Most services start with one-to-one work. It is familiar, straightforward to structure, easy to control and relatively easy to evidence. There are good reasons for that. But when one-to-one becomes the default, we can start to think about other formats mainly in terms of how well they can reproduce what happens in the one-to-one room.
That can make groupwork look like a way of delivering the same intervention to several people at once, perhaps more efficiently, perhaps more cheaply.
But groups aren’t simply a more economical way of doing individual work. They’re a different resource entirely.
When people work alongside one another, something becomes possible that isn’t available in a one-to-one conversation: the group itself can contribute to the process of change.
Something happens when people hear someone else describe an experience that sounds familiar. They realise they aren’t the only person carrying it. They may notice possibilities they hadn’t considered. They can see their own progress more clearly when they have a chance to put it into words in front of other people, rather than simply telling a practitioner who is listening and taking notes.
And ideas offered by a peer can land differently from the same idea offered by a professional. There is something about hearing, “That happened to me too and this is what I did,” that a practitioner cannot reproduce simply by being skilful.
These aren’t minor additions to one-to-one work. They are resources that simply aren’t available in the one-to-one room.
So a predominantly 1:1 service that adds groupwork isn’t diluting its offer. It is expanding what the service can make possible.
Now take that further: make the groupwork Solution Focused.
There is a problem, though. Groupwork doesn’t automatically make use of the group.
Without specific groupwork training, a session can easily become one-to-one conversation with an audience: the facilitator works through people one at a time while everyone else waits for their turn.
Nothing is inherently wrong with that. But it wastes much of what the group has to offer.
Solution Focused groupwork treats the group itself as part of the intervention.
The facilitator’s task is not to be the source of every useful question, idea or insight. It is to create the conditions in which the group can become a resource for its members.
That means deliberately making use of what is unique about being with other people: witnessing, recognition, peer-generated ideas, different perspectives, encouragement, and the accountability that comes from saying something out loud in front of others.
This isn’t simply a stylistic preference. The emerging evidence for group-delivered Solution Focused Brief Therapy is particularly interesting. A 2024 meta-analysis of 72 studies found that group therapy produced a larger effect (g = 1.64) than individual therapy (g = 0.48).
A separate 2025 meta-analysis examining SFBT research conducted in Iran, covering 34 studies, also found a large and statistically significant effect for group-based Solution Focused Brief Therapy (d = 1.04, p < .001). The authors note that this adds evidence for the effectiveness of group-based SFBT across different populations and presenting problems.
So if a service is already committed to Solution Focused practice, the question isn’t simply whether some of that work could be delivered in groups. It is worth asking what becomes possible when the group itself is deliberately treated as a resource.
That does ask something different of the facilitator.
Holding a Solution Focused group means resisting the pull to comment, teach, rescue or fill every silence. The facilitator has to trust the process enough not to become the centre of it. The skill is less about having something useful to say to everyone and more about creating the conditions in which participants can be useful to one another.
It also changes how the group is designed.
If the group itself is part of the intervention, then the structure of the session matters. The design needs to create opportunities for participants to hear one another, respond to one another, notice successes and differences, share ideas, and build on what others have said.
This means thinking carefully about the movement between whole-group conversation, smaller groups, pairs, individual reflection and other forms of participation. Different structures can serve different purposes: sometimes a participant needs space to think privately; sometimes a smaller conversation creates the safety needed to speak; and sometimes the value lies precisely in bringing an idea back to the whole group and allowing others to respond.
The important thing is not to default to one format, but to design the movement between formats deliberately. If participants spend most of the session having essentially separate conversations with the facilitator or with one other person, the group is not being fully used as a resource.
Good Solution Focused groupwork therefore isn’t simply about what questions the facilitator asks. It is also about how the room is structured so that participants (in person or online) can become resources for one another.
This is why I think services considering groupwork sometimes start with the wrong question.
It can be tempting to ask:
“Why would we offer groups when some people will always prefer one-to-one work?”
And of course, some people will. One-to-one work is an important part of a responsive service, and there will always be circumstances in which it is the right format.
But perhaps the more useful question is:
“What could groupwork make possible that our current ways of working cannot?”
That shifts the conversation away from whether groups should compete with individual work, and towards what each format can uniquely contribute.
The point isn’t to replace one-to-one work with groups. It is to give practitioners another way of working and creating change, one that makes use of the relationships, perspectives and resources that become available when people are working alongside one another.
Want to develop this in practice?
I’m currently running training in Solution Focused Groupwork at BRIEF, for practitioners who want to move beyond delivering one-to-one conversations in a group setting and learn how to use the group itself as a resource.
The training looks at the principles, stance and practical design of Solution Focused groupwork, including how to facilitate participation, generate peer-to-peer resources, and enable conversations so that the group is doing more than simply taking turns with the facilitator.
Find out more about the Solution Focused Groupwork training
References
Vermeulen-Oskam, E., Franklin, C., van ’t Hof, L. P. M., Stams, G. J. J. M., van Vugt, E. S., Assink, M., Veltman, E. J., Froerer, A. S., Staaks, J. P. C., & Zhang, A. (2024). The current evidence of solution-focused brief therapy: A meta-analysis of psychosocial outcomes and moderating factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 114, 102512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102512.
Froerer, A. S., Bolghan-Abadi, M., Chen, M., & Zhang, A. (2025). Meta-analysis of solution-focused brief therapy research conducted in Iran: Does outcome type, intervention modality, or delivery format make a difference? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 51(1), e12759. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12759.
Ribalon 