Incorporating neuroscience principles in understanding and changing behaviour, and hence in practising therapy, counselling and coaching, is still in its infancy (Rock, 2006), but is gaining momentum (Habermacher et al., 2014; Keen & Geldenhuys, 2025; Rock, 2006). It is argued in this study that SF-CB coaching, which is based on the integration of solution-focused and cognitive-behavioural principles, already represents a step towards an integrative coaching perspective. Incorporating neuroscientific principles may further refine the model.

Furthermore, empirically exploring the contribution of the study to participants’ goal attainment may contribute to the development of coaching psychology, a discipline that is still in its infancy. These arguments are based on the premises that the functioning of the human brain underpins all human behaviour (Rossouw, 2014), that applying neuroscience does not give preference to any single school of thought in psychology, and that there is a recent quest for interdisciplinarity in human sciences (Geldenhuys, 2022; Siegel et al., 2021). This study aims to refine SF-CB coaching by incorporating neuroscientific principles to enhance goal attainment over time, thereby providing a foundation for the development of more effective coaching interventions and empirical studies.

Solution-focused cognitive-behavioural coaching integrates principles from solution-focused coaching and cognitive-behavioural coaching to support goal attainment through a structured, strengths-based and future-oriented process (Grant, 2013, 2017). It emphasises identifying what is working, constructing preferred outcomes and translating these into practical next steps, while also addressing the cognitive and behavioural patterns that may hinder progress. Drawing on cognitive-behavioural theory, SF-CB coaching assumes that goal attainment is enhanced when clients understand the reciprocal links between their environment, thoughts, emotions and behaviours, and learn to restructure unhelpful cognitions and behaviours that interfere with performance (Grant, 2017). Within cognitive-behavioural coaching, the coach and client typically clarify session objectives, identify the problem to be addressed and develop solution pathways using evidence-based strategies such as cognitive restructuring and goal-setting (Beck, 2021; Neenan & Palmer, 2001; Palmer & Williams, 2013; Williams et al., 2010). Grant (2001, p. 49) emphasises goal-setting as the ‘foundation of successful self-regulation’. Many cognitive-behavioural coaching (CBC) models, such as those described by Neenan and Palmer (2001) and Palmer and Williams (2013), incorporate Locke and Latham’s (1990, 2002) goal-setting theory, guiding clients to establish goals that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART). Overall, SF-CB coaching combines solution-building momentum with cognitive-behavioural tools to facilitate adaptive change and goal-directed performance (Grant, 2017).

The integration of solution-focused and cognitive-behavioural methodologies into SF-CB coaching addresses the above limitations by combining the strengths of both approaches.

Contemporary coaching literature increasingly supports integrative models that blend cognitive-behavioural, solution-focused and positive psychology principles to enhance client outcomes (Dias et al., 2017).

This integration provides a balanced framework that enables clients to resolve underlying cognitive and behavioural obstacles while maintaining a positive, goal-directed mindset (Grant, 2017). Clients can explore and resolve underlying issues (a strength of cognitive-behavioural coaching) while also identifying and building on their existing strengths and resources to achieve future goals (a strength of solution-focused coaching). Solution-focused cognitive-behavioural coaching encourages a holistic view encompassing past, present and future perspectives, supporting enhanced self-awareness and sustained goal-directed behaviour.

Research suggests SF-CB coaching enhances performance, reduces stress and builds resilience by equipping clients with practical tools to manage cognitive distortions while leveraging inherent strengths and resources (Grant, 2017). Moreover, the approach fosters self-regulation and goal attainment by helping clients define clear, specific goals and develop actionable pathways that combine cognitive restructuring and solution-building strategies (Cavanagh & Grant, 2010).

Central to SF-CB coaching is client empowerment, which positions clients as experts in their own lives and encourages ownership of goals and solutions, with the coach acting as a collaborative facilitator (Grant, 2001; Grant & Cavanagh, 2007). The framework’s flexibility allows coaches to tailor their methods to individual needs, employing more intensive cognitive-behavioural techniques when required, or emphasising solution-focused momentum to sustain progress. In practice, SF-CB coaching typically involves clarifying the client’s goal, identifying existing strengths and resources, exploring cognitive or behavioural obstacles, generating solution pathways, supporting action and reviewing progress (Grant, 2017).

In summary, SF-CB coaching offers a theoretically sound and empirically supported framework that bridges the gap between problem-focused approaches (e.g. identifying and restructuring maladaptive cognitions) and solution-focused approaches (e.g. identifying strengths and constructing preferred outcomes). By integrating their complementary strengths, it overcomes individual limitations and supports clients in achieving lasting personal growth, enhanced performance and resilience (Cavanagh & Grant, 2010; Grant, 2001, 2017).

Applied neuroscience provides a scientific framework for assessing, expanding and refining theories and even proposing new models and practices related to human functioning (Geldenhuys, 2020). Advances in brain research have deepened our understanding of the neural processes associated with thought, emotion, motivation and behaviour, offering a biological basis for interventions aimed at meaningful and sustainable change (Boyatzis & Jack, 2018; Walter et al., 2009). Within this study, neuroscience serves as a conceptual lens for evaluating and enhancing SF-CB coaching by linking psychological processes to underlying neurobiological mechanisms. A key contribution of neuroscience to coaching lies in demonstrating that experience and focused attention can modify neural functioning, often referred to as self-directed neuroplasticity (Rock & Page, 2009; Schwartz et al., 2005). Through structured reflection and behavioural experimentation, coaching can therefore support adaptive learning and sustained change by reinforcing functional patterns of thinking, feeling and acting (Arden, 2019; Brann, 2022; Siegel, 2020).

Neuroscience provides a useful lens for understanding how coaching supports goal attainment by linking common coaching processes (reflection, emotional regulation, planning and behavioural follow-through) to large-scale brain network dynamics. One framework often used to understand these dynamics is the triple-network model, which describes the coordinated activity of three large-scale brain systems: the Executive Network (EN), the Default Mode Network (DMN) and the Salience Network (SN). The interaction of these networks is considered central to mental flexibility, emotional regulation and goal-directed behaviour (Arden, 2019; Bressler & Menon, 2010). In coaching, effective goal pursuit typically requires flexible switching between these functions: meaning-making and self-referential reflection (DMN), prioritising what feels relevant and emotionally salient (SN) and translating insight into structured action through planning and self-regulation (EN) (Arden, 2019; Beaty et al., 2015; Brann, 2022; Buckner & Carroll, 2007; Menon & Uddin, 2010). The sections below outline how each network is conceptually relevant and how these functions are applied within SF-CB coaching to support goal attainment.

The EN, also referred to as the central executive or task-positive network, is engaged during cognitively demanding tasks and supports goal-directed behaviour through functions such as attention control, working memory, planning, decision-making and response inhibition (Arden, 2019; Beaty et al., 2015; Lesage & Stein, 2016; Menon & Uddin, 2010). Arden (2019, p. 36) describes the EN as the brain’s ‘central executive’, highlighting its role in maintaining present-moment awareness and translating task demands into purposeful action.

Executive network functioning is strengthened when individuals experience psychological safety and sufficient internal stability, enabling them to adapt effectively to challenges arising from external demands (Arden, 2019; Geldenhuys, 2020; Grawe, 2007). In contrast, reduced EN activation has been associated with difficulties in attention and decision-making and lower resilience, whereas optimal activation supports improved planning and goal pursuit (Arden, 2019; Dahlitz, 2015; Geldenhuys, 2020). Drawing on these findings, the EN can be understood as supporting the translation of insight into structured action through planning, goal-setting and self-regulation within SF-CB coaching (Arden, 2019; Brann, 2022; Grant, 2017).

The DMN, sometimes described as the storytelling brain, is associated with self-referential thinking, autobiographical reflection and sense-making (Arden, 2019; Buckner & Carroll, 2007; Martinez-Conde et al., 2019; Menon & Uddin, 2010). It is engaged during internally directed cognition such as imagining the future, recalling past experiences and constructing narratives that help individuals interpret their experiences and anticipate what may happen next (Arden, 2019; Bear et al., 2016; Willner et al., 2013).

The DMN supports ‘mental time travel’, but is typically downregulated during demanding, goal-directed tasks when executive control is required (Arden, 2019, p. 40; Bressler & Menon, 2010). In supportive contexts, sharing autobiographical stories can promote insight and new perspectives (Arden, 2019; Boyatzis et al., 2015; Garnett et al., 2022; Jack et al., 2013). However, excessive co-activation of the DMN and SN under perceived threat may contribute to intrusive rumination and sustained negative inward focus (Arden, 2019; Buckner et al., 2008; Garnett et al., 2022; Geldenhuys, 2020; Willner et al., 2013). Disrupted DMN connectivity (e.g. following trauma) may impair narrative processing and self-reflection (Arden, 2019). Drawing on these findings, the DMN can be understood as supporting reflective processes such as autobiographical exploration, perspective-taking and meaning-making within SF-CB coaching (Arden, 2019; Brann, 2022; Grant, 2017).

The SN, sometimes referred to as the ‘feeling network’, supports the detection and prioritisation of emotionally significant stimuli and bodily sensations, directing attention and behaviour towards stimuli that are perceived as most relevant to current goals or concerns (Arden, 2019, p. 32; Bressler & Menon, 2010). By integrating interoceptive signals with emotional appraisal, the SN shapes motivated decision-making, influencing whether individuals approach or disengage (Arden, 2019; Menon & Uddin, 2010). Importantly, the SN helps coordinate switching between the DMN and EN, depending on task demands and environmental cues, supporting cognitive flexibility, emotional regulation and adaptive behaviour (Arden, 2019; Beaty et al., 2015; Bressler & Menon, 2010; Menon & Uddin, 2010). When SN functioning is disrupted (e.g. through over-activation, under-activation, or stress-related impairment), difficulties may present as hyperarousal, emotional detachment, intrusive rumination, reduced flexibility or impaired motivation (Arden, 2019; Geldenhuys, 2020; Lanius et al., 2015; Menon & Uddin, 2010). Drawing on these findings, the SN can be understood as supporting the identification of what is most relevant or motivating for the client, guiding attention towards goal-relevant cues and priorities within SF-CB coaching (Arden, 2019; Brann, 2022; Grant, 2017).

Overall, the neuroscience literature provides a conceptual basis for understanding SF-CB coaching as an applied change process that supports learning, regulation, adaptation and sustainable goal-directed change (Arden, 2019; Brann, 2022).

Optimal functioning of each network and a balanced, coordinated activation between the different networks are important for optimal functioning (Arden, 2019; Cozolino, 2017; Siegel, 2020). Integration implies top-down and left-right integration between and within the different networks (Cozolino, 2017). During optimal functioning, the activation of the DMN assists in providing stability by reflecting on the past and envisioning the future, while the activation of the EN creates the capacity to dynamically engage with the challenges of the environment in the present moment. The SN serves as a ‘switch’ between these two networks by determining the relevance and urgency of dealing with outside challenges or personal needs.

Considering the above, incorporating neuroscience principles in coaching implies the use of psychological interventions that will facilitate optimal brain functioning. For example, the goal-focused orientation of SF-CB coaching (Grant, 2015; Passmore & Oades, 2014) can ‘facilitate the capacity to defer immediate gratification in the service of long-term planning and goal-directed behaviors’ (Arden, 2019, p. 158). Similarly, coaching strategies that foster positive emotional states can stimulate brain regions in the SN that are associated with intrinsic motivation, reinforcing both effort and perseverance (Arden, 2019; Boyatzis & Jack, 2018; Grawe, 2007).

The DANIEL method was developed by the author for the purposes of this study as an original, structured application of SF-CB coaching informed by neuroscientific principles. The acronym DANIEL refers to the six phases developed for this study: Define goal, Activate strengths, Navigate obstacles, Innovate solutions, Evaluate progress and Learn and adjust. The six-phase iterative cycle of the DANIEL method is presented in Figure 1. The method draws on established solution-focused coaching, cognitive-behavioural coaching, neuroscience-informed coaching and applied neuroscience literature (Arden, 2019; Brann, 2022; Cavanagh & Grant, 2010; Grant, 2017), and was designed to support personal, professional and functional goal attainment within coaching contexts.

Although presented sequentially, the DANIEL method is conceptualised as an iterative coaching approach rather than a linear process. The phases reflect a cycle of goal orientation, self-regulation, experimentation, reflection and adjustment, consistent with the view that change is recursive rather than linear (Cavanagh & Grant, 2010; Kolb, 1984; Siegel, 2020). In broad neuroscientific terms, the method is designed to support flexible coordination between reflection and meaning-making, attention to what is emotionally salient, and goal-directed planning and execution, which are commonly associated with large-scale brain network dynamics (Arden, 2019; Brann, 2022; Bressler & Menon, 2010). As such, the DANIEL method functions as a structured yet flexible framework that guides goal-focused coaching while accommodating the dynamic nature of change.

Each phase is described below in terms of its coaching purpose, the SF-CB processes applied and the neuroscience-informed rationale for how the phase supports goal attainment.

Define goal clarifies the client’s goals, values and preferred outcomes. In this phase, solution-focused practices are used to articulate a preferred future and identify available resources, while cognitive-behavioural questioning explores beliefs, assumptions and interpretations that may influence perception, motivation and readiness for action (Beck, 2021; Grant, 2013, 2017). The neuroscience-informed rationale is that clear and personally meaningful goals increase motivational salience and support goal-directed planning and follow-through (Arden, 2019; Cozolino, 2020).

Activate strengths mobilises strengths, intrinsic motivation and positive affect to build momentum. In this phase, solution-focused amplification of what is already working is combined with cognitive-behavioural reinforcement of self-efficacy and behavioural commitment (De Shazer & Berg, 1997; Neenan & Dryden, 2013). The neuroscience-informed rationale is that positive affect, reward-based learning and approach motivation support sustained engagement and goal-directed activation (Cozolino, 2020; Fredrickson, 2001).

Navigate obstacles supports clients to identify obstacles, reframe challenges and develop adaptive coping strategies. In this phase, solution-focused questioning is used to open possibilities, while cognitive-behavioural techniques such as thought monitoring, cognitive restructuring and skills-building support reduced avoidance and persistence under challenge (Beck, 2021; Ochsner & Gross, 2008). The neuroscience-informed rationale is that emotional regulation and cognitive reframing can support a shift from threat-based reactivity towards more approach-oriented responding (Arden, 2019; Brann, 2022).

Innovate solutions encourages experimentation and the testing of workable, self-authored solutions. In this phase, solution-focused discovery is combined with cognitive-behavioural experiments to translate insight into action. The neuroscience-informed rationale is that flexible coordination between executive control, reflective simulation and salience detection supports adaptive problem-solving and the testing of new behavioural pathways (Beaty et al., 2015; Menon & Uddin, 2010).

Evaluate progress involves evaluating outcomes, noticing what is working and identifying required adjustments. In this phase, cognitive-behavioural feedback loops and evidence-based reflection are combined with solution-focused attention to progress and scaling (Jackson & McKergow, 2007, as cited in Cavanagh & Grant, 2010; Palmer, 2011). The neuroscience-informed rationale is that feedback and recognition of progress support learning, persistence and adaptive adjustment (Arden, 2019).

Learn and adjust consolidates learning and supports maintenance through reflection, repetition and meaning-making. In this phase, cognitive-behavioural maintenance principles are combined with solution-focused coaching to reinforce change through sustaining narratives that embed learning into personal identity and future action (De Shazer & Berg, 1997; Neenan & Dryden, 2013). The neuroscience-informed rationale is that repeated practice supports experience-dependent learning, strengthening more durable patterns of thought and behaviour over time (Doidge, 2015).

The conceptual alignment between the neural network functions and phases of the DANIEL method is presented in Table 1.

This study employed a qualitative exploratory research design, adopting a social-constructionist perspective and using interactive qualitative analysis (IQA) for the collection of data. According to Northcutt and McCoy (2004), IQA acknowledges power dynamics between participants and the researcher, with participants, referred to as ‘constituents’ in IQA, taking an active role in the generation, collection and analysis of their own data through various IQA protocols. Interactive qualitative analysis is a qualitative methodology that provides a structured, accountable and systematic framework for inquiry, making it well-suited for research focused on how phenomena are socially constructed and for developing a theory that captures the systemic nature of the phenomenon under investigation (Northcutt & McCoy, 2004). Interactive qualitative analysis empowers participants to both generate and interpret data, with the researcher facilitating the process (Bargate, 2014; Northcutt & McCoy, 2004).

The research strategy for this study began with a structured coaching process, followed by a focus group, individual semi-structured interviews and follow-up interviews.

Participants engaged in four coaching sessions via Microsoft Teams scheduled weekly over a period of 4–6 weeks. Four sessions were used to provide a focused, time-bound coaching process aligned with the brief, goal-directed nature of SF-CB coaching and the research timeframe. The focus group facilitated the concurrent collection and analysis of data, with the emerging affinities (themes) guiding the content of the individual semi-structured interviews. These semi-structured interviews were used to validate the focus group findings (Northcutt & McCoy, 2004) and contributed to achieving data saturation. In line with IQA methodology, saturation was indicated by the recurrence of affinities and the absence of substantively new themes during the iterative data collection and analysis process. The relatively homogeneous sample supported depth of exploration within a shared context, enabling the identification and validation of stable patterns across participants (Northcutt & McCoy, 2004), offering additional depth and insight into the group-level processes as well as individual experiences (Fusch & Ness, 2015).

Follow-up interviews were conducted approximately 3 months after the initial semi-structured interviews to examine the sustainability of the coaching outcomes.

Northcutt and McCoy (2004, p. 17) assert that IQA is particularly advantageous for theory, both in terms of generating and testing it, offering a structured, accountable and rigorous approach to qualitative research. The involvement of participants in the thematic analysis, to identify, analyse and report patterns (themes) within the data, together with the confirmation of themes during the individual semi-structured interviews, created a perfect platform for triangulation (Northcutt & McCoy, 2004).

The key findings from the focus group and individual semi-structured interviews are detailed in the following section. To enhance the depth of the analysis, the researcher incorporated verbatim extracts from both the focus group discussions and the individual semi-structured interviews. Participants were assigned unique identifiers (e.g. ‘P1’, ‘P2’) to maintain clarity and ensure anonymity throughout the reporting process.

Emotional intelligence was identified as the primary driver of goal attainment and is regarded as the ‘fundamental cause’ or ‘source of influence’ within the system (Northcutt & McCoy, 2004, p. 32). As a primary driver, EI influences other affinities within the system, but is not influenced by them. Participants associated EI with ‘self-awareness’, ‘self-regulation’ and ‘empathy’, emphasising that the ability to recognise and understand one’s own emotions affects how individuals approach problem-solving and goal attainment. P1 stated that:

Participants also described EI as central to identifying meaningful goals and sustaining effort towards them. P3 (P3, 36–40 years, industrial psychology and business practitioner) explained that understanding what they were feeling and thinking helped clarify ‘what your goal needs to be’, particularly when goals were emotionally grounded (e.g. family-related goals). Although some participants initially expressed uncertainty about the relationship between EI and an AM, the group agreed that EI was the stronger driver. As P4 noted:

Agile mindset emerged as the secondary driver. Secondary drivers are relative causes (or influences) on affinities in the system, which are determined when there are both ‘outs’ and ‘ins’, but with a higher number of ‘outs’ than ‘ins’ (Northcutt & McCoy, 2004). Participants described AM using terms such as ‘adaptability’, ‘resilience’ and ‘sustainability’, emphasising the ability to adjust when plans change or setbacks occur. P5 stated:

Participants consistently described EI and AM as closely connected, with EI supporting persistence and AM supporting adjustment. As P2 summarised:

Skills orientation (SO) was identified as the secondary outcome. A secondary outcome reveals a relative effect in the system and is recognised when there are both ‘ins’ and ‘outs’, but there are more ‘ins’ than ‘outs’ (Northcutt & McCoy, 2004). The group retained SO as a stand-alone affinity, despite it initially containing only two descriptors (‘techniques’ and ‘practical’), because these were seen as capturing the essence of skills actively used to achieve goals.

Participants expressed mixed views about the importance of skills. P1 (P1, 25–30 years, assessment practitioner) acknowledged that while skills play a role, they may not always be the most significant contributor, whereas P3 emphasised skills development as a way to improve outcomes and satisfaction with the approach taken, stating:

Results orientation (RO) was identified as the primary outcome. A primary outcome is characterised by having many ‘ins’ but no ‘outs’, meaning that it is influenced by multiple affinities but does not exert any influence on them (Northcutt & McCoy, 2004). Participants described RO as the point at which motivation, emotional management, adaptability and skills translate into measurable progress and follow-through. P1 (P1, 25–30 years, assessment practitioner) linked RO to practical goal methods, stating that using techniques such as SMART helped to ‘get to the goal’.

Participants also described RO as connected to skills development and evidence of change. As P3 stated:

Participants described the coaching phase as strengthening self-awareness and emotional readiness before goal execution. As P3 noted:

Participants also described reframing as important for adaptive goal pursuit. Reflecting on early coaching sessions, P4 stated:

During the follow-up interviews conducted approximately 3 months after the coaching sessions and initial semi-structured interviews, participants reported that their original goals generally remained relevant, although progress was moderated by contextual constraints such as workload, time-management challenges, setbacks and self-doubt. Participants emphasised continued effort and adjustment, which aligned with the drivers and outcomes identified through the SID:

Across the focus group, individual semi-structured interviews and 3-month individual follow-up interviews, participants’ accounts were broadly consistent with the system of drivers and outcomes identified in the IQA results. Reflections at follow-up indicated that goals generally remained relevant, while progress was shaped by contextual constraints such as time pressure, workload and setbacks. These accounts suggest that the change processes described in this study appear to be sustained beyond the immediate coaching period for some clients, and they highlight the potential value of ongoing support or follow-up sessions to maintain momentum when contextual demands are high.

The findings highlight how integrating neuroscience with SF-CB coaching can strengthen goal attainment by attending to both emotional readiness and structured goal-directed action. Several practical implications for coaching practice emerge.

Given that EI emerged as a primary driver of goal attainment, coaches can benefit from attending to clients’ emotional awareness, regulation and psychological safety before engaging in structured goal-setting. This includes brief psychoeducation on how emotions and attention influence decision-making, as well as grounding or reflective practices to support readiness for goal-directed work. In practice, this may involve beginning coaching sessions with reflective check-ins, emotional labelling, grounding exercises or questions that help clients identify what feels most important before moving into goal-setting.

The integrated framework can be applied in organisational settings to support leadership development, performance and change initiatives. By fostering EI, adaptability and iterative learning, coaching can contribute to greater agility and resilience in individuals and teams. For example, the framework could be used in leadership or professional development coaching to help individuals clarify meaningful goals, reframe barriers, identify adaptive actions and review progress over time.

The emphasis on evaluation, learning and adjustment underscores the value of a longer-term developmental perspective. In practice, this may include scheduled follow-up sessions, progress reviews, reflective journalling or action-learning tasks that help clients consolidate learning, maintain progress and adjust strategies as their goals evolve.

Overall, these implications suggest that SF-CB coaching informed by neuroscience can enhance coaching effectiveness by aligning interventions with how individuals regulate emotion, learn from experience and sustain goal-directed change.

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings. The study utilised a single focus group comprising five participants, which limited opportunities for comparison across different focus groups. The findings are also based on the experiences and perspectives of participants within a specific context, which may limit transferability to other coaching environments or to individuals with different levels of experience or expertise. Contextual factors such as organisational culture, resource availability and individual readiness for change may influence the implementation and effectiveness of the model. Finally, the application of neuroscientific principles to coaching remains an emerging field. As such, the findings are limited by the current understanding of how neuroscience directly informs coaching practices, requiring further empirical research.

Future studies should involve larger, more diverse samples to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the application of the framework across different coaching contexts and populations. Research could also explore how the framework can be adapted for group coaching.