Where coaching, counselling and therapy meetAICTP February 2015 issue 11 22

Whether we call ourselves coaches, psychotherapists or integrative practitioners, most, if not all, of our clients have goals. Sometimes, the goal is explicit – ‘I want to find a new job’ or ‘I want to lose weight’. Sometimes, the goal is hidden within a problem – ‘I have trouble leaving my house’ might be rephrased, for some, as ‘I want to be able to leave my house without worrying about what will happen’, and, at least for some clients, ‘I’m depressed’ might be related to ‘I’m unhappy in my marriage and/or at work and I need to figure out what to do about it’. So, for many of our clients, some focus on goals and how to achieve them is likely to be helpful.

However, if it were easy to achieve all goals, there might be many fewer coaches and

psychotherapists. In fact, it is so difficult to achieve one’s goals that there are many books and articles devoted to theories and models of goals and success. As an integrative practitioner, it may be helpful to consider a model for working with goals that has a body of research supporting it – Gabrielle Oettingen’s WOOP model.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Graham Alexander, Alan Fine and Sir John Whitmore developed and popularised the GROW model1, which is familiar to many coaches. Based on this model, the coach and client explore:• The client’s Goal• The current Reality• Obstacles/Options/

Opportunities (depending on the version of GROW)

• The Way forward/Wrap-up (depending on the version of GROW)

In a series of research studies and a 2014 book, Gabrielle Oettingen and several of her colleagues have shown that aspects of a similar model can be quite effective in helping clients to make significant changes that can help them to achieve their goals2-5. This model, referred to in the academic literature as MCII (Mental Contrasting and Implementation Intentions) is now more popularly referred to as WOOP (Wish Outcome Obstacle Plan). There does not appear to be any research comparing the GROW and MCII/WOOP models, but they appear to be quite similar, particularly when looking at some versions of GROW.

This article will summarise several studies that support the effectiveness of the MCII/WOOP model and explain some of the

From GROWing to WOOPing

Jonathan Sibley looks at some research about how people achieve their goals – because most of our ICT clients will have goals of one sort or another

Where coaching, counselling and therapy meet AICTP February 2015 issue 1123

factors leading to its effectiveness.

The first step in mental contrasting, captured by the WO (Wish and Outcome) in WOOP, is to think of the goal and to fantasise about the positive results of achieving this goal2.

In some studies, this is referred to as ‘indulging’3,6-8. This taps into the motivation to move forward.

For many of our clients, some focus

on goals and how to

achieve them is likely to be

helpfulThe second step in mental contrasting, captured by the second O (Obstacle) in WOOP, is to think about what, realistically, might get in the way of the goal and desire outcomes. This is sometimes referred to as ‘dwelling’3,6-8. The studies cited, and additional studies, have shown that this combination, in this order (indulging in positive fantasies followed by dwelling on realistic obstacles), is more effective in leading to changed behavior than: • thinking about the

positive aspects of

achieving the goal without thinking about possible obstacles

• thinking about possible obstacles without thinking about the positive aspects of achieving the goal

• thinking about possible obstacles prior to thinking about achieving the goal.

Finding the balanceAn example shared by Oettingen is that of a college student who is very motivated to get an A in one of her courses, a goal that she believes she will achieve if she spends her weekend studying before her final exam, but who also wants to attend a party that a friend will be giving that weekend4. The student realises that if she attends the party, she might get drunk and have a hangover, and that this could get in the way of achieving an A on the exam and, therefore, in the class. By reflecting on the reasons to get an A and the potential obstacle of going to the party, the student is able to resist going to the entire party and decides to attend the end of the party and not to drink alcohol that evening.

Interestingly, studies have shown that indulging in positive fantasies (eg how great it will feel to get an A) without spending time reviewing possible obstacles can trick the mind into acting as though the fantasy/goal has already been achieved, reducing the power to deal with potential obstacles and

increasing the likelihood that the goal will not be achieved2,9. By anticipating potential obstacles and having a plan for dealing with these obstacles (sometimes referred to as if-then plans), one increases the accessibility of the new plan and decreases the automaticity of previous habits, potentially leading to greater success10. In addition, linking fantasies about success to potential obstacles increases the likelihood that future thinking about the goal will increase awareness of potential obstacles in a realistic way4. Furthermore, studies have shown that mental contrasting increases physiological responses related to increased energy and motivation11. Therefore, a balance of positive thinking and realistic thinking about potential obstacles is more effective in helping to achieve goals than positive thinking alone.

It should be noted that mental contrasting, focusing on the goal and potential obstacles, can actually decrease motivation toward achieving a goal if one believes that the goal is not achievable, as thinking about realistic obstacles can serve as a reminder that the goal is unrealistic2.

It may be a philosophical question about whether it should be considered a

Where coaching, counselling and therapy meetAICTP February 2015 issue 11 24

positive result if one gives up on working toward an unachievable goal.

The final step in Oettingen’s models (Implementation Intentions/Plan) involves creating concrete plans to deal with potential obstacles. For example, if one’s goal is to eat healthier food, how does one plan to react when going to a restaurant, listening to the specials, and being tempted by a special that clearly isn’t healthy? Oettingen and colleagues differentiate between ‘goal intentions’ that are more general and goal-focused (eg ‘I want to improve my work-life balance’) and the more concrete ‘implementation intentions’ that address specific, potential obstacles (eg ‘when my office phone rings and I am heading out the door, I will keep walking out without picking up the phone’). Studies have shown that the combination of mental contrasting and implementation intentions is more effective than either component on its own.

Oettingen and her colleagues have studied the effectiveness of MCII/WOOP in several domains, including health12-14, education15-17 and the workplace18. Through Oettingen’s book2, website and apps19, WOOP has recently moved from the research lab into the public sphere. Whether WOOP consists of a relabelled version of GROW, an enhanced version of GROW or something new and

different, it appears to have significant research supporting its effectiveness, making it a potentially useful tool to consider having in one’s integrative toolbox. As an integrative practitioner, a focus on the client’s goals may be helpful, but a focus on goals that takes into account the obstacles that can get in the way of success and includes techniques for dealing with those obstacles is likely to increase the client’s chance of success, leading to greater client satisfaction.

Jonathan Sibley offers executive and personal coaching and psychotherapy in a number of languages in the US, and is lead for the International Division of AICTP. www.jonathansibley.net

WOOP has recently

moved from the research lab into the

public sphere. Whether WOOP

consists of a relabelled version of GROW, an enhanced version of GROW or something new and

different, it appears to

have significant research

supporting its effectiveness

Where coaching, counselling and therapy meet AICTP February 2015 issue 1125

10 Adriaanse MA, Gollwitzer PM, De Ridder DTD et al. Breaking habits with implementation intentions: a test of underlying processes. Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2011; 37:502-13.11 Oettingen G et al. Mental contrasting and goal commitment: the mediating role of energization. Personal Social Psychology Bulletin. 2009; 35:608-622.12 Johannessen K, Oettingen G, Mayer D. Mental contrasting of a dieting wish improves self-reported health behaviour. Psychology & Health. 2012; 27:43-58.13 Christiansen S, Oettingen G et al. A short goal-pursuit intervention to improve physical capacity: a randomized clinical trial in chronic back pain patients. Pain. 2010; 149:444-452.14 Stadler G, Oettingen G, Gollwitzer P. Intervention effects of information and self-regulation on eating fruits and vegetables over two years. Health Psychology. 2010; 29:274-283.15 Gawrilow C, Gollwitzer PM, Oettingen G. If-then plans benefit delay of gratification performance in children with and without ADHD. Cognitive Therapy Research. 2010; 35: 442-455.16 Parks-Stamm E J, Gollwitzer PM, Oettingen G. Implementation intentions and test anxiety: shielding academic performance from distraction. Learning and Individual Differences. 2010; 20:30-33.17 Gollwitzer A, Oettingen G, Kirby TA et al. Mental contrasting facilitates academic performance in school children. Motivation and Emotion. 2011; 35:403-412.18 Oettingen G, Mayer D, Brinkmann B. Mental contrasting of future and reality: managing the demands of everyday life in health care professionals. Journal of Personal Psychology. 2010; 9:138-144.19 WOOP – a scientific strategy to find and fulfil wishes. http://www.woopmylife.org

References1 Clutterbuck D, David S. In: Clutterbuck D, David S, Megginson D. (eds) Beyond goals: effective strategies for coaching and mentoring. Farnham, UK: Gower; 2013.2 Oettingen G. Rethinking positive thinking: inside the new science of motivation. London: Penguin; 2014.3 Oettingen G., Pak H, Schnetter K. Self-regulation of goal setting: turning free fantasies about the future into binding goals. Journal of Personal Social Psychology. 2001; 80:736-753.4 Kappes A, Singmann H, Oettingen G. Mental contrasting instigates goal pursuit by linking obstacles of reality with instrumental behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2012; 48:811-818.5 Oettingen G, Gollwitzer P. Strategies of setting and implementing goals: mental contrasting and implementation intentions. In: Maddux J, Price Tangney J. Social psychological foundations of clinical psychology. New York: Guilford; 2010.6 Oettingen G, Hönig G, Gollwitzer PM. Effective self-regulation of goal attainment. International Journal of Educational Research. 2000; 33:705-732.7 Oettingen G, Mayer D, Thorpe JS et al. Turning fantasies about positive and negative futures into self-improvement goals. Motivation and Emotion. 2005; 29:237-267.8 Oettingen G, Gollwitzer PM. Turning hope thoughts into goal-directed behavior. Psychological Inquiry. 2002; 304-308.9 Oettingen G, Stephens E. Fantasies and motivationally intelligent goal setting. In: Moskovitz GB, Grant H. (eds) The psychology of goals. New York: Guilford; 2009.