Atlas›Domain VI · Brief, integrative, trauma, hypnosis & coaching›Guide 144
Guide VI-144

Solution-focused and cognitive-behavioural coaching

Anthony M. Grant2000Sydney, Australia
A 12 · L 80 · M 819 interventions in the Trinity explorer
Client cardCompare
[source: …] where a claim comes from[uncertain] not confirmed in a primary source[synthesis] the writer's reconstruction

1. Introduction

Version followed: Anthony M. Grant's solution-focused cognitive-behavioural (SF-CB) coaching as described in the evidence-based life-coaching programmes from the Coaching Psychology Unit, University of Sydney: Grant (2003), adapted from the self-help book Coach Yourself (Grant & Greene, 2001), and the programme formats reported in Spence & Grant (2005) and Green, Oades & Grant (2006); session-level questioning follows Grant's solution-focused versus problem-focused question studies (Grant, 2012). Coaching-therapy boundary follows the ICF referral guidelines (Hullinger & DiGirolamo, 2018) and the EMCC/AC Global Code of Ethics (v4, December 2025). [source: Grant 2003; Grant APS slides; Grant 2016 summary; ICF 2018; GCoE 2025]

Sources include Grant's biography and the founding of the Coaching Psychology Unit (2000); the bibliographic details of Grant's RE-GROW article (2011); the abstract of Grant's 2017 SF-CB paper and an Institute of Coaching summary of it, including its six-step self-regulation process and the Performance/Well-Being Matrix; and the abstract of Grant & O'Connor (2018). Not drawn on: the full texts of RE-GROW (2011), the goal-focused coaching model (2012), the goal-striving and mental-health model (2007), Grant (2017), Grant & O'Connor (2018), and Coach Yourself (2001). Most step-by-step detail in Section 4 is therefore standard cognitive-behavioural and solution-focused practice adapted to Grant's framework, and is marked [synthesis]. No Grant source drawn on here describes solution-focused scaling questions.

What it is. SF-CB coaching is a framework, not a manualised therapy. It is a coaching approach for "normal, nonclinical clients", which Grant (2003, p. 254) defined as a collaborative, solution-focused, results-oriented and systematic process. It aims to improve goal attainment and life experience. Grant built it from three strands: (a) the cognitive-behavioural four-domain model of thoughts, feelings, behaviour and environment; (b) brief solution-focused therapy, which works on strengths and building solutions rather than analysing problems; and (c) self-regulation and self-regulated-learning models such as Zimmerman's. [source: Grant 2003, pp. 254–255]

Core idea of how change happens. People reach goals by moving repeatedly through a self-regulation cycle: set a goal, make an action plan, act, monitor what happens, evaluate it against the goal, then change what is not working and do more of what works. The coach's job is to keep the coachee moving round this cycle. Grant argued that reaching goals depends on the reciprocity between thoughts, feelings, behaviours and the environment, so the coach intervenes in whichever domain is blocking progress. He separated self-reflection from insight: time spent reflecting does not guarantee insight. In his first study, coachees became less self-reflective but gained insight as they moved through the cycle, so the coach steers them away from rumination and towards goal-directed action. [source: Grant 2003, pp. 255–256; Grant APS slides 30–31; Grant 2016 summary]

Who developed it. Anthony M. Grant (28 May 1954 – 3 February 2020) was a coaching psychologist. In 2000 he launched what his obituaries call the world's first Coaching Psychology Unit, at the University of Sydney, and he directed it. He became a full professor in 2019 and Emeritus Professor in January 2020. His PhD at Macquarie University (2001) was titled "Towards a Psychology of Coaching: The impact of coaching on metacognition, mental health and goal attainment". Grant 2016 calls the Unit long-standing and credits it with more than 150 papers. [source: Coaching at Work obituary; ISCP obituary; Grant 2016 summary]

For the psychotherapist. This is a coaching model for non-clinical goal attainment and well-being. It is not a treatment for mental disorder. Grant's research programmes screened applicants for mental-health problems, and in one study 25% of applicants were excluded at screening. If you are a clinician, decide before you start whether you are offering coaching or therapy and contract for that one (see Section 4, "Screening, contracting and referral"). [source: Grant APS slides 32, 40, 67; ICF 2018; GCoE 2025]

2. Framework

SF-CB coaching has no fixed phases. The structure is (i) an initial life review and goal-setting stage, (ii) a run of weekly cycles of review, evaluation and action planning, and (iii) a closing evaluation of goal attainment. Each session follows a goal-focused structure such as GROW. [source: Grant 2003, p. 257; Grant APS slides 27, 32, 35]

Grant's later (2017) statement of the process. In his 2017 SF-CB paper, as summarised by the Institute of Coaching, Grant described SF-CB coaching as building a cycle of self-regulated change in six steps: (1) identify possible outcomes; (2) set specific goals; (3) identify resources and options, and build action plans; (4) identify personal strengths and build self-efficacy to support motivation; (5) monitor and evaluate progress regularly; (6) adjust actions in the light of that evaluation. He set this against Freudenberger's account of burnout as a self-defeating cycle, in which a narrow focus on work crowds out wider needs and self-care. He argued that sustainable success needs balanced reciprocity between the environment and the person's thoughts, feelings and behaviours. The paper also proposes a two-by-two Performance/Well-Being Matrix to guide coaches and organisations (see 4.19). [source: Grant 2017 abstract (Ovid); IOC summary of Grant 2017] [uncertain: full text]

Stage A: Start-up (intro session, workshop or first session).

  • Goals: explain what coaching is and contract for it; screen for clinical problems; review the main areas of life; set goals.
  • Content: the coachee reviews their main life areas (e.g. work, health, relationships) using a life inventory. They then set three specific, tangible, measurable goals to reach, or make significant progress on, within about 13 weeks. These can include goals they have tried and failed to reach before. [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]
  • Formats published: an introductory evening before individual coaching (Spence & Grant 2005), and a one-day workshop before group coaching (Green, Oades & Grant 2006). [source: Grant APS slides 32, 35]
  • Move on when: the coachee has screened as suitable for coaching, has agreed the coaching contract and has set goals specific enough to monitor. [synthesis]

Stage B: Weekly self-regulation cycles (the core).

  • Goal: each week, systematically work through the self-regulation cycle for each goal.
  • Session content: review and evaluate last week's actions, decide what to change and what to keep, and make an action plan for the coming week. Use SF-CB techniques wherever a domain blocks progress: self-monitoring, cognitive restructuring, behavioural change, environmental structuring, and solution-focused questions such as the miracle question. [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]
  • Published dose and format:
    • Group: 10 weekly sessions of 50 minutes over a 13-week goal window, with an external facilitator (Grant 2003).
    • Individual: 10 weekly sessions of 45 minutes (Spence & Grant 2005).
    • Group: 10 weekly 1-hour sessions after the workshop, with follow-ups at 10, 20 and 30 weeks (Green et al. 2006). [source: Grant 2003, p. 257; Grant APS slides 27, 32, 35]
  • Within-stage decision: if actions are working, do more of them; if not, change the plan or address the thought, feeling or environmental block. [source: Grant 2003, Fig. 1]

Stage C: Evaluation and close.

  • Goals: rate goal attainment, for example with Goal Attainment Scaling; review outcome measures; and plan how the coachee will keep running the cycle without the coach.
  • Grant's group reported gains held at 30-week follow-up, which supports building self-coaching into the close. [source: Grant APS slides 25, 37]
  • Grant (2016) recommends routine use of validated measures such as well-being, resilience, engagement, self-efficacy, stress, anxiety and depression, which also helps standardise the work. [source: Grant 2016 summary]
  • Move to close when: the goals are attained or substantially progressed, or the agreed number of sessions ends. [synthesis]

Session structure. Grant's 2003 group sessions were described as "GROW" sessions [source: Grant APS slide 27]. GROW runs: set the Goal for the session; examine the current Reality; generate Options; agree the Way forward, meaning the coachee's specific actions [source: Burke & Linley 2007, p. 63, describing GROW]. In this guide each weekly session opens with a review and evaluation of the previous week's actions before the GROW sequence. That opening step comes from the weekly review-and-evaluate step in Grant 2003 [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]. Grant later wrote "Is it time to REGROW the GROW model? Issues related to teaching coaching session structures" (The Coaching Psychologist, 7(2), December 2011) [source: SGCP issue page]. Its text was not available, so this guide does not say what the added letters of RE-GROW stand for or how Grant taught the model. [uncertain]

3. Guiding principles

  • Coaching is for the non-clinical population [source: Grant 2003, p. 254; APS slide 67]. Screen first; if you see clinical-level problems, treat the case as a referral or therapy question, not a coaching one.
  • Systematic and results-oriented [source: Grant 2003, p. 254]. Every session ends with specific, dated actions and checks progress on the stated goals.
  • Self-regulation cycle as the engine [source: Grant 2003, pp. 255–256]. Always ask where the coachee is in the cycle (goal, plan, act, monitor, evaluate, change) and work on that step.
  • Change what's not working; do more of what works [source: Grant 2003, Fig. 1]. When you review, sort the coachee's actions into those to amplify and those to modify, and avoid post-mortems of failure.
  • Solution focus over problem focus [source: Grant 2012 via SFIO review; Grant 2016 summary; Grant & O'Connor 2018 abstract]. Spend session time on preferred futures, past successes and next steps rather than on causes and history. In Grant's 2012 study, solution-focused questions raised self-efficacy and generated more action steps; problem-focused questions did not. In a later 512-person experiment, problem-focused questions did worst on every measure. Solution-focused questions combined with a positive-affect induction did better than either alone, which the authors summarised as feeling good "is not enough".
  • Reciprocity of thoughts, feelings, behaviour and environment [source: Grant 2003, pp. 254–255; Grant 2016 summary]. If the coachee is stuck, ask which domain is blocking them and choose a technique from that domain.
  • Insight over self-reflection [source: Grant 2003, p. 256; APS slides 30–31]. Do not encourage long introspection; turn reflection into an insight and an action ("So what will you do differently?").
  • Strengths and resources [source: Grant 2003, p. 255; Solution-Focused Inventory abstract]. Look for exceptions, past successes and existing resources. Grant's Solution-Focused Inventory names three solution-focused capacities: problem disengagement, goal orientation and resource activation. [uncertain: inventory abstract only]
  • Goals are specific, measurable and time-limited [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]. Work on about three goals with a horizon of roughly 13 weeks, so that monitoring is possible.
  • Measure outcomes with validated instruments [source: Grant 2016 summary; APS slide 25]. Use Goal Attainment Scaling plus standard well-being and distress measures, which also flag clinical problems as they emerge.
  • Work within competence, contract clearly and refer when needed [source: ICF 2018; GCoE 2025]. State in the contract that coaching is not counselling, psychotherapy or medical treatment, set out the limits of confidentiality, and refer when the coachee's needs exceed the remit.
  • Collaborative relationship [source: Grant 2003, p. 254]. The coachee chooses the goals and the actions, and the coach structures the process.
  • Performance and well-being together [source: Grant 2017 abstract; IOC summary of Grant 2017]. Aim for "sustainable high performance", meaning high performance with high well-being. Do not trade the coachee's well-being for results; at least one goal or action should protect it.

4. Intervention inventory

The primary sources name the SF-CB techniques: self-monitoring, cognitive restructuring, behavioural modification, environmental structuring, the miracle question, the life inventory, goal setting, weekly review and action planning, GROW, and Goal Attainment Scaling. They do not give step-by-step scripts. Steps marked [synthesis] are standard cognitive-behavioural and solution-focused practice, adapted here to Grant's framework. Scaling questions, exception-finding sequences and Grant's RE-GROW wording do not appear in the Grant sources, so where they appear below they are marked. [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]

4.1 Contracting, screening and referral (the coaching–psychotherapy boundary)

  • Purpose / when: Use at intake and keep watching throughout. Coaching in this model is for non-clinical populations. The coaching bodies define the boundary as follows:
    • ICF: coaching focuses on visioning, success, the present and the future, usually for performance, learning or development, with generally well-functioning people. Therapy works with psychopathology, emotions and the past, often for healing or trauma recovery. The coach "does not diagnose nor does a coach offer treatment". [source: ICF 2018]
    • EMCC/AC Global Code of Ethics: coaching "is not counselling, psychotherapy or medical intervention". Members work within the limits of their competence. They encourage the client to end the engagement if a different form of professional help would serve them better. [source: GCoE 2025; AC Code page]
    • Grant's programmes: screened applicants for mental-health problems. In one individual-coaching study 25% of applicants were excluded; in another study 31.5% of those screened had health problems. Grant noted that screening may make it harder to show well-being effects. [source: Grant APS slides 32, 34, 40]
  • Steps:
    1. Before or at the first meeting, explain the nature of coaching, the limits of confidentiality (danger to self or others, illegality, legal duty), fees and other terms, and that coaching is not therapy. [source: ICF 2018 citing ICF Code 3.18; GCoE 2025]
    2. Screen. Ask about current mental-health treatment, mood, anxiety, substance use and functioning. Consider a brief validated distress measure; Grant's research used the DASS-21 as a measure of psychopathology. Interpret any standardised measure within its licence and your competence. [source: Grant 2003, p. 258] [synthesis: using it as an intake screen]
    3. Decide: (a) coaching only; (b) coaching alongside therapy, which is acceptable when the person is functioning day to day and still progressing; or (c) refer, and pause coaching until they are ready. [source: ICF 2018]
    4. Keep watching at every session. Weekly outcome monitoring and how the coachee talks about setbacks are your early-warning system. [synthesis]
  • Concrete signs that a coachee needs referral to clinical care [source: ICF 2018 unless marked]:
    • The problem impairs self-care, work, home or social functioning, and has done so for weeks. ICF names this as the most important indicator.
    • There is no progress after a reasonable time because of psychological barriers: unresolved past events, persistent emotional processing, or self-defeating patterns.
    • The coachee keeps returning to a past event, sees themselves as a victim, or still suffers effects from trauma.
    • Distress signs: marked mood change; falling work or study performance; withdrawal; changes in weight, appearance or hygiene; sleep disturbance. Several signs together, or chronic signs, strengthen the case. Weigh their duration, frequency and intensity.
    • Probable anxiety disorder, depression (for example low mood for more than two weeks), eating disorder, PTSD, substance misuse, thought disorder, or any suicidal ideation.
    • Your own reactions: persistent discomfort, feeling over-responsible or under pressure to fix things, anxiety about contact, or a coachee becoming dependent on you. Take these to supervision.
    • Any immediate risk to the coachee or others means emergency action, which overrides confidentiality.
    • Extra signs for clinicians [synthesis]:
      • The goal itself is symptom-driven, for example "stop panicking", or a weight goal in someone with restrictive eating.
      • Goal-setting repeatedly turns into hopelessness.
      • The coachee cannot do any between-session action because of avoidance or exhaustion.
      • The DASS-21 or another measure is in a severe range, or rises across sessions.
  • Referral steps [source: ICF 2018]:
    1. Raise it privately, with time, starting from concern.
    2. Name the specific changes you have observed.
    3. Ask open questions and allow silence.
    4. Explore how they feel about the suggestion.
    5. Give concrete referral options and help book an appointment.
    6. Normalise seeking help; ICF's analogy is that palpitations need a cardiologist, not a dermatologist.
    7. If they decline, respect that unless there is risk, and keep the door open to raise it again.
    8. Follow up on whether they started therapy without asking for details. A therapist will need a signed release before discussing the client with you.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Over the last few sessions you've described sleeping badly, missing work and feeling flat most days. That sounds bigger than a coaching goal, and I think you deserve proper support for it. Can we talk about seeing a psychologist or your GP? We can pause or carry on with coaching alongside, whichever helps."
  • Watch for:
    • Clinicians who coach can feel tempted to slide into treatment under a coaching contract. If you do, re-contract explicitly as therapy, with clinical assessment, records and consent. [synthesis]
    • Mandatory reporting, safeguarding duties and local confidentiality law still apply. [source: GCoE 2025; ICF 2018]

4.2 Life inventory (life-domain review)

  • Purpose / when: Use at the start, before goal setting, to survey the main areas of life and find where the coachee wants change. Grant's programme used the life inventory from Coach Yourself. [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]
  • Steps [synthesis on details; the inventory itself is not reproduced]:
    1. List the main life domains, for example work or career, health, relationships, finances, leisure and personal growth.
    2. Ask the coachee to rate their current satisfaction with each and to note what is going well.
    3. Ask which two or three areas, if improved over the next three months, would make the most difference.
    4. Carry those areas into goal setting.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Let's look across your life as a whole first. Where are things going well? Where would a change over the next three months matter most?"
  • Watch for: Very low ratings across all domains, or global hopelessness, point to a screening question rather than a coaching one (see 4.1). [synthesis]

4.3 Goal setting (three specific, measurable goals)

  • Purpose / when: Use in the start-up stage, and again when a goal is reached or dropped. The goals give the self-regulation cycle something to regulate. [source: Grant 2003, pp. 255, 257]
  • Steps:
    1. From the life inventory, draft three goals. [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]
    2. Make each specific, tangible and measurable. [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]
    3. Set a horizon of about 13 weeks for attainment or significant progress. [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]
    4. Check that the coachee owns each goal and that it is worded as an approach goal ("what you want") rather than avoidance. Agree how progress will be seen or counted. [synthesis]
    5. Goals the coachee has failed to reach before are acceptable. [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]
  • Example language (illustrative): "If we met in 13 weeks and this goal had gone well, what exactly would be different, and how would we be able to tell?"
  • Watch for:
    • Vague goals ("be happier") need translating into observable markers.
    • Goals imposed by an employer or partner tend to stall.
    • Grant also wrote on goal hierarchies and a goal-focused coaching style (Grant 2012, "An integrated model of goal-focused coaching"). [uncertain: that paper's content is not used here]

4.4 Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS)

  • Purpose / when: Use at goal setting and evaluation. GAS was Grant's main goal outcome measure; slide 25 describes it as "simple scaling" with levels of attainment. [source: Grant APS slide 25]
  • Steps [synthesis: standard GAS practice]:
    1. For each goal, define the expected outcome at the end of coaching.
    2. Define levels above and below the expected outcome, in observable terms.
    3. Record the baseline.
    4. Rate attainment at review points and at the end, and discuss what produced any movement.
  • Example language (illustrative): "What would 'on track' look like by week 13? And what would 'better than expected' look like?"
  • Watch for: Levels must be observable rather than feelings alone. Repeated scores below baseline call for review (see 5. Handling problems). [synthesis]

4.5 GROW session structure, with review of last week's actions

  • Purpose / when: Use it to structure every weekly session. Grant's 2003 group sessions were "GROW" sessions. In each, coachees reviewed and evaluated last week's progress, then made a plan for the coming week. [source: Grant APS slide 27; Grant 2003, p. 257]
  • Steps:
    1. Review: what did you do, what happened, and what did you learn? [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]
    2. Goal for this session: which goal, and what outcome do you want from today? [source: Burke & Linley 2007, p. 63, describing GROW]
    3. Reality: the current situation, recent progress, resources, and what has helped. [source: Burke & Linley 2007]
    4. Options: generate several. [source: Burke & Linley 2007]
    5. Way forward: specific actions, when, and likely obstacles. [source: Burke & Linley 2007]
  • Example language (illustrative):
    • "Before we set today's focus, let's look back at last week's plan: what did you actually do?"
    • "So what's the single most useful step for this week?"
  • Watch for: Spending most of the session in "Reality" analysing problems. Grant's research suggests problem-dwelling does not raise self-efficacy (see 4.14). [source: Grant 2012 via SFIO review] [uncertain: Grant's own RE-GROW wording]

4.6 Action planning

  • Purpose / when: Use at the end of every session. This is the "develop an action plan" step of the self-regulation cycle. [source: Grant 2003, pp. 255, 257]
  • Steps [synthesis on detail]:
    1. Break the goal into the next concrete, achievable steps.
    2. Specify what, when and where for each step.
    3. Anticipate obstacles and agree an if–then response.
    4. Check confidence, and shrink the step if confidence is low.
    5. Agree how the coachee will record whether they did it (see 4.7).
  • Example language (illustrative): "What will you do, and on which day? What might get in the way, and what will you do if it does?"
  • Watch for: Solution-focused questioning produced more action steps than problem-focused questioning in Grant's 2012 study. If plans keep coming out thin, check how much problem-talk preceded them. [source: Grant 2012 via SFIO review]

4.7 Self-monitoring

  • Purpose / when: Use between sessions. It feeds the "monitor" step of the cycle. [source: Grant 2003, pp. 255, 257]
  • Steps [synthesis on detail]:
    1. Agree one or two simple indicators per goal, such as actions completed or a daily count.
    2. Agree a recording method: a notebook, an app or a calendar tick.
    3. Bring the record to the review step (4.5).
  • Example language (illustrative): "What's the simplest thing you could track this week that would tell us whether the plan is working?"
  • Watch for: Monitoring that turns into self-criticism. Point the coachee to what the data show they should do more of. [synthesis]

4.8 Evaluate and adjust: "change what's not working, do more of what works"

  • Purpose / when: Use in the review step of each session. This is the "evaluate" and "change" part of the cycle, and it is where insight is generated. [source: Grant 2003, Fig. 1, pp. 255–256]
  • Steps:
    1. Compare what happened with the planned action and the goal.
    2. Sort actions into those that worked, which the coachee keeps or amplifies, and those that did not, which they modify or drop.
    3. Ask what made the difference.
    4. Feed this straight into next week's plan. [source: Grant 2003, Fig. 1] [synthesis on sequencing]
  • Example language (illustrative): "What worked, even a little? What would doing more of that look like? What didn't work, and what would you change about it?"
  • Watch for: Insight ("I now see X, so I'll do Y") is the sign that the step is working. Long reflection with no change in plan is not. [source: Grant 2003, p. 256; APS slides 30–31]

4.9 Four-domain SF-CB mapping (thoughts, feelings, behaviour, environment)

  • Purpose / when: Use when progress stalls, to find which domain is blocking the goal and choose the matching technique (4.10–4.12). [source: Grant 2003, pp. 254–255; Grant 2016 summary]
  • Steps [synthesis]:
    1. Take a recent stuck moment.
    2. Map what the coachee was thinking, what they felt, what they did or avoided, and what in the situation helped or hindered.
    3. Identify the most changeable link.
    4. Choose the matching technique: thoughts lead to cognitive restructuring (4.10), behaviour to behavioural change (4.11), environment to environmental structuring (4.12).
  • Example language (illustrative): "When you sat down to start the report and didn't, what went through your mind? How did that feel? What did you do instead? And what about the setting made it harder?"
  • Watch for: The map is used for goal pursuit, not for formulating psychopathology. Recurrent intense affect or pervasive patterns point back to 4.1. [synthesis]

4.10 Cognitive restructuring (identifying and challenging unhelpful goal-blocking thoughts)

  • Purpose / when: Use when performance-interfering thoughts block action, for example "I'll never manage this" or "It must be perfect". Grant (2003) lists cognitive restructuring among the programme's techniques. [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]
  • Steps [synthesis: standard CB procedure; Grant's own steps not found]:
    1. Catch the thought linked to the stuck moment.
    2. Rate how strongly the coachee believes it.
    3. Examine it: what is the evidence for and against? What would they tell a colleague? What is a more useful and still realistic way to see it?
    4. Write the alternative thought.
    5. Test it through an action step in the coming week.
  • Example language (illustrative): "You said 'If it's not perfect, there's no point.' How true is that, out of 100? What happened the last time you sent something that was good enough?"
  • Watch for: Keep it goal-linked and brief. Entrenched, distressing beliefs, for example about worthlessness, are a clinical signal (4.1). [synthesis]

4.11 Behavioural modification

  • Purpose / when: Use when the gap is in doing: procrastination, inconsistent habits, or lack of skill. It is named in Grant (2003). [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]
  • Steps [synthesis]:
    1. Define the target behaviour precisely.
    2. Break it into graded steps.
    3. Schedule the steps.
    4. Add prompts and self-chosen rewards.
    5. Rehearse difficult steps in session if useful.
    6. Monitor (4.7).
  • Example language (illustrative): "What's the smallest version of this you'd be confident doing three times this week?"
  • Watch for: Repeated non-completion despite tiny steps suggests a cognitive, environmental or clinical block. [synthesis]

4.12 Environmental structuring

  • Purpose / when: Use when the setting undermines the goal: cues, time, people, physical space. It is named in Grant (2003). [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]
  • Steps [synthesis]:
    1. Identify the situational triggers and supports for the goal behaviour.
    2. Rearrange cues, for example by removing distractions, setting reminders or blocking calendar time.
    3. Recruit social support or accountability.
    4. Review the effect next session.
  • Example language (illustrative): "What could you change about your desk, your diary or who you tell, so that doing this becomes the easy option?"
  • Watch for: Practical, low-effort changes are often quick wins early in coaching. [synthesis]

4.13 The miracle question (preferred-future question)

  • Purpose / when: Use when the coachee is stuck generating options or plans. Grant (2003) used de Shazer's miracle question to generate options and action plans. [source: Grant 2003, p. 257]
  • Steps:
    1. Invite the coachee to imagine the problem has gone overnight.
    2. Ask what they would first notice the next morning.
    3. Ask how they would act, think and feel.
    4. Ask how others would notice.
    5. Turn the detail into options and the first small action. [source: steps 1–4 follow the solution-focused "miracle" writing condition in Solms et al. 2022, which builds on Braunstein & Grant 2016 and Theeboom et al. 2016, and the similar miracle-based condition in Kitai et al. 2023, which uses Grant's (2012) two-condition design: imagine the problem gone, describe the solved situation concretely, name what would help, and name what can be started now. Step 5 is Grant's stated use (2003).]
  • Example language (illustrative): "Suppose tonight, while you're asleep, this problem is resolved, but you don't know it has happened. When you wake up, what's the first thing you'd notice that tells you things are different?"
  • Watch for:
    • Concrete, behavioural descriptions mean the question is working.
    • Purely wishful content ("I'd win the lottery") needs gentle steering back to what is in the coachee's control.
    • [synthesis] If the question triggers grief or hopelessness, slow down and consider 4.1.

4.14 Solution-focused question sequence (success recall) instead of problem-focused enquiry

  • Purpose / when: Use when a coachee arrives with a problem. Grant's experiments compared solution-focused (SF) with problem-focused (PF) coaching questions. SF questions raised positive affect, lowered negative affect, increased self-efficacy and goal approach, and produced more action steps. PF questions, such as how long the problem has existed and how it started, did not improve affect or self-efficacy. Grant & O'Connor (2018) randomised 512 participants to PF questions, SF questions, a positive-affect induction, or SF plus positive affect. PF did worst on every measure. SF questions and positive affect alone were about equally effective. The combination did best on self-efficacy, goal approach and action steps. [source: Grant 2012 via SFIO/Szabó review; Solms et al. 2022 citing Grant 2003; Grant & O'Connor 2018 abstract] [uncertain: the abstract does not say how positive affect was induced]
  • Steps:
    1. Let the coachee describe the problem briefly.
    2. Then move to solution talk: recall a time they handled a similar problem well; what they noticed first that day; how they acted, thought and felt; how others noticed.
    3. Ask what from that success they can use now.
    4. Move to action planning (4.6). [source: steps 1–2 follow the "success" condition in Solms et al. 2022, which builds on Grant's work; steps 3–4 are synthesis]
  • Example language (illustrative): "Can you think of a time you faced something like this and it went reasonably well? What did you do then that helped?"
  • Watch for:
    • The coachee's language shifting to "I could…" and rising confidence are signs it is working.
    • Do not dismiss real problems; acknowledge them briefly before moving on. The 2018 study found SF questions worked best together with positive affect, so it is reasonable to open the success recall warmly, for example by noticing what the coachee did well. [synthesis]
    • Scaling questions ("0–10, where are you now?") are standard in solution-focused practice, but they do not appear in any Grant source: Grant 2003, the 2016 and 2017 summaries, the 2018 abstract, or the 2012 question protocol as reviewed and replicated. Grant's goal measure was Goal Attainment Scaling (4.4), which is not the SF scaling question. If you use scaling questions, treat them as an addition. [uncertain]

4.15 Turning self-reflection into insight

  • Purpose / when: Use when the coachee reflects at length without changing anything. Grant separates self-reflection from insight, and recommends that coaching produce insight and goal-directed action rather than self-focused reflection. [source: Grant 2003, p. 256; APS slides 30–31]
  • Steps [synthesis]:
    1. Summarise the reflection briefly.
    2. Ask for the one useful conclusion.
    3. Ask what it implies for this week's action.
    4. Close the loop at the next review.
  • Example language (illustrative): "We've looked at this from a lot of angles. What's the one thing you now understand that you didn't before? What does that mean you'll do?"
  • Watch for: Rumination that escalates distress is a clinical indicator (4.1). [synthesis]

4.16 Outcome measurement with validated instruments

  • Purpose / when: Use at the start, the end and follow-up, and optionally mid-way. Grant advocated validated measures, for example of well-being, resilience, engagement, self-efficacy, stress, anxiety and depression, which also standardise SF-CB practice. His studies used GAS, hope and well-being measures, and the DASS-21. [source: Grant 2016 summary; Grant 2003, p. 258; APS slides 25, 37]
  • Steps [synthesis]:
    1. Choose a goal measure (GAS) and one or two well-being or distress measures that you are licensed and competent to use.
    2. Give them at baseline.
    3. Repeat at the end and at follow-up.
    4. Discuss the results with the coachee.
    5. Act on any deterioration (4.1). Do not reproduce copyrighted items; use the published forms under their terms.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Let's take a quick measure now and again at the end, so we can see what has changed besides the goals themselves."
  • Watch for: Rising distress scores mean pausing and screening, not pushing harder on goals. [synthesis]

4.17 Building self-coaching for maintenance

  • Purpose / when: Use in the final sessions. The SF-CB programme was adapted from a self-coaching book (Coach Yourself), and gains held at 30-week follow-up, so the aim is for the coachee to run the cycle themselves. [source: Grant 2003, p. 254; APS slide 37]
  • Steps [synthesis]:
    1. Review which parts of the cycle the coachee now does unprompted.
    2. Write a one-page personal cycle: the goal, the weekly review questions and their own "what works" list.
    3. Plan a self-review day each week.
    4. Agree a follow-up check-in, for example at 10, 20 or 30 weeks, mirroring the published follow-up points.
  • Example language (illustrative): "When we stop meeting, what questions will you ask yourself each week to keep this going?"
  • Watch for: A coachee who feels they cannot continue without the coach may be becoming dependent, which is an ICF referral or supervision signal. [source: ICF 2018] [synthesis]

4.18 Strengths identification and self-efficacy building

  • Purpose / when: Use after goals and options are set, and whenever motivation dips. Grant's 2017 account of SF-CB names identifying personal strengths and building self-efficacy as the step that supports motivation. Grant 2016 describes orienting coaching towards strengths and building solutions on them. [source: IOC summary of Grant 2017; Grant 2016 summary]
  • Steps [synthesis: Grant's own procedure not in the sources]:
    1. Ask the coachee to name strengths they used in past successes relevant to the goal.
    2. Ask for one concrete occasion as evidence for each strength.
    3. Link one strength to this week's action.
    4. Check confidence in the planned action. If it is low, shrink the step (4.6) or plan more support.
    5. At review, credit successes to the coachee's own actions and strengths.
  • Example language (illustrative): "When you've pulled off something hard before, what did you draw on? How could you bring that to this week's step?"
  • Watch for: Rising confidence and more self-generated actions show it is working. If the coachee cannot name any strengths, or is globally self-critical, consider low mood (4.1). [synthesis]

4.19 Performance/Well-Being Matrix

  • Purpose / when: Use at start-up and at review points, especially in workplace coaching, to locate the coachee and set the direction of change. Grant (2017) proposed the matrix as a guiding framework for coaches and organisations, aimed at "sustainable high performance". [source: Grant 2017 abstract (Ovid); IOC summary of Grant 2017]
  • Structure [source: IOC summary of Grant 2017]: performance (high/low) and well-being (high/low) form four quadrants. These are distressed but functional (high performance, low well-being); distressed and dysfunctional (low on both); happy non-worker (low performance, high well-being); and flourishing (high on both), which Grant calls the aspiration zone. People move between quadrants over time. The coach identifies the current quadrant and helps the coachee move away from low well-being. [uncertain: quadrant labels as given in the IOC summary; Grant's exact wording not checked]
  • Steps [synthesis on detail]:
    1. Explain the two dimensions without labelling the person.
    2. Ask the coachee to place themselves now, and where they were a few months ago.
    3. Explore what holds performance or well-being where it is, using the four-domain map (4.9).
    4. Set or adjust goals so that at least one serves well-being, not only performance.
    5. Re-place the coachee at review points.
  • Example language (illustrative): "If one line is how well you're performing and the other is how well you're doing in yourself, where would you put yourself right now?"
  • Watch for: Low well-being, whether or not performance is holding, calls for screening (4.1) before more performance goals. Burnout signs in a high performer belong here too. The quadrants describe states, not people, so use the labels carefully with coachees. [synthesis]

5. Handling problems

The Grant sources say little about clinical problems inside coaching. The guidance here combines ICF and Global Code of Ethics material with my own synthesis, and each item is marked.

  • Stuck: no progress on the goal for 2–3 weeks.
    1. Re-check that the goal is specific and owned (4.3).
    2. Shrink the action step (4.11).
    3. Run the four-domain map (4.9) to find the blocking domain.
    4. Switch from problem analysis to success recall or the miracle question (4.13–4.14). If the barrier is psychological (unresolved past events, persistent emotional processing, self-defeating patterns), consider referral. [source: ICF 2018 on stalled progress] [synthesis on sequence]
  • Endless problem-talk or rumination. Acknowledge briefly, then use a solution-focused question and ask for the insight and action (4.14–4.15). Grant's data suggest problem-focused talk does not raise self-efficacy. [source: Grant 2012 via SFIO review; Grant 2003, p. 256] [synthesis on response]
  • Non-adherence: actions not done.
    • Treat it as data for the evaluate step, not as failure. Ask what got in the way, then change the plan, the environment or the step size.
    • Check whether the goal is the coachee's own or someone else's. In sponsored (workplace) coaching, revisit the three-way contract.
    • Repeated non-completion together with low energy or withdrawal suggests possible depression (4.1). [source: Grant 2003 Fig. 1 for "change what's not working"] [synthesis on the rest]
  • Resistance or ambivalence about the goal.
    • Go back to the life inventory and ask what makes the goal matter.
    • Offer to set a different goal. In this model the coachee chooses the goals.
    • Avoid persuading. [synthesis]
  • Overwhelm or strong emotion in session.
    • Pause the agenda, acknowledge the feeling and let the coachee settle.
    • Ask whether this is a one-off reaction to circumstances or a pattern.
    • If it is pervasive, linked to trauma, or impairing daily functioning, follow ICF referral steps.
    • If there is risk to self or others, act on it at once. Confidentiality gives way to safety, as stated in your contract.
    • Suicide or self-harm disclosures: carry out a structured risk assessment at the level your professional role requires, or arrange urgent clinical assessment if you are working as a coach only. Discuss safety planning and lethal-means safety (secure storage and removal), and record what was done. [source: ICF 2018; GCoE 2025] [synthesis on in-session steps]
  • Ruptures, such as the coachee feeling pushed or judged.
    • Name the rupture, ask for the coachee's view and take responsibility for your part.
    • Renegotiate the pace or focus.
    • Fast action planning can feel like pressure, so check the coachee's confidence before setting a step. [synthesis]
  • The coachee wants therapy under a coaching label, or the coach (a clinician) drifts into treatment.
    • Name the boundary using the contract: coaching is not counselling, psychotherapy or medical intervention.
    • Offer either a referral or an explicit switch to a therapy contract, with clinical assessment and records.
    • Coaching can continue alongside therapy if the coachee is functioning and progressing. [source: GCoE 2025; ICF 2018] [synthesis for the clinician-specific re-contracting]
  • Dependence on the coach, or the coach feeling over-responsible. These are ICF indicators. Take the case to supervision, which the Global Code of Ethics expects, and build self-coaching (4.17). [source: ICF 2018; GCoE 2025]
  • Coachee declines referral.
    • Respect the decision unless there is risk, and say they can come back to you.
    • Raise the referral again if the issue recurs.
    • If the issue blocks coaching, pause coaching. [source: ICF 2018]
  • Distress scores rise during coaching.
    • Stop and review rather than intensify goal work.
    • Re-screen and discuss the result with the coachee.
    • Refer if indicated. [synthesis; Grant 2003 used the DASS-21 as an outcome measure, not as a decision rule]
  • Group format problems: uneven progress, or comparisons between members (Grant's 2003 and 2006 programmes were group-based).
    • Keep the review step individual: each member reports on their own cycle.
    • Celebrate small wins.
    • Follow up privately with members who show clinical signs, rather than in the group. [synthesis]
  • Gaps in the sources [uncertain]:
    • Grant's RE-GROW paper (2011): title and issue confirmed; text not drawn on.
    • The goal-focused coaching model (2012).
    • The goal-striving and mental-health model (2007).
    • The full SF-CB burnout paper (2017): only its abstract and an Institute of Coaching summary are drawn on.
    • Grant & O'Connor (2018), abstract only, and Coach Yourself (2001). Their specific procedures are not included.

Sources

Sources

Further reading (not drawn on)

  • Grant, A. M., & Greene, J. (2001). Coach Yourself: Make Real Change in Your Life. Momentum/Pearson.
  • Green, L. S., Oades, L. G., & Grant, A. M. (2006). Cognitive-behavioral, solution-focused life coaching: Enhancing goal striving, well-being, and hope. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 142–149.
  • Spence, G. B., & Grant, A. M. (2005/2007). Individual SF-CB coaching study (as summarised in Grant's APS slides).
  • Grant, A. M. (2011). Is it time to REGROW the GROW model? Issues related to teaching coaching session structures. The Coaching Psychologist, 7(2). [bibliographic details verified on the SGCP issue page]
  • Grant, A. M. (2012). An integrated model of goal-focused coaching. International Coaching Psychology Review, 7(2). [abstract only]
  • Grant, A. M. (2012). Making positive change. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 31(2), 21–35. [via review]
  • Grant, A. M. (2017). Solution-focused cognitive–behavioral coaching for sustainable high performance and circumventing stress, fatigue, and burnout. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 69(2), 98–111. [abstract and IOC summary only]
  • de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating Solutions in Brief Therapy. Norton.
← Previous · VI-143Ontological coachingNext · VI-145 →Acceptance and commitment coaching