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?

Tags: consulting, dilemma, OD, organization, people-oriented, performance, question, result-oriented, Solution-Focused perspective, strengths, the dark side, type-A personality

You have a filter that makes you see the good in people and so…

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.

Tags: coaching, Coaching Models, deductive vs inductive, description vs explanation, distinction, filters, mental constructs, Model of Change, not adding anything, Solution Focus, staying on the surface, Theory of Change

Workshop participants “experimenting”

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”

Tags: experiment, gratitude, Happiness, homework, making the world a better place, tasks

I have been coaching this client on and off for many years now.

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

Tags: case study, client cooperating, complaining, complaint, executive coaching, feeling heard, negative feedback, positive feedback, problem focus, problem talk, Solution Focus, solution talk, Spreafico, trust

In his latest book, Flourish, Martin Seligman introduces very few tools to improve well-being – most of the book is a very interesting and opinionated summary of the current status of Positive Psychology.

One of the few tools presented is called: “Active, Constructive Responding” – and it is yet another piece of evidence that Positive Psychologists are “re-inventing” well-established Solution-Focused practices.

Here I quote Seligman: ” Strangely, marriage counseling usually consists of teaching partners to fight better. This may turn an insufferable relationship into a barely tolerable one… How we respond can either build the relationship of undermine it. There are four basic ways of responding, only one of which builds relationships” – and then he proceeds by providing two examples of the four styles.

I will only use the first of his examples, and I will highlight questions that come straight from SF practice:

Example – your partner says: I received a promotion and a raise at work!

Active and Constructive Response: “That is great! I am so proud of you. I know how important that promotion was to you! Please relive the event with me now. Where were you when your boss told you? What did he say? How did you react? We should go out and celebrate!” Nonverbal: maintaining eye contact, displaying positive emotions

Passive and Constructive Response: “That is good news. You deserve it.” Nonverbal: little or no active emotional expression.

Active and Destructive Response: “That sounds like a lot of responsibility to take on. Are you going to spend fewer nights at home now?” Nonverbal: display of negative emotions.

Passive and Destructive: “What’s for dinner?” Nonverbal: little to no eye contact, leaving

[Note: Seligman credits Shelly Gable, Professor of Psychology at UC Santa Barbara, for  demonstrating that  how you celebrate is more predictive of strong relations than how you fight].

So… SF practitioners out there… do the highlighted questions ring a bell? ;)

I think we would be a little bit more natural in building an “Active & Constructive Response” to what Clients bring: Wow, I am so impressed!! How did you manage to get it? When did this happen? What did your boss say? And what did you say? Were there other people there? What did they say?…

Tags: Active & Constructive Responding, Affirming, Complimenting, positive psychology, Relationship Building, Relationship Questions, Seligman, Shelly Gable, Solution Focus

Explaining the kind of Coaching I practice can be very frustrating.

I believe the label ‘Solution-Focus’ does not help – but it is what we have.

So let me be clear: “solution-focused” (as opposed to “problem-focused”) does not mean we are problem-phobic, as Insoo Kim Berg herself said; it does not mean we wear rose-tinted glasses and we live in a Polyanna world.

It simply means we adhere to the empirical finding that analyzing problems does not make a difference when trying to solve people-problems, e.g. managing a difficult employee or making a behavioral change (as opposed to “mechanical” or “medical” problems, i.e. fixing the car or healing an infection).

Finding out why you act out some behaviors again and again can be very interesting – yet it does not help you change those behaviors.

Analyzing why your co-worker is so obnoxious can be very interesting – yet it does not bring you any closer to a solution of the problem you have when you work with her.

As a professional, of course you can engage in those conversations – while interesting, though, those conversations are not essential to help clients move forward. You can safely skip them without affecting the outcome, and with the added benefit of saving time.

OK, so the “solution-focused” methodology allows practitioners to cut to the chase and do only what is necessary to catalyze a successful outcome for clients. That is why in Solution-Focus the number of coaching sessions needed is typically 2, the number of therapy sessions needed is usually no more than 4. Again, it is no magic. It is economy of effort. Brief by definition.

So why don’t we drop the label “Solution-Focus” and just use “Brief-Coaching”?

That is what I often do. However, as soon as the conversation with a prospect gets started, you kind of need to qualify the word “brief”.

That is because, unfortunately, other approaches in therapy got to that word first: but they use it to convey a very different meaning.

For example, “Brief Psychodynamic Therapy” is  ”typically considered to be no more than 25 sessions (Bauer and Kobos, 1987). In the same page on the NIH website we read that “Crits-Christoph and Barber included models allowing up to 40 sessions.” (!!!)

When Psychodynamic Therapists talk about “Brief” they mean something of a different order of magnitude than what Solution-Focused Brief Therapists mean (40 vs. 4).

So we practice and teach “Brief Coaching”. But we often need to qualify it: “Solution-Focused Brief Coaching“.

Be Bold, Be Brief, Be Gone – Major Megan Malia-Leilani McClung, USMC

Tags: Brief, brief coaching, economy of effort, Insoo Kim Berg, Megan McClung, psychodynamic therapy, solution focused brief therapy, Solution-Focused Brief Coaching, what is essential