Some insights come from serendipitous occurrences.

Like this one I just had: that “Solution-Focus” has the quality of Quiet Strength.

This insight was triggered by three unrelated events:

- via @dChickadee4Life, stumbling upon this blog post: Three Keys to Mindful Leadership Coaching. The three keys mentioned by Douglas Riddle are: an open mind; non reactivity; permissive attention. These are all characteristics of  the “Not-Knowing” Stance which is one of the distinctive features of Solution – Focus. One particular sentence by Douglas Riddle resonated deeply in me: How does a coach do that? By creating in the conversation with the coachee a sense of open, reflective exploration. The coaches who expand my mind, emotions and performance come to the coaching relationship from a place of inner calm. They have quiet minds. They are not beguiled by fancy techniques or elegant coaching models.

- reading the book: Quiet. The Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking by Susan Cain. I had a profound sense of recognition while reading it. I made peace with my style of coaching – I am definitely not a Tony Robbins. I do not talk much. I do not raise my voice. I am not “in your face” and I definitely do not pump my fists in the air!  I like to create space for reflection. Gently but purposefully. There is strength in quiet and deliberate effort.

- having to confront  the same misunderstanding about Solution-Focus three times in the past week. I discovered, in 3 separate conversations with fellow Executive Coaches, that “Solution-Focus” is understood as task-focused. One Coach characterized “being too solution-focused” as going straight to the solution and prescribing a task as opposed to patiently listening to the Client first. I was taken aback – because this is the opposite of what “Solution-Focus” is! But, alas, that is what those words evoke, apparently. So I had to articulate what “Solution-Focus’ is.

These 3 separate events listed above made me realize that Solution-Focus is Quiet Strength.

Quiet strength in the “Not-Knowing” stance and curiosity of the Solution-Focused practitioners; in our  faith that Clients have already experienced bits and pieces of the solution.

Quiet strength in not adding anything to what Clients bring, yet keeping them accountable. Leading from behind, gently but steadfastly, in the interaction.

Quiet strength in being a witness to the Clients’ strengths – and honoring those strengths with our compliments.

Quiet Strength.

I think I like that.

But how?

This is where microanalysis comes in. Pioneered and extensively used by Janet Beavin Bavelas and her research group at the University of Victoria, microanalysis is defined as “the detailed and reliable examination of observable communication sequences as they proceed, moment by moment, in the dialogue”….

My guest post on Microanalysis in Coert Visser’s Blog.

Read more here >>>>>> http://solutionfocusedchange.blogspot.com/2012/01/microanalysys-showing-details-of-how.html

Solution-Focus relies on positive feedback – i.e. noticing what is working and going right instead of pointing out what is not working and going wrong.

Even more so with Solution-Focused training: for example, the whole Solutionsurfers’ Brief Coach Training is designed around positive feedback. Exclusively positive feedback. That makes the learning experience unique. At first participants are disoriented – but very quickly they begin to appreciate the empowering nature of positive feedback. Practice session after practice session, each participant’s unique coaching skills develop and evolve, by focusing on what works and ignoring what does not. A process similar to Darwinian Evolution, as pointed out here.

Yet, somehow, not using negative feedback is considered to be a sign of being a wimp. A softie. Out of touch with reality.

Actually, that is quite the opposite.

Everybody can deliver negative feedback. But only expert performers can deliver positive feedback. Because positive feedback is based on tacit knowledge rather than explicit knowledge.

This point has been brilliantly developed by Gary Klein in his latest book “Streetlights and Shadows – Searching for the Keys to Adaptive Decision Making” (pages 45-47).

His reasoning:

- “when we try to improve performance, we usually emphasize explicit knowledge more than tacit knowledge”; that is because “it is hard to give people feedback about tacit knowledge”

- so “in giving feedback, we tend to focus on specific procedures”

- but that means “we give feedback about departures from procedures, instead of helping people to notice subtle cues and patterns”.

- conclusion: “we find it easier to give feedback about errors than about skillful actions or about  improvements in mental models“.

So while how to deliver negative feedback is a critical and important skill, delivering positive feedback is an often neglected ingredient for building expert performance.

Noticing what works is an essential part of developing expertise. And you need to be an expert to notice the little things that are working, maybe just a little bit.

Positive feedback is for pros! :-)

Here is my rule-of-thumb regarding “social media”:

- I use this blog to share observations, thoughts, reflections about (Solution-Focused) Coaching, Training and Consulting.

- I use my business FaceBook page http://www.facebook.com/paoloterni to post daily links to articles or blog posts that might be relevant to Coaches,  Therapists, Trainers and Consultants. If interested, just “like” the page and the links will appear in your FB newsfeed.

I decided to break my own guidelines and post here the following link —>  http://lifehacker.com/5867049/nine-stubborn-brain-myths-that-just-wont-die-debunked-by-science

And here is the summary:
Nine Stubborn Brain Myths That Just Won’t Die, Debunked by Science
Brain games will make you smarter! The internet is making you dumber! Alcohol is killing your brain cells! The brain is a mystery we’ve been trying to solve for ages, and the desire to unlock its secrets has led to vast amounts of misinformation. Many of these false notions are more widely believed than the truth. We took our healthy skepticism and a bunch of brain research to find the truth behind some of the most common myths about intelligence and our brains. Here’s what we learned.

Illustration courtesy of Nini Baseema (http://oneselfportraitaday.tumblr.com/)

Browsing a leadership bestseller this past weekend, in the table of contents I noticed this chapter: “Chapter Nine: A Leader’s Impact: The Transfer of Influence from Leader to Follower“.

For me, that sentence alone captures all that is wrong with the mainstream approach to leadership.

I take issue with that statement and with its underlying assumptions:

a) it is the title of chapter 9, with the book presenting leading as a linear process. There is part 1, about “earning the right to lead through character“; then part 2, where you are “leading on the field“; and finally part 3, to which chapter 9 belongs. The title for part 3 is: “consequence: creating a culture, leaving a legacy of values“. But this not how it happens in real life. All those factors are at play at the same time

b) the sentence “the transfer of influence from leader to follower” assumes the following:
- in the linear sequence presented in the book, the leader leads, then when the situation is under control he or she can relax and let the “follower”  partake of a little bit of power to help create a “culture” (which celebrates the legacy of the leader!). But the situation may never get under control. Furthermore, a culture is created by collective habits of interaction, not by a “transfer of influence”
- the “leader” has something called “influence”, a thing; he has that because of his or her character; the leader can transfer that “something” to “followers”. Wrong, wrong, wrong. “Influence” is not a thing. Influence is a dance where all the parties involved co-construct meaning and negotiate agreements. The “follower” has as much of an active role as the “leader”. Influence is mutual*
- there is someone who is a “leader” and someone who is a “follower”. Wrong. There is an ongoing relationship. If we take a snapshot at some point in time, we can see someone take on more of a leadership function and someone else accepting that. At a different point in time it might be viceversa. Or anything in between. “Leader” and “follower” may be used to characterize the relationship at some specific time, not to label the people involved.

I am not denying the fact there is a leadership function.
I am challenging the “static” and “linear” view of it.
I am introducing a more science-based view of the leadership function which is rooted in complexity, co-construction, inter-action. the in-between.

——————

* too many times I saw the following dynamic happen – leader calls for a meeting to “sell” his / her brilliant idea. “Followers” very convincingly object to the leader’s idea but also contribute some new interesting ideas to solve the issue at hand. Leader abandons his / her original idea – only to call a new meeting shortly afterwards to “sell” a new idea which happens to be the “followers’” idea, maybe slightly repackaged. “Followers” obviously buy it, since it was proposed by them, leader is happy to have “influenced” them. And all this without the leader being aware of whose idea it was. Who is influencing whom? – note: you can see dynamics of co-influencing happen in shorter time-frames, within a single brief conversation…

I had a wonderful time leading the last module of Solutionsurfers PURE Brief Coach Training in Sacramento, CA last week.

I was blessed to have such amazing participants.
And it was a joy to see how much progress they made in their coaching skills and in their coaching presence since we started in June!
As always, I learnt a lot seeing them coaching.
Their questions brought me to new insights about Solution-Focus.
Our conversations, always enlightening.

So I felt great about our training.
I checked in daily, and I was comforted to see it was not just an impression of mine :)
On the final day, I was happy to see that on a scale from 1 to 10, where 10 was meeting all their learning goals, beyond their wildest expectations, and 1 the opposite of that, they rated themselves to be 8.5 or more (some at 8.5, others at 10) on that scale.

I was particularly impressed by a distinction made by one of the participants.
He distinguished the “learning scale” from the “confidence scale“.
On a learning scale, he said he reached an 8.5, maybe even a 9.
But on a confidence scale about being a Solution-Focused  coach, he said he was worst off!
He started the module being at a 7 on this confidence scale, but now he was down to a 3 - he gained a new appreciation of the challenges involved in coaching in complex scenarios (mandated coachees, conflict situations, difficult decisions… the topic of the last module of Brief Coach Training).
He stated: “Between the past module and this one, I had 6 hours of practice; I now realize I need at least 60 before considering having clients!”

I was proud of him.
I already posted here about the Dunning-Kruger effect, i.e. about the fact that novices over-rate their abilities – while experts, knowing the complexities involved, tend to under-estimate their abilities.  So it was good to see this effect being taken care of, right there in front of my eyes, by this gifted participant, all on his own.

Here was a participant who not only had developed his Solution-Focused Coaching skills to an impressive level, but had also developed his meta-cognitive abilities regarding his own skills.

Impressive.

If you consult with businesses or work as a coach for organizations, I am sure you have met this situation time and again.

It is often framed by clients as a “dilemma“, and whoever presents it to you, be it the CEO or the HR Manager, uses apocalyptic tones to describe it.

In the most abstract form, it goes something like this:

“Manager X is a brilliant performer – driven, focused, results-oriented. We are very happy with Manager X’s achievements. However, that same Manager is also definitely not people-oriented, since many members of his / her team quit. Now Project Y [it could be a Organizational Development project, a re-organization, a merger...] requires Manager X to be more of a team player and more people-oriented to better work in this new lean structure. Can it be done?”.

I wonder what you, my reader who is a consultant, would answer to such a question.

My reply to that question is: I do not know.

It depends on many things.

The main one being: what does it mean to ask whether “it can be done”?

If it means: can we change the personality of Manager X, then the answer is no.

If it means: can Manager X develop a new set of skills and behaviors, then the answer is: maybe.

If it means: can Manager X develop a set of solutions based on his or her strengths that will allow him or her to play this new game, then the answer is: probably yes.

In addition, the whole organizational context would factor in heavily in any answer you might give to the “dilemma”: maybe Manager X behaved in such a way because it was reinforced by management and / or by the organizational culture; maybe Manager X believed that results, and only results, was what was asked of him / her; moreover, who exactly left and why? And more importantly, from a Solution-Focused perspective: who stayed with Manager X? What was different with them?

I said that I answer the dilemma with a “I don’t know”.

That is only part of the answer. The complete answer is: “I do not know – I would need to talk to Manager X, his or her boss, and maybe other people working with / for Manager X“.

So I am wondering, dear reader who happens to be an organizational consultant like me: how do you deal with this archetypal dilemma?

The sentence above was said in a simulated Coaching conversation that took place during our recent Solutionsurfers Brief Coach Training.

A student of mine, a seasoned Coach, made that comment as he was role-playing as a Solution-Focused Coach.

The comment was meant as a compliment for the Client, as affirming Client’s strengths.

Yet it felt to me as a piece of chalk screeching on a blackboard.

That comment vividly highlights a key distinction between Solution-Focus and other Coaching models.

Mainstream Coaching models are based on more or less explicit theories about how the mind works and about how change happens.

So, depending on which Coaching school you are training with, you might learn we have “filters” in our minds: or that we have “orientations“; or that each person belongs to a specific “personality type” with a set of characteristics and preferred ways of behaving; you might learn that some people are  inclined to specific “defense mechanisms“, each one with its own dynamic. You might learn people have different ways of “processing information” so you need to tailor your communication in specific ways.  It is very likely you might learn that we have “blocks” or “obstacles” to overcome, “patterns” to defeat. You might also learn that people need “motivation” or more “willpower” – as if they were specific “things” that can be acquired, used and depleted.

All of the above are constructs which have an intriguing explanatory power. They make sense.

They are based on underlying metaphors for understanding the mind: the mind as a computer, the mind as a mechanical (or hydraulic) machine, the mind as a theater of different characters…

Notice that no one ever observed a “filter” in the mind, or a “block” or a form of energy called “willpower” – they are just ways to make sense of how  we think.

I am not saying that they are not scientifically legitimate constructs; some of them might be – all I am saying is that they are constructs, not observable entities.

And in Solution-Focus we stay on the surface. We do not deal with mental constructs.

We encourage Clients to focus on observable behaviors in specific situations; we ask them about events and their context; we ask about what they might notice and what other people might notice.

If a Client wants to have more “willpower” the classical Solution-Focus response would be: “How would you know you have more willpower? What would you be doing differently? What would other people notice you doing differently?…” Everything is brought back to observable behaviors which make a difference.

This is because of the way Solution-Focus was born and was developed: not deduced from a theory but built empirically, inductively, from the bottom-up, by slowly figuring out what worked and what did not work in conversations designed to help Clients.

In Solution-Focus there is no overarching theory about change. We have some tenets, which have been found inductively. We might have different clues about why SF works, but we do not have a coherent theory. That is the unique characteristic of SF, its pride and maybe the main obstacle to a wider diffusion. It is tempting to offer an explanation. It is sexy to have a Model of Change: with neat graphs, diagrams, arrows and fancy names. But in Solution-Focus circles we like to travel light in the realm of assumptions and explanations. We like to stay in the conversation, as it happens, without adding anything.

The student  of mine who was playing the Coachee in this role-play was relating some specific episodes of her life and her positive, upbeat attitude in dealing with them – she never mentioned having “filters”.

That is something the Coach added.

And now the dynamics of the conversation changes. From a Solution-Focused perspective, it becomes more difficult.

Instead of having richness of details, and maybe some seeds of solutions, some useful exceptions, we have a generalization – unique perspectives have been swept under the rug of “filter”.  Useful behaviors already happening have been swallowed by a concept, by a rationalization.

Note that this is a standard approach in other Coaching models: the Client has to learn the theory of the Coach and the language of the Coach; only then, the Client can appreciate and use the “expert solution” handed down by the Coach.

It is not a formal learning, but an implicit learning that Clients go through – with comments like that, Clients learn about “filters”, and “styles” and all sorts of mental constructs.

We do not do that in Solution-Focus.

We do not add anything. We do not have anything to add!

We stay on the surface.

We use the words Clients use and we try to make their meaning explicit, to us and to the Client.

Our intent is not to explain things and offer interpretations (adding stuff); rather, our intent is to help clients see what is there (describing, showing), hoping they find something useful.

So it is the other way around: it is the Coach who has to learn the language of the Client.

Because it is in the Clients’ worldview, expressed in their own words, from their unique perspectives, based on their experiences, where sustainable and long-lasting solutions are found.

Many Solution-Focused Practitioners end the session with assignments for Clients.

These assignments are not meant to be taken as “homework” – rather  they are merely a suggestion to experiment more in a specific direction, based on what Clients themselves said during the session.

In that spirit, I would like to suggest readers of this blog to experiment with these 3 tasks – they will make you feel better and will make the world a better place.

DAILY

- leave a place better than you found it: it can mean picking up a candy wrapper from the sidewalk and put it in the trash; putting something away in your office or at home; saying a kind word to a stranger or a co-worker; experiment and see what works!

WEEKLY

- write down three things you are grateful for. Anything – it could be something that happened during the week, or something you just noticed. It could be the blue sky, a plate of food, a friend, a conversation, a quote in a book, an activity, a detail, a project, a smile… anything! Experiment and see what works!

MONTHLY

- consider donating some time or some money: it could be just two hours a month of your time to help a charity; or donating 25$ a month to some worthy cause; or 10% of what you spent on grocery. Just set a specific amount of time or of money, and stick with it. Experiment and see what works!

I will be curious to know more about what you learned…

One of the best ways to make yourself happy is to make other people happy.

One of the best ways to make other people happy is to be happy yourself.

- Gretchen Rubin, “The Happiness Project”

An executive, I met him for the first time when I was fresh off the Solution-Focused training and i was discovering its power in coaching conversations.

So I was eager to try Solution-Focus on him, too – I listened eagerly to his problem talk, waiting for an opening. Sure enough, there was one and I asked about it, trying to shift to solution talk.

He quickly answered, and then went on to describe the numerous downsides of that one positive exception to the problem.

Undeterred, I tried again. And again.

It was frustrating.

It was a dance that went nowhere – me trying to highlight the positive, he bringing the conversation back to what was not working.

How come he did not accept my invitations for solution talk?

Even after I listened to him for a long time?

Why was he dismissing my remarks about positive occurrences as a way to sugarcoat the reality?

This is the beginning of my guest post on Coert Visser’s Solution-Focused Change blog. Read the rest of the post, and comments to it, here–>

http://solutionfocusedchange.blogspot.com/2011/06/when-solution-focus-does-not-work.html