英文原文
The Solution-focused Approach to Coaching Michael J. Cavanagh and Anthony M. Grant All forms of coaching, in one way or another, seek to develop solutions to the issues brought forward by the client. What then is unique about solution-focused coaching? How does it differ from other forms of coaching? This chapter outlines the background and basic tenets of the solution-focused (SF) approach, and examines some core assumptions and processes underpinning it as a methodology for change. The SF approach to coaching places primary emphasis on assisting the client to define a desired future state and to construct a pathway in both thinking and action that assists the client in achieving that state. It contrasts with other approaches by eschewing much of the problem state definition seen in other traditions. In so doing, the SF approach is situated squarely in a constructivist epistemology - maintaining that events and their meanings are actively constructed in dialogue rather than simply given to us in experience (O'Connell, 1998). According to SF theorists, the act of spending large amounts of time and effort in articulating a strong definition of the client's problem, deconstructing the chain of cause and effect that led to the current state of affairs, or apportioning blame, is often a waste of time and energy. Indeed, it is often positively counterproductive (Jackson & McKergow, 2007). Knowing how a problem arose does not necessarily tell one how to fix it. Furthermore, proponents of the SF approach suggest that the very act of articulating a causal explanation may serve to constrain the coach and coachee into a frame of reference that limits potential solutions rather than uncovers them (de Shazer, 1994). Hence, the primary emphasis in SF coaching is on defining the desired solution state and potential pathways to get there (Jackson & McKergow, 2007). Basic assumptions The SF approach to coaching is distinguished from approaches based on more traditional models of psychological change (e.g. cognitive behavioural and psychodynamic traditions) by two fundamental philosophical and theoretical assumptions. First, as mentioned above, the SF approach adheres to a constructionist philosophy. It holds that it is the way in which the client (and coach) think and talk about events that constructs those events as problematic. The problem is not something given in reality, but constructed in the discourse between the client and others in the client's world. Second, the solution-focused approach sees the client as fundamentally capable of solving their problem. That is to say, they already have all they need to create the solution state (Berg & Szabo, 2005; de Shazer, 1988). This conceptualization of the client sees the person as whole and resource-full, rather than as dysfunctional and needy. When taken together these assumptions lead to several key tenets of solution-focused approaches (O'Connell, 1998). 1. Use of a non-pathological interpretive framework: Problems are not indications of pathology or dysfunction. Rather they indicate a need to try different perspectives or behaviours. 2. Client-based expertise: The idea is that the client rather than the coach is the expert in their own life. 3. Coaching is about facilitating solution construction: The coach primarily facilitates the construction of solutions rather than trying to understand the aetiology of the problem. 4. Focus on client resources: The coach helps the client recognize and utilize existing resources. 5. Clear, specific and personalized goal setting: To assist the client in attaining their preferred future, the articulation of that future state should be clear and behaviourally detailed. Because problems and solutions are constructed by the client, coaching interventions should be tailored to each client. 6. Action-orientation: There is a fundamental expectation on the coach's part that positive change both can, and will, occur, and that the work of change takes place primarily outside of the coaching session. 7. Do what works, and stop doing what does not work: Allied to the commitment to an action orientation is a pragmatic focus on identifying what is working for the client and amplifying this. Similarly, if an attempt at problem resolution is not working, then stop and try something different. 8. Change can happen in a short period of time: Because the client is already whole, change does not require fixing the client. This stands in contrast to the assumption that change must be worked on over a long period of time. 9. Enchantment: Borrowed from the work of Milton Erikson, SF approaches suggest that the coaching process be designed and conducted in a way that is attractive and engaging for the client. APPLICATIONS OF SOLUTION-FOCUSED COACHING The SF approach is a methodology that is applicable in a wide range of coaching settings. Because it seeks to work with the client's goals, and begins with the client's perspective, the application across settings is very similar. Nevertheless, it is worth noting some differences in emphasis found in different settings. Skills and performance coaching The psychological literature distinguishes between two types of development - horizontal development, or assimilation, and vertical development or accommodation. Horizontal development occurs when a person is able to assimilate new information or new practices into their current worldview. Skills and performance coaching would typically fall into this category of development. In skills and performance coaching, the task is to focus on the development and application of specific knowledge skills and abilities in order to enhance workplace performance or achieve specific organizational targets. This focus on organizational goals and needs adds some complexity to solution-focused coaching. Often there is congruence between what the organization wants from the coachee and what the coachee wants from coaching. In such cases goal setting within coaching is rather straightforward. However, when there is a mismatch between the coachee's perceived needs and the organization's requirements, then goal clarification becomes critical. An SF approach to this conundrum is to treat this apparent dilemma as a platform for more solutions (Jackson & McKergow, 2007). For example the coach might bring the issue into the foreground as follows: 'I notice that you would like to achieve X, and at the same time, the organization is requiring that we work toward Y. I wonder what this means for the coaching? Is it possible for us to work toward both targets together, or is one more important for you? Perhaps there are other solutions possible?' Skills and performance coaching often requires the use of organizational metrics such as 360-degree feedback and other data driven means of assessing performance. Often these metrics lead to a focus on what is missing or undone, rather than what is good or strong about the client's performance. The challenge for the solution-focused coach is to help the client see measurement as feedback in service of their goals. Reframing of feedback and metrics to identify progress and resources is important here.
中文翻译
焦点解决教练方法 Michael J. Cavanagh 和 Anthony M. Grant 所有形式的教练，都以某种方式寻求发展解决客户提出的问题的方法。那么焦点解决教练有什么独特之处？它与其他形式的教练有何不同？本章概述了焦点解决（SF）方法的背景和基本原则，并探讨了作为变革方法论的一些核心假设和过程。 焦点解决教练方法主要强调帮助客户定义期望的未来状态，并在思维和行动上构建一条帮助客户实现该状态的路径。它与其他方法的不同之处在于避免了其他传统中常见的问题状态定义。通过这样做，焦点解决方法完全建立在建构主义认识论的基础上——认为事件及其意义是在对话中积极建构的，而不是简单地由经验给予我们的（O'Connell，1998）。 根据焦点解决理论家的观点，花费大量时间和精力来阐述客户问题的强定义、解构导致当前状况的因果链或分配责任，通常是时间和精力的浪费。事实上，这通常是适得其反的（Jackson & McKergow，2007）。知道问题是如何产生的并不一定告诉人们如何解决它。此外，焦点解决方法的支持者认为，阐述因果解释的行为可能会将教练和被教练者限制在一个限制潜在解决方案而非揭示它们的参考框架中（de Shazer，1994）。因此，焦点解决教练的主要重点是定义期望的解决状态和到达那里的潜在路径（Jackson & McKergow，2007）。 基本假设 焦点解决教练方法通过两个基本的哲学和理论假设，区别于基于更传统心理变革模型（例如认知行为和心理动力学传统）的方法。 首先，如上所述，焦点解决方法坚持建构主义哲学。它认为，客户（和教练）思考和谈论事件的方式将这些事件构建为有问题的。问题不是现实中给定的东西，而是在客户与客户世界中其他人之间的对话中构建的。 其次，焦点解决方法认为客户从根本上能够解决他们的问题。也就是说，他们已经拥有创造解决状态所需的一切（Berg & Szabo，2005；de Shazer，1988）。这种对客户的概念化将人视为完整和资源丰富的，而不是功能失调和需求不足的。当这些假设结合在一起时，它们导致了焦点解决方法的几个关键原则（O'Connell，1998）。 1. 使用非病理学解释框架：问题不是病理或功能失调的指示。相反，它们表明需要尝试不同的观点或行为。 2. 基于客户的专长：理念是客户而不是教练是自己生活中的专家。 3. 教练是关于促进解决方案构建：教练主要促进解决方案的构建，而不是试图理解问题的病因。 4. 关注客户资源：教练帮助客户识别和利用现有资源。 5. 清晰、具体和个性化的目标设定：为了帮助客户实现他们偏好的未来，对该未来状态的阐述应该清晰且行为详细。因为问题和解决方案是由客户构建的，教练干预应针对每个客户量身定制。 6. 行动导向：教练方面有一个基本的期望，即积极变化既能够发生，也将会发生，并且变革的工作主要在教练会话之外进行。 7. 做有效的事，停止做无效的事：与行动导向的承诺相结合的是对识别什么对客户有效并放大这一点的务实关注。同样，如果解决问题的尝试无效，那么停止并尝试其他方法。 8. 变化可以在短时间内发生：因为客户已经是完整的，变化不需要修复客户。这与变化必须经过长时间努力的假设形成对比。 9. 魅力：借鉴Milton Erikson的工作，焦点解决方法建议教练过程应以对客户有吸引力和参与感的方式设计和进行。 焦点解决教练的应用 焦点解决方法是一种适用于广泛教练环境的方法论。因为它寻求与客户的目标合作，并从客户的视角开始，所以在不同环境中的应用非常相似。然而，值得注意在不同环境中发现的一些重点差异。 技能和绩效教练 心理学文献区分了两种类型的发展——水平发展或同化，以及垂直发展或顺应。水平发展发生在一个人能够将新信息或新实践同化到他们当前的世界观中时。技能和绩效教练通常属于这一发展类别。在技能和绩效教练中，任务是专注于特定知识技能和能力的发展和应用，以提高工作场所绩效或实现特定的组织目标。 这种对组织目标和需求的关注增加了焦点解决教练的复杂性。通常，组织对被教练者的期望与被教练者对教练的期望是一致的。在这种情况下，教练中的目标设定相当直接。然而，当被教练者的感知需求与组织的要求不匹配时，目标澄清变得至关重要。 对这种困境的焦点解决方法是将其视为更多解决方案的平台（Jackson & McKergow，2007）。例如，教练可能会将问题带到前台，如下所示：“我注意到您希望实现X，同时，组织要求我们朝着Y努力。我想知道这对教练意味着什么？我们是否可能同时朝着两个目标努力，或者其中一个对您更重要？也许还有其他可能的解决方案？” 技能和绩效教练通常需要使用组织指标，如360度反馈和其他数据驱动的绩效评估手段。通常，这些指标导致关注缺失或未完成的内容，而不是客户绩效中良好或强大的方面。焦点解决教练的挑战是帮助客户将测量视为服务于他们目标的反馈。重新构建反馈和指标以识别进展和资源在这里很重要。
文章概要
本文探讨了焦点解决教练方法（SFBT）在组织教练中的应用，特别关注目标设定。文章阐述了SFBT的基本原理，包括其建构主义哲学和客户资源丰富的假设，并列举了九项核心原则。重点分析了在技能和绩效教练中，如何运用SFBT处理组织目标与个人目标之间的匹配问题，强调通过重新构建和资源识别来促进解决方案的构建，而非纠缠于问题分析。
高德明老师的评价
用12岁初中生可以听懂的语音来重复翻译的内容：这篇文章讲的是，在教练中，我们不要一直盯着问题看，而是要想一想我们想要达到的好结果是什么。就像玩游戏，我们直接去想怎么赢，而不是老想着为什么会输。在组织里，教练帮助员工找到他们自己的好办法，一起设定清楚的目标，这样大家就能更开心、更有效地工作。
焦点解决心理学理论评价：这篇文章精彩地展示了焦点解决心理学在组织教练中的强大应用。它强调了目标设定的建构性本质，将客户视为资源丰富的个体，而非问题载体。通过非病理化框架和客户专长原则，SFBT在组织环境中促进了积极变革，体现了“解决方案就在客户内部”的核心信念。这种视角不仅赞美了客户的潜能，还打开了未来无限的可能性。
在实践上可以应用的领域和可以解决人们的十个问题：焦点解决目标设定在组织教练中可以应用于职场绩效提升、团队冲突解决、领导力发展、员工激励、职业转型、工作压力管理、沟通技巧改善、创新思维培养、组织变革适应和个人成长规划。它可以解决人们的十个问题：目标模糊不清、动力不足、工作与生活平衡困难、团队合作障碍、决策犹豫不决、压力应对无效、技能提升停滞、职业方向迷茫、反馈接受困难以及变革抗拒心理。