The slides presented at the SF world conference 2017 in Bad Soden, Germany

1. The Impact of Japanese Employees’
Solution-focused Interactions on
Work-Related Variables:
Suggestions from Three Surveys.
Keita Kiuchi, Ph.D.
Research Associate, University of Human Arts and Sciences, Japan.
keita_kiuchi@human.ac.jp
SF World Conference Sep 22-27, 2017 in Bad Soden, Germany
Research Talk: 22th 15:40-15:55 at Tolstoi

2. Contents
• General Solution-focused Attitude Scale
• Study 1: SF and work engagement
• Study 2: SF and productivity and commitment
• Study 3: SF and mental health
• Discussion

3. The General Solution-focused Attitude Scale1)
• A psychological measure to assess SF
interactions in a workplace
• 26 items and 5 subscales
• Confirmed reliability and validity in Japanese
– Cronbach's alpha: 0.84-0.89
– Factorial validity
– Criterion-related validity compared to SF
mastery
• Unconfirmed reliability and validity in English

4. Subscales of the GSFAS
1. Sense of belonging (4 items)
Ex) I feel safe in my workplace.
2. Respect for others (7 items)
Ex) I consider and treat everyone as a valuable
person.
3. Self-initiated action (5 items)
Ex) I devise ways to be spontaneous in my work.
4. Optimistic orientation (5 items)
Ex) I think good change is already occurring when
moving in the right direction.
5. Invigorating interactions (5 items)
Ex) I communicate actively with my co-workers.

5. Solution-focused interaction
Behaviors
Thoughts
Emotion
Body
Sense of
belonging
Respect
for others
Self-initiated
action
Optimistic
orientation
Invigorating
interactions

6. Study 1: SF and work engagement
• Participants: 1,432 workers from a Japanese
restaurant chain company
(collection ratio: 47.7%)
• Variables
– The GSFAS (26 items)
– Work engagement (9 items)2)
– “Workaholism” (10 items)3)
– “Boreout” (8 items)4): Boredom in a work-site
• Analysis: Structural equation modeling by Amos.

7. SF increased work engagement.
Respect for
others
Sense of
belonging
Self-initiated
action
Optimistic
orientation
Invigorating
interactions
0.53
GFI = 0.944, AGFI = 0.902, CFI = 0.938
RMSEA = 0.083, SRMR = 0.066
Vigor
Dedication
Absorption
Work
engagement
CompulsivelyExcessively
Boreout
SF
interaction
0.39
-0.19 -0.24
0.09
0.09
Workaholism

8. Study 2:
SF and productivity and commitment
• Participants: 794 municipal employees from a
Japanese local government
(collection ratio: 89.0%)
• Variables
– The GSFAS (26 items)
– Perceived productivity of the workplace
(4 items)5)
– Affective commitment to the workplace
(6 items)6)
• Analysis: Structural equation modeling by Amos.

9. SF increased productivity & commitment.
Respect for
others
Sense of
belonging
Self-initiated
action
Optimistic
orientation
Invigorating
interactions
SF
interaction
Workplace
productivity
Workplace
commitment
0.44
0.63
0.63
0.65
0.27
GFI = 0.982, AGFI = 0.953, CFI = 0.986
RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.025

10. Study 3: SF and mental health
• Participants: 1,957 workers from a Japanese
manufacturing company (collection ratio: 82.6%)
• Variables
– Demographic data (age, employment status
and job position)
– The GSFAS (26 items)
– SF-36 (36 items)7): physical and mental health
– Workload & social support8)
• Analysis: Structural equation modeling by Amos.

11. SF increased mental health.
Respect for
others
Sense of
belonging
Self-initiated
action
Optimistic
orientation
Invigorating
interactions
0.39
GFI = 0.958, AGFI = 0.931, CFI = 0.930
RMSEA = 0.064, SRMR = 0.053
ControlPhysical
SF
interaction
-0.20 0.08
0.10
Physical
health
Mental
health
0.16
0.47
Mental
FamilyManagers Co-workers
Age Job position
Workload
Social support
-0.35
-0.32

12. Summary of the results
• Restaurant workers’ SF interaction moderately
affected their work engagement (β=0.53), and
this effect was larger than that of workaholism
and boreout.
• Worker’s SF interaction in the public sector
explained about the half of the differences both
of workplace productivity and of commitment to
the workplace (R2=0.44; R2=0.63, respectively).
• Manufacturers’ SF interaction had more of an
influence on their mental health (β=0.39) than
did social support, job position and age, and was
equivalent to workload (β=0.35).

13. Discussion (1): Suggestions
• Importance of SF interactions of restaurant,
municipal and manufacturing workers was
suggested.
– Rationale for SF approaches was provided for
at least three of these industries.
– Practitioners could evaluate the effect of their
SF approaches by using the GSFAS.
– It might be useful to develop new SF
approaches based on the five factors of the
GSFAS.

14. Discussion (2): Challenges
• Confirmation of SF effectiveness in other industries
and/or with other work-related variables
• Randomized controlled outcome studies
– In a controlled study, SF managerial training
increased workers’ SF interaction.9)
• A task-subscale connection of the GSFAS
– An “OK” massage or an affirmation might
enhance “sense of belonging,” “respect for
others” and “invigorating interactions.”
– Exploring exception probably raises “optimistic
orientation.”
– Creating the “future perfect” possibly increases
“self-initiated action,” and so on…

15. Work
related
outcomes
Discussion (3): Future direction
SF
interaction
• Sense of belonging
• Respect for others
• Self-initiated action
• Optimistic
orientation
• Invigorating
interactions
SF
interventions

16. Citations
1. Kiuchi, K, Aoki, Y, Kishi, K, Yaguchi, A, & Yamamoto, T. (2015). Measuring positive interactions in
the workplace: Development and validation: Bi-level Solution-focused Interaction Scale. Brief
Psychotherapy Research, 24(1), 4-16. (In Japanese)
2. Schaufeli, WB, Bakker, AB, & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4),
701-716.
3. Schaufeli, WB, Shimazu, A, & Taris, TW. (2009). Being driven to work excessively hard. The
evaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan. Cross-Cultural
Research, 43, 320–348.
4. Reijseger, G, Schaufeli, WB, Peeters, MCW, Taris, TW, van Beek, I, & Ouweneel, E. (2013).
Watching the paint dry at work: psychometric examination of the Dutch Boredom Scale. Anxiety,
Stress, & Coping: An International Journal, 26(5), 508-525.
5. Steffens, NK, Haslam, SA, Kerschreiter, R, Schuh, CH, & van Dick, R. (2014). Health promotion
through identity entrepreneurship. German Journal of Research in Human Resource
Management, 28(1-2), 173-194.
6. Meyer, JP, Allen, NJ, and Smith, CA. (1993). Commitment to Organizations and Occupations:
Extension and Test of a Three-Component Conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(4), 538-551.
7. Medical Outcomes Trust. (2003). SF-36v2TM Health Survey.
8. Shimomitsu T, Yokoyama K, Ono Y, Maruta T, Tanigawa T. (1998). Development of a novel brief
job stress questionnaire. In: Kato S, editor. Report of the research grant for the prevention of
work-related diseases from the Ministry of Labour. Tokyo:Ministry of Labour;, p.107–15. (In
Japanese)
9. Kiuchi, K & Aoki, Y. (2014). Sensitivity of the General Solution-Focused Attitude Scale (GSFAS) to
Assess the Direct Effect of a Solution-focused Intervention at a Workplace. Conference paper of
the 4th International Congress of Coaching Psychology, 35.