You are on page 1of 10

The differential effects of solution-focused

and 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 overviewand results of an exploratory pilot
study.
Design/methodology/approach In a problem-focused coaching session 39 participants complete a
range of measures assessing self-efcacy, their understanding of a problem, positive and negative
affect, and goal approach. They then respond to a number of problem-focused coaching questions, and
then 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 signicantly greater increases in goal
approach compared with the problem-focused group. Problem-focused questions reduce negative
affect and increase self-efcacy but do not increase understanding of the nature of the problem or
enhance positive affect. The solution-focused approach increases positive affect, decreases negative
affect, increases self-efcacy 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-efcacy, reduce negative affect, increase positive affect and support the process of goal
attainment.
Originality/value This is the rst 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-efcacy,
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-efcacy 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 rst 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 TRAINING
j
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
dissatised with self. Participants indicated the degree that best reects the way you feel
right now.
Self-efcacy was assessed with the single item Right now I feel very condent that I know
how to solve this problem.
Understanding of the problemwas 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 the
effect of enhancing motivation, developing understanding,
increasing positive affect and self-efcacy for change.
PAGE 104
j
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING
j
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-reective thinking, and then completed a second set of
measures identical to the rst set.
Participants responded to the following request:
Please take ve 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 nally completed a second
set of measures identical to the rst. Participants where then asked to respond to the
following solution-focused questions:
Think about a possible solution to the problemyou 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-reective 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 signicant differences between
groups on any pre-coaching measures.
VOL. 42 NO. 2 2010
j
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING
j
PAGE 105
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 signicant differences in pre-post scores for positive affect (t1; 38 1:83;
NS). However, there was a signicant decrease in negative effect (t1; 38 2:31; p 0:02).
There was also a signicant increase in self-efcacy (t 1; 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 signicant increase in goal approach
(t 1; 38 3:22; p 0:003). The mean goal progression increased from 45 per cent to
50.94 per cent following the problem-focused coaching questions.
Solution-focused coaching session
Thirty-ve 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 signicant increase in pre-post scores for positive affect (t1; 34 3:58;
p 0:001) and a signicant decrease in negative effect (t1; 34 2:56; p 0:015).There
was also a signicant increase in self-efcacy 1; 34 3:66; p 0:001). There was an
increase for the item I understand the nature of this problem (t1; 34 2:61; p 0:01).
There was a signicant increase in goal approach (t1; 34 6:08; p , 0:001). The mean
goal 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 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 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 Post
Measures 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 NS
Negative affect 18.90 8.41 16.59 7.37 22.31 t1; 38 2:31 0.02
Condence in solving problem 3.03 1.47 3.58 1.17 0.55 t1; 38 3:07 0.004
Understand the nature of this problem 3.87 1.21 4.15 1.15 0.28 t1; 38 1:92 NS
Goal 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 Post
Measures 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 0.001
Negative affect 17.31 6.14 15.02 6.67 22.29 t1; 34 2:56 0.015
Condence in solving problem 2.97 1.33 3.80 1.25 0.83 t1; 34 3:66 0.001
Understand the nature of this problem 3.70 1.29 4.08 1.21 0.38 t1; 34 2:61 0.01
Goal approach 41.12 21.59 56.29 22.94 15.17 t1; 34 6:08 ,0.001
PAGE 106
j
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING
j
VOL. 42 NO. 2 2010
indicated that the increases in the solution-focused group were signicantly 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-efcacy. However, positive affect did not change and this nding 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-focused
Mean 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
VOL. 42 NO. 2 2010
j
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING
j
PAGE 107
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-reection inherent in the problem-focused questioning did not
lead to increased understanding of the nature of the problem itself. One would expect that
reecting on the problem would lead to an increase in understanding of that problem; but
this was not the case. Furthermore, there was no signicant 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 signicant
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 ndings. In the only prior study to have compared
specic solution-focused techniques to problem-focused approaches, Wehr (2009) asked
participants to focus on a specic 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 signicantly 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 signicantly more successful situations than the
problem-focused group. In addition, the solution-focused group had higher levels of
condence 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 the
solution-focused approach was superior to the
problem-focused condition.
PAGE 108
j
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING
j
VOL. 42 NO. 2 2010
Implications for practice
This paper has some useful implications for practitioners. We suggest that coaches aimfor 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 ndings. Firstly, the sample size is somewhat small. While sample
sizes of thirty-nine and thirty-ve are sufcient 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 signicantly greater increases in
goal approach compared to the problem-focused group. Problem-focused questions
reduced negative affect and increased self-efcacy. However, the solution-focused
questions were overall more effective, providing the same benets 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-efcacy, 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
howcoaching works. This paper represents a small step in developing such knowledge, and
Although a problem-focused approach may reduce negative
feelings, it may not increase positive feelings.
VOL. 42 NO. 2 2010
j
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING
j
PAGE 109
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), Efcacy 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.
PAGE 110
j
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING
j
VOL. 42 NO. 2 2010
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 Coaching
Psychology Unit at the University of Sydney, Australia. His teaching, research and coaching
psychology practice focuses on the use of evidence-based behavioural science in the
enhancement of performance, wellbeing and organisational change. Anthony Grant is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: anthonyg@psych.usyd.edu.au
Sean A. OConnor (MApplSc) is completing his PhD in Coaching Psychology at the
Coaching Psychology Unit, at the University of Sydney, Australia. His thesis explores the
impact of leadership development on group dynamics and the quality of connectivity within
the organisational network. He is an active practitioner, educator and academic researcher.
VOL. 42 NO. 2 2010
j
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING
j
PAGE 111
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints