explore what their clients feel. However, this default line of questioning may be ineffective for thinking-, kinaesthetic- or auditory-oriented clients.

In contrast, open-channel or blank-access questioning techniques allow clients to choose their own channel. This “demonstrates respect for the client’s identity, perceptions, style and language and adapts one’s coaching to the client” (ICF Core Competency, 4.2).

MCC Melanie Parish explains that open-channel or blank-access questioning helps to avoid breakdowns between the coach and client, and cleans up the coaching path. “If you improve your questions, then your coaching will improve quickly,” she says.

This is why ReciproCoach has teamed up with Melanie to bring you an interactive workshop-style group mentoring session to skill-drill you in the art of questions. No more closed, therapeutic or stacked questions. No more unwittingly directing your clients via your questions. With live coaching and loving stop-and-start guidance from Melanie, you will improve your questions and your coaching. This is an interactive group mentoring session with a limit of 10 participants, so you’ll need to be quick to secure your place. Registration closes Tuesday, February 6).

Like all our MCC group mentoring sessions, Open-Channel Questioning with MCC Melanie Parish (2024/02) qualifies for 1.5 MCC (or lower credential level) group mentoring hours or participants can claim 1.5 ICF CCEUs in Core Competencies towards an ICF credential renewal (find more info here). As always, an Observer session is also available for registration here, allowing you to learn from Melanie even if you can’t attend the live session.

I have to say, every time I participate in or listen to a group mentoring session with Melanie, I end up laughing as I learn. To me, this is the best kind of learning. Without fail, Melanie points out the obvious that can easily become our blind spots.

I look forward to learning and laughing together,

Kerryn Griffiths, PhD, PCC
Global ReciproCoach Coordinator