From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – A Microanalysis of the Interactional Functions in Supportive Leadership Conversations

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ARTICLES From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in Training Supportive Leadership Conversations Dominik Godat1, Elfie J. Czerny, Mag.1 1 University of Applied Sciences Lucerne at the Institute of Business and Regional Economics (IBR) Keywords: Microanalysis of Face-to-Face Dialogue, Solution-Focus, Interactive Functions, SF Training https://doi.org/10.59874/001c.144130 Journal of Solution Focused Practices Vol. 9, Issue 2, 2025 Building on De Jong et al. (2020) and Bavelas et al. (2017), this study examines how a three-day solution-focused (SF) leadership training influences the interactive functions in supportive leadership conversations. While SF principles are widely used in therapy and coaching, their impact on everyday leadership interactions has received less attention. Using Microanalysis of Face-to-Face Dialogue, we analysed six supportive leadership conversations—three before and three after the training. Each utterance was coded based on the 15 interactive functions identified by Bavelas et al. (2017). Our findings show that leaders asked more questions (requesting), listened more attentively (attending), and contributed less content after the training, while conversation partners contributed more and attended less. These shifts align with SF principles. Comparisons with prior studies of De Jong et al. (2020) and Bavelas et al. (2017) confirm that asymmetry in interactive functions—one interlocutor mainly asking and attending, the other contributing—is a typical feature of SF dialogues. This pattern also emerged in our supportive leadership conversations after SF training. Despite individual variation, the shift in our data supports the idea that SF dialogues foster a purposeful reconfiguration of interactional functions. Further research should explore long-term effects, contextual factors, and the integration of SF principles across broader leadership practices. The Development of the Solution-Focused Approach The solution-focused (SF) approach was originally developed as SolutionFocused Brief Therapy in the early 1980s by Insoo Kim Berg, Steve de Shazer, and their team at the Brief Family Therapy Center in Milwaukee. They conducted and researched therapy conversations and empirically investigated which elements of conversations make a useful difference for clients. They discovered that clients made faster progress when the conversations focused on the desired future, on what was already working, and on potential progress. From these observations, they gradually developed and refined the SF approach (De Shazer & Dolan, 2007). Godat, D., & Czerny, E. J. (2025). From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – A Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in Training Supportive Leadership Conversations. Journal of Solution Focused Practices , 9 (2), 20–61. https://doi.org/10.59874/001c.144130 Thanks to its high utility, SF became established not only in therapy but also as a coaching and consulting approach in organizations from the 1990s onwards. For some time now, it has also been successfully applied in leadership (e.g. Burgstaller, 2015; Cauffman & Dierolf, 2007; Czerny & Godat, 2024; Godat, 2013b, 2013a, 2016; Godat & Czerny, 2022; Jackson & McKergow, 2024; Polgar & Hankovszky, 2014). Solution-Focus as an Interactional Approach As Korman, De Jong, and Smock Jordan (2020) show, the development of the solution-focused approach has always centred on an interactional perspective and on the co-construction of a useful conversation. In our experience, however, many practitioners are introduced to SF as a questionbased or question-driven approach—one in which the conversation is guided by carefully crafted questions. Peter de Jong once shared how, on his way to meet his first clients, he would memorise the questions Insoo Kim Berg asked by listening repeatedly to a tape recording (Czerny & Godat, 2018). We, too, initially learned SF this way. In this view, asking the “right” questions is considered key to navigating the conversation. As practitioners continue to engage with SF and deepen their understanding, they often discover that the approach is as much—if not more—about listening. It involves deliberately picking up on elements within the conversation partner’s narrative that can facilitate progress (De Jong & Berg, 2013, p. 57). As a result, SF is then often seen as a listeningbased approach, where the emphasis shifts from the therapist, coach, or conversation leader to the value of the conversation partner’s contributions and the deliberate selection of these contributions (Czerny & Godat, 2018). While a question-based approach to SF emphasizes the role of the SF practitioner, a listening-based approach highlights the importance of the conversation partner’s input. Both perspectives tend to focus merely on one person in the interaction or on a turn-taking idea. However, a conversation is much faster and involves at least two interlocutors mutually influencing each other moment-by-moment, each playing an equally vital role (Bavelas et al., 2017). Therefore, we view SF as an interactional approach, where both participants actively contribute to the co-construction and influence the conversation moment-by-moment (Czerny & Godat, 2024; Godat & Czerny, 2022). In leadership settings, this perspective offers a valuable lens for examining how interactions contribute to collaboration, alignment, and shared progress. Leaders engage in a wide range of formal and informal interactions (Godat, 2013a), each offering opportunities to shape dialogue in ways that promote shared understanding and progress. Leaders operate within organisational structures, often maintain longterm relationships with employees, and navigate a wide spectrum of interactions—from brief hallway encounters and informal alignment discussions to structured meetings and formal performance reviews. Unlike therapists or coaches, leaders must also consider multiple desired futures From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 21 simultaneously: their own, those of individual employees, those of the team, and those of the organisation (Godat, 2013a). As a result, they are responsible for setting boundaries and determining when to provide a clear guiding structure and when to draw on employees’ expertise to co-shape the path forward. In our experience, developing the sensitivity to distinguish between these situations and learning how to effectively leverage employees’ contributions is a central leadership challenge. As defined in Godat (2013b), Solution-focused leaders apply SF deliberately in their leadership practice. They explicitly focus on elements that promote useful change. They do this primarily through questions, formulations, contributions, and listening, by drawing everyone’s attention to the desired future; to what is already working well and moving in the hoped-for direction; to signs of progress; and to possible next steps (Czerny & Godat, 2024; Godat, 2013b, 2016; Godat & Czerny, 2022). SF Leadership is enacted in diverse ways. It can contribute to useful change wherever people engage in interaction. In practice this includes (see e.g., Burgstaller, 2015; Cauffman & Dierolf, 2007; Czerny et al., 2020; Czerny & Godat, 2024; Dierolf et al., 2024; Godat, 2016; Jackson & McKergow, 2024; Lueger & Korn, 2006; Polgar & Hankovszky, 2014) Our Solution-Focused Leadership Specialist Course At the University of Applied Sciences in Lucerne, we lead the specialist course “Solution-Focused Leadership” (Fachkurs für Lösungsfokussierte Führung) in German where leaders learn to apply the solution-focused approach in their leadership interactions. To attend the course, participants • everyday interactions (e.g., informal conversations) • planned interactions (e.g., one-on-one meetings) • effective leadership tools (e.g., employee conversations, project evaluations, work planning) • meetings • coachings • workshops • longer-term management cycles such as ◦ project management ◦ management by objectives ◦ strategy cycles ◦ risk management From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 22 need to be in a formal leadership position. A formal leadership position is seen as an officially designated role within an organisation that grants a person legitimate authority and responsibility to direct others and make decisions within defined boundaries. Leaders who attend our course come from a wide range of sectors—including social services, business, education, health care, and beyond. The course consists of one module of three days and two modules of two days. In the three days of module 1, participants are introduced to key elements of SF Leadership, including how to conduct supportive leadership conversations with their employees and colleagues. In a supportive leadership conversation, the leader supports the other person with their issue, question, or challenge. These conversations provide a foundational approach for everyday leadership dialogue and enable participants to identify principles that are transferable to other contexts – also to those that demand clarity and decisive structuring. To make distinctions in leadership interactions visible and to support targeted learning, we use video recordings of actual conversations. As Gerwing (2021) points out, face-to-face conversations are both persistent and ephemeral—while some moments may be remembered, a myriad of details pass unnoticed. At the same time, conversations are both quantum and incremental: even when they generate “A-ha” moments and can thus be described as quantum in the sense of abrupt transitions, they still unfold incrementally, with participants responding to each other moment-bymoment (Gerwing, 2021). Because of this ephemeral and incremental nature, interlocutors cannot grasp all the details that occur in a conversation without a video recording. Video recordings allow participants to revisit the exact details of their interaction, providing a basis for grounded reflection on what actually happened—rather than what they believe happened. In the two days of module 2, participants learn how to integrate SF into their everyday leadership interactions and tools. In the two days of module 3, they showcase an SF application that they implemented in their leadership between modules 2 and 3. The Research Gap and Our Research Goal The research gap that this study is designed to address lies at the intersection of SF practices; their application in leadership conversations; and microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue, a method to examine communicative behaviours in face-to-face interactions moment-by-moment: Although SF training is being applied in leadership development programs, there is a lack of empirical studies analysing how SF influences leadership interactions. Most • Limited research on SF in leadership conversations From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 23 existing studies focus on coaching or therapeutic contexts, leaving a gap in understanding how SF methods translate into day-to-day leadership interactions. Microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue has rarely been applied to examine how SF training influences conversational behaviours, leaving a gap in understanding how SF translates into observable shifts in communication during interactions moment-by-moment. Without such fine-grained analysis, the subtle, incremental changes in interaction may go unnoticed. Moon (2022) examined the efficacy of training in SF coaching by analysing the response patterns of practitioners in training. Microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue was used for content analysis and the Dialogic Orientation Quadrant (DOQ) for functional analysis. To date, however, no study has investigated how SF training influences the interactive functions of Bavelas et al. (2017) moment-by-moment. Microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue has been used in therapeutic studies to understand the detailed, moment-bymoment co-construction of dialogue. However, its application to leadership interactions is rare. This creates a gap in understanding the granular conversational shifts that occur when leaders adopt SF in their leadership. Despite the growing body of research on microanalysis of faceto-face dialogue, no studies to date have conducted a microanalysis of interactive functions in German-language interactions. By applying a microanalysis lens to German data, the present study contributes to filling this empirical gap and provides the basis for cross-linguistic comparison in the analysis of dialogue. The conversations were conducted in Swiss German, a set of the German dialect continuum. • Limited microanalysis research of the influences of SF training • Limited microanalysis research of leadership interactions • In addition: No microanalysis research of interactive functions in German From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 24 This study seeks to address these gaps by using microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue to examine the influence of SF training on supportive leadership conversations in German speaking conversations. Our research goal is to analyse how the conversations changed over the three days of SF training, by comparing the interactive functions from the first baseline (pre-training) to the second (post-training) recorded supportive conversation. Thus, we compare: Research questions Research Method Since this study aims to explore the impact of SF training on the interactive functions in supportive leadership conversations, we particularly refer to the microanalysis of calibration sequences (Bavelas et al., 2017) and the microanalysis that was used for the Building Miracles in Dialogue study by De Jong et al. (2020). To achieve this, we conducted a microanalysis of six recorded five-minutes conversations: three baseline conversations (first conversations, prior to SF training) and three conversations conducted after three days of SF training (second conversations, post-training conversation). Microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue was chosen to provide a detailed, moment-by-moment examination of the interactive functions within these conversations, enabling a close comparison of leaders’ and conversation partners’ communication behaviours before and after training. • the change in the interactive functions in the two conversations with our hypotheses of how the conversation should change. • the interactive functions of the baseline conversation to the interactive functions in the getting-acquainted conversations of Bavelas et al. (2017) and • the interactive functions of the second conversation to the miracle dialogues in De Jong et al. (2020). • How do the interactive functions in supportive leadership conversations change from the baseline conversation without SF input on day 1 to the second recorded conversation on day 3 with SF input? • How do our findings compare to the findings of Bavelas et al. (2017) and De Jong et al. (2020)? From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 25 We applied principles used in both studies (Bavelas et al., 2017; De Jong et al., 2020) – mainly the application of ELAN (a software for analysing audio and video data provided by the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics), the definition of an utterance, the assignment of the interactive functions, and the distribution of interactive functions – to supportive leadership conversations, using video recordings to capture the nuanced interplay of visible and audible communication behaviours. The data were analysed using the coding scheme of Bavelas et al. (2017) that categorized interactive functions. This approach allowed us to quantify and compare the shifts in interactive functions from the baseline conversation to the post-training conversation. Microanalysis of Face-to-Face Dialogue Traditional research in psychology and communication has often prioritised individuals as units of analysis, seeking explanations in internal states such as intentions, emotions, or cognition. However, as Bavelas (2005) argues, “focusing on the individual is very likely to preclude learning anything about social interaction or even about the effect of social interaction on the variables of interest” (p. 183). In face-to-face dialogue, what matters is not simply what each person does in isolation, but how their actions are coordinated moment-by-moment (Bavelas, 2022). This perspective contrasts with individualistic theories that attribute meaning to isolated components, such as the words spoken, the speaker’s intent, or the situational context (Bavelas, 2022; Roberts & Bavelas, 1996), and assume that meaning resides solely in the speaker’s intent or the linguistic content of a sentence. Instead, an interactional approach reflects how participants collaboratively shape understanding moment-by-moment. Meaning is understood as what participants mutually create and understand through their interactions (Garfinkel, 1967; Roberts & Bavelas, 1996). This view is foundational to the microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue (MfD) (Bavelas, 2022; Bavelas et al., 2016; Gerwing et al., 2023). MfD is a research method that was formalized by Bavelas (2022), and by Bavelas and colleagues (2016, 2017). It builds on earlier foundational work including Bavelas et al. (2000), which laid the groundwork for later methodological developments and applications. Its origins are linked to the Natural History of an Interview project (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1987), which provided essential tools for studying face-to-face dialogue. In their article “Microanalysis of Clinical Interaction (MCI)”, Gerwing et al. (2023, pp. 48–52) provide a comprehensive overview of the historic origins of microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue. Evolving since then, MfD focuses on the detailed and replicable examination of observable communicative behaviours as they occur, momentby-moment, in a face-to-face interaction. This allows researchers to capture the dynamic, multi-modal nature of dialogue. The analysis considers each utterance within its sequential context, reflecting how participants respond to and build upon one another’s contributions (Bavelas et al., 2016). From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 26 The Interactive Functions A significant development came with the work of Bavelas et al. (2017), which proposed and tested a three-step calibration model for observing how mutual understanding is built in dialogue. The model posits that communication is not just a simple exchange of information but involves a complex, iterative process where each participant responds to and calibrates the contributions of the other. This model is influenced by Mead’s work (1934) and several subsequent authors (Bavelas et al., 2017) as well as the idea of grounding from the 1990s (Clark & Brennan, 1991), which describes how people in dialogue seek and provide evidence of mutual understanding. Bavelas et al. (2017) described a detailed observational procedure that includes 15 interactive functions that serve different roles in the calibration process. While these functions were originally developed to enable the identification of calibrating sequences, they can also be used independently to describe and compare patterns of interaction across different types of conversations. In our study, we focused exclusively on the interactive functions themselves to examine how their distribution and use differed between supportive leadership conversations conducted before and after solution-focused training. This allowed us to explore potential shifts in conversational practices without analysing full calibrating sequences. A description of each of the 15 functions (Bavelas et al., 2017, pp. 100–102) follows in Table 1. These functions collectively show how both participants in a dialogue actively contribute to and build on each other’s contributions, creating a dynamic and interactive process of mutual understanding (Bavelas et al., 2017). Hypotheses Before analysing the six supportive leadership conversations, we developed the following hypotheses of how the interactive functions should change from conversation 1 (pre-training) to conversation 2 (post-training) which follows in Table 2. We did not make hypotheses about the following interactive functions, which are foundational to general conversational coherence, yet not specifically targeted by solution-focused training in the first three days of our training: • (4) Alerting that Repair is needed • (6) Scripting • (9) Accepting the Proposal • (10) Following the Script • (12) Assessing What the Other Person Said From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 27 Table 1. Interactive functions with examples from the six conversations. Interactive Functions Examples from the six conversations (1) Requesting New Topical Content(1) Requesting New Topical Content: This function involves asking questions or making requests that invite the introduction of new information into the conversation. “Was ist dein Ziel des Gespräches?” “Was ist dein Ziel des Gespräches?” (“What is your goal for this conversation?”) “Was sind deine Hoffnungen vom “Was sind deine Hoffnungen vom heutigen Gespräch?” heutigen Gespräch?” (“What are your hopes from today’s conversation?”) (2) Contributing New Topical Content(2) Contributing New Topical Content: When a participant adds new information or ideas to the conversation, they are contributing new topical content. This can include facts, opinions, or descriptions that have not yet been discussed. “Ich habe eine Mannschaft, die ich “Ich habe eine Mannschaft, die ich trainiere…” trainiere…” (“I have a team that I coach…”) (3) Proposing(3) Proposing: This function is used to manage the direction of the conversation at a higher, meta-level. Proposing can involve suggesting how the conversation might proceed or introducing a new topic for discussion. “Bevor wir anfangen, möchte ich “Bevor wir anfangen, möchte ich gerne wissen…” gerne wissen…” (“Before we begin, I’d like to know…”) “Darf ich da nachfragen?” “Darf ich da nachfragen?” (“May I ask a follow-up question?”) (4) Alerting that Repair is Needed(4) Alerting that Repair is Needed: This function signals that there has been a misunderstanding or that the previous communication was not fully understood, prompting the need for clarification or repetition. “Was für Ressourcen ich habe? Also, nicht, welche Fähigkeiten ich Also, nicht, welche Fähigkeiten ich habe?habe?” (What kind of resources I have? – so, not what skills I have?” ) (5) Reintroducing(5) Reintroducing: Participants use this function to bring back previously discussed information to the conversation, ensuring that it remains relevant or to shift back to a previous topic. “Ich frage mich jetzt gerade noch, du sagtest, er hat eine du sagtest, er hat eine Weiterbildung machen dürfenWeiterbildung machen dürfen…” (I’m just wondering now – you said, he was allowed to do a training…”) (6) Scripting(6) Scripting: Involves following a predictable conversational routine or script, typically without adding new content. This might occur in social pleasantries like, "Nice to meet you." “Willkommen zu dem Gespräch.” “Willkommen zu dem Gespräch.” (“Welcome to this conversation.”) (7) Formulating(7) Formulating: This function involves restating or summarizing what the other person has said, usually to clarify or emphasize the main points. This can help ensure mutual understanding. Conversation Partner 2: “Aber, das ist jetzt nicht möglich.” Leader 2: “Und nun musst du ihm beibringen, dass das nicht möglich dass das nicht möglich ist.” ist.” (Conversation Partner 2: “But that’s not possible right now.” Leader 2: And now you have to tell him that this isn’t possible.”) (8) Reiterating(8) Reiterating: Like formulating, reiterating involves repeating content that has already been discussed to emphasize or confirm it, ensuring that it is understood correctly. Leader 3: “Was für Ressourcen hast du, die nützlich sind….” Conversation Partner 3: “Was für Ressourcen ich habe, also nicht, welche Fähigkeiten ich habe?”, Leader 3: “Ressourcen, Fähigkeiten, du selberdu selber” (Leader 3: “What kind of resources do you have that might be useful…?” Conversation Partner 3: “What kind of resources I have – so, not what skills I have?” Leader 3: “Resources, skills, you yourself ”) (9) Accepting the Proposal(9) Accepting the Proposal: When a participant agrees with a suggestion or direction proposed by the other, they are accepting the proposal. This function is crucial for maintaining the flow of the conversation. Leader 2: “Bevor du anfängst, möchte ich gerne wissen…” Conversation Partner 2: nod nod (Leader 2: “Before you begin, I’d like to know…”, Conversation Partner 2 : nod) (10) Following the Script(10) Following the Script: This is a response that adheres to the expected or stereotypical reply within a conversational script, ensuring the interaction follows a socially recognized pattern. Leader 2: “Schön, dass du zu mir kommst.” Conversation Partner 2: “Danke “Danke vielmals, dass du dir die Zeit vielmals, dass du dir die Zeit nimmst.” nimmst.” From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 28 • (3) Proposing • (4) Alerting that Repair is Needed • (5) Reintroducing • (6) Scripting: • (7) Formulating • (8) Reiterating • (9) Accepting the Proposal • (10) Following the Script ◦ by the Leaders: Decreased from 78 to 18. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Increased from 146 to 173. ◦ by the Leaders: Increased from 2 to 7. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Remained stable at 3. ◦ by the Leaders: Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Increased from 0 to 3. ◦ by the Leaders: Decreased from 9 to 1. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Decreased from 2 to 0. ◦ by the Leaders : Increased from 0 to 4. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders: Decreased from 11 to 3. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Increased from 0 to 1. ◦ by the Leaders : Increased from 0 to 1. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Increased from 0 to 1. From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 35 The comparison between the two conversations revealed six interactive functions with suggestive differences, five of which aligned with the formulated hypotheses: While none of the results should be interpreted as statistically significant in the strict sense, six of the 30 analysed interactive functions showed differences that, based on exploratory Chi-Square testing, may suggest shifts in conversational behaviour between preand post-training interactions: • (11) Attending to the Other Person • (12) Asssessing What the Other Person Said • (13) Confirming What Was Just Said • (14) Linking • (15) Acknowledging ◦ by the Leaders : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Increased from 0 to 2. ◦ by the Leaders: Increased from 139 to 155. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Decreased from 76 to 24. ◦ by the Leaders : Decreased from 2 to 1. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Increased from 1 to 4. ◦ by the Leaders: Increased from 9 to 17. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Decreased from 29 to 14. ◦ by the Leaders: Decreased from 1 to 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Increased from 2 to 3 ◦ by the Leaders: Reduced from 3 to 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Reduced from 12 to 11. • Leaders reduced their (2) contribution of new topical content as well as their (5) reintroducing and increased their (1) requesting and (11) attending. From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 36 Figure 1. All leaders’ conversation 1 (pre-training). Figure 2. All leaders’ conversation 2 (post-training). • The conversation partners (2) contributed more content, while their (11) attending decreased. From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 37 Table 3. Statistical Chi-square test results for changes in interactive functions across all conversations. Interactive Functions Interactive Functions Conversation Conversation 1 1 Conversation Conversation 2 2 χ² χ² p p Result Result (2) Contributing by Leaders (2) Contributing by Leaders 78 78 18 18 32.52 32.52 < < .001 .001 Significant Significant (suggestive differences) (11) Attending to the Other (11) Attending to the Other by Conversation Partners by Conversation Partners 76 76 24 24 22.37 22.37 < < .001 .001 Significant Significant (suggestive differences) (2) Contributing by (2) Contributing by Conversation Partners Conversation Partners 146 146 173 173 9.53 9.53 0.002 0.002 Significant Significant (suggestive differences) (1) Requesting by Leaders (1) Requesting by Leaders 18 18 34 34 6.74 6.74 0.009 0.009 Significant Significant (suggestive differences) (11) Attending to the Other (11) Attending to the Other by Leaders by Leaders 139 139 155 155 5.25 5.25 0.022 0.022 Significant Significant (suggestive differences) (5) Reintroducing by (5) Reintroducing by Leaders Leaders 9 9 1 1 4.13 4.13 0.041 0.041 Significant Significant (suggestive differences) (All other functions...) Not significant (no suggestive difference) or too low frequency The remaining functions did not show differences that would suggest meaningful shifts based on the exploratory Chi-Square tests. For several functions a test was not applicable because both conditions contained only zero counts or had zero variance—a statistical requirement for the Chisquared test. For the individual analysis of the conversations of leaders 1 to 3, please visit Appendix 1 to 3. Supported Hypotheses Based on the comparison of the six conversations the following five hypotheses were supported by the findings across all participants: Hypothesis: Leaders increase their use of requesting new topical content after solution-focused training. Findings: The hypothesis was largely supported. Overall, the increase in requesting showed a suggestive pattern of change based on the exploratory Chi-Square analysis. Across all participants, requesting nearly doubled. However, in the conversations of leader 2 requesting remained stable. Hypothesis: Leaders decrease their contributions of new topical content after solution-focused training. Findings: This hypothesis was largely supported. After training, leaders contributed notably less new content, while conversation partners showed an increase in contributing consistent with suggestive differences identified in the exploratory analysis. However, in the conversations of leader 2 contributions increased, while the conversation partner’s contributions decreased slightly, diverging from the expectation. • Increased (1) Requesting by leaders • Reduced (2) Contributing by leaders From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 38 Hypothesis: Leaders increase attending (e.g., minimal responses like “mhm”) after solution-focused training. Findings: This hypothesis was largely confirmed overall. The exploratory analysis revealed a suggestive increase in attending by the leaders, who exhibited more attending post-training. However, in the conversations of leader 2 attending even decreased. Hypothesis: Conversation partners contribute more new topical content after SF training due to the leaders’ increased requesting. Findings: This hypothesis was largely confirmed overall. The exploratory analysis indicated a suggestive increase in contributing by the conversation partners, who provided more new content in the post-training conversations. However, in the conversations of leader 2 the conversation partners’ contributions decreased slightly, diverging from the expectation. Hypothesis: Attending of the conversation partners decrease after SF training. While the leaders ask more questions, they also contribute less in the second conversation. The conversation partners contribute more, listen less and therefore attend less. Findings: This hypothesis was largely confirmed overall. The exploratory analysis indicated a suggestive decrease in attending by the conversation partners. As leaders contributed less new content after training, conversation partners responded by contributing more and attending less. In the conversations of Leader 2, however, the attending of the conversation partner increased slightly. The confirmed hypotheses show that solution-focused training influences shifts in leadership conversations toward more (1) requesting, (2) reduced leader contributions, and more (11) attending (and thus enhanced listening) by the leader. Overall, leaders enable conversation partners to (2) contribute more actively, not needing to (11) attend as much as before. While Leader 2’s results diverged in some areas, the overall findings highlight the potential for SF training to transform leadership communication. Future research could investigate contextual variables influencing deviations, as well as long-term impacts of SF training on leadership interactions and implications for organizational outcomes and longitudinal effects of SF training. • Enhanced (11) Attending by the leader • Increased (2) Contributing by the conversation partner • Decreased (11) Attending by the conversation partner: From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 39 Not Supported Hypotheses While five hypotheses were supported, three of them could not be confirmed based on the overall data. Below is an overview of hypotheses that were not supported: Hypothesis: Leaders increase their use of formulating after solutionfocused training. Findings: This hypothesis was not supported. The exploratory analysis did not reveal a suggestive difference in formulating. Across all conversations, formulating by leaders even decreased instead of increased. Hypothesis: Leaders increase the use of reintroducing or reiterating content to build on earlier points after solution-focused training. Findings: This hypothesis was not supported. The exploratory analysis did not indicate a suggestive change in Reiterating. While the change in Reintroducing reached suggestive significance, the direction of change was contrary to expectations—it did not increase. Reintroducing and Reiterating decreased for all leaders. Hypothesis: Leaders increase their use of proposing as they became more skilled at facilitating solution-focused dialogues. Findings: This hypothesis could not be conclusively supported. The exploratory analysis did not indicate a suggestive change in Proposing. Proposing was infrequent both before and after training, suggesting that after three days of SF training proposals were not in the centre. The unsupported hypotheses reveal important nuances in the influence of SF training, which could be further explored with future research. Comparing Our Findings with the Building Miracles in Dialogue Findings Our findings align with the findings discussed in the Building Miracle Dialogue article (De Jong et al., 2020). Comparing Figure 3 and Figure 4 with Our Findings This section outlines key parallels between our results and the findings presented in figures 3 and 4 in De Jong et al. (2020): • Increase in (7) Formulating by Leaders • Increase in (5) Reintroducing and (8) Reiterating • Increase in (3) Proposing • More asymmetry in solution-focused conversations From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 40 In general, more asymmetry in the distribution of interactive functions in solution-focused conversations was observed. In the miracle question conversation (figure 3) as well as in our post-training conversations, functions like requesting, contributing, and attending were mostly performed by one of the conversation partners. While in the getting-acquainted dialogues (figure 4) and our baseline conversation the distribution was more evenly distributed with both interlocutors e.g. asking and contributing more evenly (De Jong et al., 2020). In the miracle question conversation (figure 3) the therapist attended more to the client’s contributions rather than introducing new topical content while in the getting-acquainted conversations (figure 4) both conversation partners contributed topical content more evenly while also engaging more evenly in attending (De Jong et al., 2020). This shift is also reflected in our post-training and baseline conversations. Leaders also increased their attending and reduced their own topical contributions, while their conversation partners contributed more and attended less in the post-training conversations. In the baseline conversations, as in the getting-acquainted dialogues, leaders contributed more new content and showed less attending than in the post-training dialogue while their conversation partners contributed less and attended more. In the miracle question conversation (figure 3) only therapists engaged in requesting while in the getting-acquainted conversation both interlocutors asked a similar number of questions (figure 4) (De Jong et al., 2020). This bigger difference in requesting can also be seen in the overall comparison of our post-training conversations with the baseline conversations with leaders asking more questions in post training conversations. The alignment between our studied conversations and the findings presented in De Jong et al. (2020) and Bavelas et al. (2017) becomes even more compelling when we consider that all supportive leadership conversations in our study were conducted under identical instructions. In Bavelas et al. (2017) and De Jong et al. (2020), the two types of conversations were explicitly constructed with different goals and framing. Still the baseline conversation closely resembles the functional patterns observed in gettingacquainted conversations, while the post-training conversation—following solution-focused training—exhibit patterns akin to those found in miraclebuilding dialogues. This suggests that the shift in interactive functions is not merely a product of differing instructions but of a shift from a non-SF everyday conversation to an SF conversation. • More attending, less contributing in solution-focused conversations • More difference in requesting in solution-focused conversations From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 41 Figure 3. The distribution of the interactive functions in the miracle question conversation (De Jong et al., 2020, p. 21) Figure 4. The distribution of the interactive functions in the getting-acquainted conversations (De Jong et al., 2020, p. 21) From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 42 Comparing Our Findings with Additional Findings in Building Miracles in Dialogue Beyond the comparison of interactive function distributions illustrated in figures 3 and 4, other findings from the Building Miracles in Dialogue article (De Jong et al., 2020) provide important points of comparison with our study. Below, we highlight the similarities between our findings and the broader insights discussed De Jong et al. (2020): Co-construction of meaning The article Building Miracles in Dialogue emphasizes that the dialogue in miracle question conversations is inherently co-constructed, with the therapist and client collaboratively building meaning through iterative sequences. Utterances frequently serve overlapping interactive functions, such as contributing new topical content while simultaneously attending to prior content. This co-construction process was central to creating the client’s “miracle description” (De Jong et al., 2020). Even though we didn’t conduct a full calibration analysis, in our study, this co-construction process of meaning-building can also be seen, e.g. with leaders asking questions and attending more and thus influencing the contributions and co-constructing of meaning. Overlap of interactive functions A notable observation in De Jong et al. (2020) in line with Bavelas et al. (2017) is that single utterances often fulfil multiple interactive functions. For example, a therapist’s question might simultaneously contribute new content and attend to the client’s previous statement. This overlap demonstrates the efficiency of solution-focused dialogue in fostering co-construction (De Jong et al., 2020). While overlapping functions were not explicitly analysed in our study, a similar effect can be seen when looking at the ELAN annotations. Thus, an utterance where the leader simultaneously nods or says “mhm” before asking “What else?” can be seen as attending and requesting together. When this happened in this study, we counted all interactive functions. Rapid calibration sequences De Jong et al. (2020) noted that calibration sequences in miracle question dialogues are rapid, typically lasting only a few seconds. This temporal efficiency enables the client and therapist to build shared understanding in a fluid and dynamic manner. While our study did not explicitly measure the duration of calibration sequences, in the observed six conversations the interlocutors made on average an utterance every 1.76 second (1023 utterances in 29 minutes and 58 seconds) indicating that the three-step calibrating sequences were made on average less than every 5.3 seconds. This compares well with both studies that measured an average of 5 seconds and 6.3 seconds per calibration sequence (De Jong et al., 2020). From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 43 Purpose-driven differences in interactive functions De Jong et al. (2020) highlight the influence of the conversational purpose—doing therapy versus getting to know each other that affects the distribution of interactive functions for the participants. The therapist is supposed to ask questions and listen while the client answers whereas the informal purpose of the getting-acquainted dialogue fosters more symmetry of both interlocutors asking, listening and contributing. Even though in our study the purpose was in both conversations similar– to support the conversation partner–the purpose changed in our training from giving advice to seeing the other person as expert and thus asking more questions and listening more attentively. Thus, our results align with this observation. Posttraining conversations, shaped by the SF purpose of asking more solutionfocused questions and listening more attentively, showed a clear asymmetry in functions whereas baseline conversations reflected a more symmetrical distribution. Conclusion Our study demonstrates the influence of SF training on supportive leadership conversations. Within three days leaders shifted from a supportive leadership conversation where they contributed more to asking more questions and attending more in post-training conversations. This while the conversation partners contributed more and attended less. However, the observed variability among individual participants, such as Leader 2’s unexpected increase in leader contributions post-training, suggests that contextual factors may influence how SF is adopted in a three-day training setting. Implications The study’s results have broad implications for understanding and applying SF in leadership contexts: • Seeing employees as experts: The increased requesting and attending suggest that solution-focused training can foster leadership conversations where leaders see the conversation partners as expert for their lives and thus asking more questions and listening better, ultimately enhancing engagement and shared ownership of conversational outcomes. • Facilitating leadership conversations: The reduction of the leaders’ contributions in solution-focused conversations challenges traditional leadership paradigms centred on the leaders’ knowledge. Instead, it emphasizes a facilitative role where leaders engage employees more so that they can contribute their expertise. From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 44 • (7) Formulating • (8) Reiterating • (9) Accepting the Proposal • (10) Following the Script • (11) Attending to the Other Person • (12) Asssessing What the Other Person Said • (13) Confirming What Was Just Said • (14) Linking ◦ by the Leaders : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders: Increased from 0 to 3. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders: Increased from 33 to 55. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Decreased from 44 to 6. ◦ by the Leaders : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Increased from 1 to 2. ◦ by the Leaders: Increased from 2 to 4. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Remained at 2. From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 51 Figure 5. Leader 1 conversation 1 (pre-training). Five interactive functions showed suggestive differences in the exploratory analysis and aligned with both the overall results and our hypotheses: (5) Reintroducing by the leader also decreased, however due to the low frequency the Chi-square test doesn’t yield a stable result. Therefore, no reliable statistical inference can be made. The remaining functions either showed no suggestive differences or could not be tested due to zero or very low counts. • (15) Acknowledging ◦ by the Leaders: Decreased from 1 to 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Increased from 0 to 2. ◦ by the Leaders: Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Remained at 1. • The leader’s (2) contributions decreased sharply, accompanied by a rise in (1) Requesting and (11) Attending. • Conversation partners (2) contributed more and (11) attended less. From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 52 Figure 6. Leader 1 conversation 2 (post-training). Table 4. Exploratory Chi-squared test results comparing conversation 1 and conversation 2 of Leader 1. Interactive Functions Interactive Functions Conversation Conversation 1 1 Conversation Conversation 2 2 χ² χ² p p Result Result (2) Contributing by Leader (2) Contributing by Leader 44 44 2 2 37.56 37.56 < < .001 .001 Significant Significant (suggestive differences) (2) Contributing by (2) Contributing by Conversation Partner Conversation Partner 32 32 63 63 18.59 18.59 < < .001 .001 Significant Significant (suggestive differences) (11) Attending to the (11) Attending to the Other by Conversation Other by Conversation Partner Partner 44 44 6 6 27.78 27.78 < < .001 .001 Significant Significant (suggestive differences) (11) Attending to the (11) Attending to the Other by Leader Other by Leader 33 33 55 55 10.49 10.49 0.001 0.001 Significant Significant (suggestive differences) (1) Requesting by Leader (1) Requesting by Leader 3 3 12 12 5.47 5.47 0.019 0.019 Significant Significant (suggestive differences) (All other functions...) Not significant (no suggestive differences) or too low frequency Appendix 2: Comparison of the Two Conversations of Conversational leader 2 The first conversation was 04 minutes and 59 seconds long. The second conversation was 05 minutes and 05 seconds. The results of conversational leader 2 presented some deviations from the general trends and divergences from the hypotheses: • Total Utterances: Declined from 159 (79 leader, 80 conversation partner) in the first conversation to 133 (68 leader, 65 conversation partner) in the second. From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 53 -# (1) Requesting New Topical Content - **by the Leader:** Remained consistent at 8 - **by the Conversation Partner:** Remained at 0. • (2) Contributing New Topical Content • (3) Proposing • (4) Alerting that Repair is Needed • (5) Reintroducing • (6) Scripting: • (7) Formulating • (8) Reiterating • (9) Accepting the Proposal ◦ by the Leader: Increased from 3 to 15 ◦ By the Conversation Partner: Decreased from 56 to 41. ◦ by the Leaders: Increased from 1 to 6. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders: Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders: Decreased from 4 to zero. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders : Increased from 0 to 2. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders: Decreased from 9 to zero. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Remained at 0. From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 54 Two interactive functions showed suggestive differences in the exploratory analysis but diverged from the initial hypotheses: • (10) Following the Script • (11) Attending to the Other Person • (12) Asssessing What the Other Person Said • (13) Confirming What Was Just Said • (14) Linking • (15) Acknowledging ◦ by the Leaders : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Increased from 0 to 1. ◦ by the Leaders : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Increased from 0 to 1. ◦ by the Leaders: Decreased from 54 to 33 ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Increased from 8 to 9. ◦ by the Leaders : Increased from 0 to 1. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Increased from 0 to 2. ◦ by the Leaders: Increased from 0 to 3. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Decreased from 13 to 9. ◦ by the Leaders: Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders: Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Decreased from 3 to 2. • The leader’s (2) contributions increased, contrary to the expected reduction in leader input. From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 55 Figure 7. Leader 2 conversation 1 (pre-training). Figure 8. Leader 2 conversation 2 (post-training). Several changes, while not suggestive in the exploratory analysis, nevertheless diverged from the initial hypotheses: • (7) Formulating by the leader showed a notable decrease, which contrasts with the anticipated increase. From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 56 Table 5. Exploratory Chi-squared test results comparing conversation 1 and conversation 2 of Leader 2. Interactive Functions Interactive Functions Conversation Conversation 1 1 Conversation Conversation 2 2 χ² χ² p p Result Result (2) Contributing by (2) Contributing by Leader Leader 3 3 15 15 9.48 9.48 0.002 0.002 Significant Significant (suggestive differences) (7) Formulating by (7) Formulating by Leader Leader 9 9 0 0 5.99 5.99 0.014 0.014 Significant Significant (suggestive differences) (3) Proposing by Leader 1 6 3.15 0.076 Not significant (no suggestive differences) (11) Attending to the Other by Leader 54 33 2.48 0.116 Not significant (no suggestive differences) (5) Reintroducing by Leader 4 0 1.79 0.181 Not significant (no suggestive differences) (All other functions...) Not significant (no suggestive differences) or too low frequency Conversely, some non-suggestive changes aligned with the expected direction: All other functions either showed no suggestive differences or could not be tested due to zero counts or insufficient frequency. Appendix 3: Comparison of the Two Conversations of Conversational leader 3 The first conversation was 04 minutes and 58 seconds long. The second conversation was 04 minutes and 55 seconds. The comparison of the two conversations revealed patterns that were largely consistent with the formulated hypotheses.: • (5) Reintroducing by the leader decreased instead of increasing. • (11) Attending by the leader also decreased rather than increased. • (3) Proposing by the leader increased, consistent with the hypothesis. • Total Utterances: Decreased slightly from 213 (106 leader, 107 conversation partner) in the first conversation to 194 (96 leader, 98 conversation partner) in the second. • (1) Requesting New Topical Content • (2) Contributing New Topical Content ◦ by the Leader: Increased from 7 to 14 ◦ by the Conversation Partner: Remained at 0. From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 57 • (3) Proposing • (4) Alerting that Repair is Needed • (5) Reintroducing • (6) Scripting: • (7) Formulating • (8) Reiterating • (9) Accepting the Proposal • (10) Following the Script ◦ by the Leader: Decreased from 31 to 1. ◦ By the Conversation Partner: Increased from 58 to 69. ◦ by the Leaders: Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Increased from 0 to 3. ◦ by the Leaders: Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Increased from 0 to 3. ◦ by the Leaders: Decreased from 2 to 1. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Decreased from 1 to 0. ◦ by the Leaders : Increased from 0 to 2. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders: Decreased from 2 to 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Increased from 0 to 1 ◦ by the Leaders : Increased from 0 to 1. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Remained at 0. From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 58 Four interactive functions showed suggestive differences in the exploratory analysis and aligned with both the overall pattern and our hypotheses: • (11) Attending to the Other Person • (12) Asssessing What the Other Person Said • (13) Confirming What Was Just Said • (14) Linking • (15) Acknowledging ◦ by the Leaders : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Increased from 0 to 1. ◦ by the Leaders: Increased from 52 to 67. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Decreased from 24 to 9. ◦ by the Leaders : Decreased from 2 to 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners : Remained at 0. ◦ by the Leaders: Increased 7 to 10. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Decreased from 14 to 3. ◦ by the Leaders: Remained at 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Decreased from 2 to 1. ◦ by the Leaders: Decreased from 3 to 0. ◦ by the Conversation Partners: Remained at 8. • The leader’s (2) contributions decreased markedly, while their (11) attending increased. • The conversation partner’s (11) attending and (13) confirming also decreased. From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 59 Figure 9. Leader 3 conversation 1 (pre-training). Figure 10. Leader 3 conversation 2 (post-training). Although not suggestive in the statistical analysis, the conversation partner’s (2) contributions increased, in line with expectations. All other functions either showed no suggestive differences or could not be tested due to zero counts or low frequency. From Everyday Leadership to Solution-Focused Conversations – a Microanalysis of the Change in Interactive Functions in … Journal of Solution Focused Practices 60