Solution Focused Practice Around the World [1 ed.] 9780367134358

Citation preview

“A rich compendium of ideas, tips and shared experiences from SF enthusiasts in Africa, Asia, Europe and North America. Great job!” Jenny Clarke – Director: SF Works, UK “Solution Focused Brief Therapy is no longer just the new kid on the block, it is shaping and influencing the way that services are delivered across the globe. This book Solution Focused Practice Around the World provides ample evidence of the positive change that the approach is making in a remarkably wide range of applications and settings. But in growing up Solution Focused Brief Therapy has lost none of its exuberance, its enthusiasm, its energy and its capacity to surprise. In reading Solution Focused Practice Around the World you will be moved and inspired and excited, you will be challenged, your ideas about the approach will be stretched and you will take away new perspectives, new ways of thinking that will influence the way that you go about your work.” Evan George – Founder and co-director BRIEF London www.brief.org.uk “For the first time, a World Conference took place in 2017, bringing together Solution Focused practitioners from all over the world. What an inspiring event! It was a lot of fun to do a workshop, together with colleagues, at this Conference in Frankfurt, and then, as part of this team, to write a chapter in this book. The various chapters you will find in this book describe the Solution Focused practice from different contexts (coaching, therapy and others) and from different perspectives (e.g. research, and others) and show how diverse and creative the Solution Focused approach is worked with around the world. Despite the diversity, a common ground remains: basic assumptions and common ideas, what constitutes Solution Focused practice. So you can look forward to reading this book, and to being presented with various considerations, insights and stories from many different Solution Focused practitioners. Enjoy it and have fun!” Ursula Buehlmann – Switzerland “As clinicians and SFBT tragics we want to know everything; from grassroots to cutting edge, clinical to coaching, individual or groups, theory and practice, local and overseas. Who’s doing what, and where? This book has got a bit of everything. It’s a long way from the Antipodes to Europe, and we are sorry that we can’t often be there in person, but we really want books like this to help us keep in touch with what’s happening around the world. The AASFBT is committed to, and supports, having the SF world keep in closer contact, and this book certainly helps, even for us at the other end of the globe.” David Hains and Emma Burns – President, Australia and Vice President, New Zealand of Australasian Association for Solution Focused Brief Therapy (AASFBT)

“Solution Focused Practice Around the World is an important contribution to all SF practioners worldwide. The edited book by Dierolf, Hogan, van der Hoorn and Wignaraja displays both depth and breath. Topic areas vary from applying SF principles to music, to working with refugee torture survivors. All practitioners, regardless of their discipline, can benefit from the creative applications of the SF model in this edited book.” Sara (Smock) Jordan, PhD, LMFT – Program Director and Associate Professor of Couple and Family Therapy, UNLV, Editor-in-chief of JSFBT “How wonderful it is to get all those Solution Focused people from all over the world together for sharing and honouring the precious legacy of our masters and of course developing the next generation point of views of the Solution Focused approach. The conference in Frankfurt was the historical gathering, which was bringing together for the first time all the people from the organizational world and social and health fields and my great pleasure was to be part of the organizing team. But first of all, the brilliant heart of the conference was Kirsten Dierolf! And how wonderful it is to have all that documented in this book. The chapters are helping to keep all the memories and learnings alive for us, who were there and even more important, gives the possibility for those people, who not yet participated our world conference. The book is a great collection of theoretical and practical approaches and so beautifully shows how rich the Solution Focused life in the world, is. Thank you to the excellent team for this highly professional and inspiring book. To the readers, many pleasure-filled moments with the harvest from our great conference!” Riitta Malkamäki – Finland “Are you interested in Solution Focused practice and research and especially the overlap between? Do you strive to attend conferences, benefit from and enjoy reading articles and books and sometimes have the feeling that you don´t have time to do it as much as you like: then this book is the perfect blend! At first glance, I felt that this is mainly for the professionals already with deep Solution Focused knowledge and skills. Then I read it all and concluded: this is a book that goes back to the roots of Solution Focus Brief Therapy and also captures and visualise the ongoing development. This book challenges your creative thinking! It is unusually varied and bravely out of the box in applying SF in a broad context and connects with different phenomena and theories. The authors are connecting SF with theoretical concepts like for example microanalysis, cognitive science and philosophy. Phenomena that are now state-of-the-art for many SF-researchers and practitioners. It puts SF in different settings like social work, leadership coaching, mediation and conflict in organizations, schools, family therapy, in different cultures, with refugees, in written communication and more. A main – and natural – focus is about SF-practitioners core capacities in solution building

by enhancing interaction and break problem focus, in one-to-one coaching as well as in groups and teams. Many of the chapters show the process of conversation very explicitly, with clever examples from real-life sessions as well as metaphors used in dialogue or to clarify the approach. The book describes Solution Focus as it is: Simple but not easy! Straight forward and deep in reflections. If you read one chapter a day you will have three weeks of interesting reading along the path! You´ll have Solution Focused in a nutshell, without having to read many books, articles or go to conferences – you have all served in one.” Sussan Öster – VITAL GoodSolution Sweden, Master of Social Science – Public Health, ICF Professional Certified Coach “Solution Focused Brief Therapy has its beginnings in the late 1970s [feeling deep gratitude towards Insoo Kim Berg and Steve de Shazer for this wonderful approach]. Like a slow virus, it came to Singapore only in the 21st century where formal training in this approach was made available with the establishment of the Academy of Solution Focused Training in 2004. An approach that is “simple to understand but hard to practice,” I first learnt it in 2013. To date, I am still learning to refine my practice with this approach. I recalled many moments when I didn’t get it right. Apart from my SF supervisors, there were few SF practitioners I could turn to in my early years of learning. I relied heavily on my imagination of Insoo saying, ‘It’s okay, just try again’ (a quote I picked up from hearing stories of Insoo from one of my earlier supervisors) as a way to pick myself up each time I feel frustrated with my learning progress. So one can easily imagine how excited I was when I participated in the first SF World Conference in 2017, met with and learnt from more than 300 SF practitioners all over the world at the conference. Solution Focused Practice Around the World is such a precious book, documenting an international collection of creative SF applications in a wide variety of contexts shared at the conference. May the ideas in this book continue to inspire and set off more sparkling SF moments for anyone passionate about this amazing approach in different corners of the world!” Lee Yi Ping – Master Certified Solution Focused Practitioner, Team Leader and Senior Youth Support Worker, Community Health Assessment Team (CHAT), Singapore

Solution Focused Practice Around the World

Solution Focused Practice Around the World provides an exploration of the diverse uses of SF and offers fascinating insights into how the Solution Focused approach is currently used in many applications around the globe. Bringing together prominent authors, practitioners and trainers, the collection is divided into five sections: theory; therapeutic applications; working with children and adolescents; coaching and working with organisations. Originating from the first international conference on Solution Focused practice spanning all applications of the approach, the chapters provide a grounding in the theory and practice, and an exploration of the breadth and depth of Solution Focused therapy. All practitioners of the Solution Focused approach globally as well as those working in the wider fields of therapy, social work, education, coaching and human resources will benefit from this text and the applicability of the inherent theories to their area of expertise. Kirsten Dierolf, M.A., MASFP, MCC is the Owner and Managing Director of Solutions Academy, an ICF accredited coach training academy. She coaches teams and executives and trains and mentors coaches all over the world. She masterminded the push for the first joint conference of the majority of Solution Focused associations in the world. Debbie Hogan, BS, MS, CSFT, CSFC, MSFP, PCC is the Owner and Managing Director of the Academy of Solution Focused Training. In private practice, she is a clinical supervisor, therapist and executive coach and trains and certifies therapists and coaches across Asia and the US. Svea van der Hoorn, D.Ed (Ed Psych), M.Ed (Ed Psych) cum laude, HDE (P-G) Primary, Solution Focused Brief Coaching ACTP, ICF-MCC offers activity-based experiential Adult Education for therapists, counsellors, coaches and leaders – onsite and online. She is an explorer of border territories, for example between SF Brief therapy and SF Brief coaching, between SF Brief Coaching and the International Coach Federation’s core competencies. She uses a variety of exploration and research methods, including micro-analysis. She works independently, collaboratively and on contract. Sukanya Wignaraja, M.Sc. (Oxon), CSFT, PCC is a Solution Focused Therapist and Coach in private practice in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Solution Focused Practice Around the World

Edited by Kirsten Dierolf, Debbie Hogan, Svea van der Hoorn and Sukanya Wignaraja

First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 selection and editorial matter, Kirsten Dierolf, Debbie Hogan, Svea van der Hoorn and Sukanya Wignaraja; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Kirsten Dierolf, Debbie Hogan, Svea van der Hoorn and Sukanya Wignaraja to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Dierolf, Kirsten, editor. | Hogan, Debbie, editor. | Van der Hoorn, Svea, editor. | Wignaraja, Sukanya, editor. Title: Solution focused practice around the world / edited by Kirsten Dierolf, Debbie Hogan, Svea van der Hoorn and Sukanya Wignaraja. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020014071 (print) | LCCN 2020014072 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367134358 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367134341 (paperback) | ISBN 9780429026454 (ebook) Subjects: MESH: Psychotherapy, Brief–methods | Professional-Family Relations | Internationality Classification: LCC RC480.5 (print) | LCC RC480.5 (ebook) | NLM WM 420.5.P5 | DDC 616.89/14–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020014071 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020014072 ISBN: 978-0-367-13435-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-13434-1 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-02645-4 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Swales & Willis, Exeter, Devon, UK

Dedications

Kirsten Dierolf To the global community of Solution Focused practitioners: for the friendship, the quarrels, the silliness of cabarets and the deep thinking about philosophy, the warmth, the passion for doing what’s right. Especially to the three women who I had the pleasure to work with on this project: your wisdom, sense of humour and your ability to simply roll up your sleeves and get things done! Debbie Hogan To my husband, Dave who is my partner in life and business, who has always been my best supporter. To Insoo Kim Berg, who believed in me and pushed me to keep going, when I wanted to give up and who continues to be a strong presence in my life. To Breda, my precious daughter, with whom I was smitten the first moment I saw her and continue to be in awe of who she is. And to Kirsten Dierolf, my dear friend, who inspires me and challenges me to stretch and reach beyond. Svea van der Hoorn “In the depths of winter, I finally learned, there lay within me, an invincible summer. And that makes me happy. For it says that no matter how hard the world pushes against me, within me, there’s something stronger – something better, pushing right back.” – Albert Camus (n.d.). Retrieved August 28, 2019, from

BrainyQuote.com W eb site: www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ albert_camus_104177 To Steve de Shazer – for penning Minimal Elegance – which I stumbled across while searching for family therapy literature for students in 1989. In those moments, everything changed – my 30-year journey with SF Brief began, and still continues. To Evan George – not only a wordsmith but a word-alchemist – bringing a curious mind and generous spirit to the intricacies and magic of conversations. Listening to the stream of words flowing across everyday life, with reverence. And to the editing team – thank you – what a pleasure, despite the hard work it took. Sukanya Wignaraja To my late father Tapan Raychaudhuri, historian and thinker extraordinaire, who would have been proud to see his daughter be part of this amazing book project; to my husband Ganeshan, who is forever pushing me to do more (and has finally succeeded!); and to my mentor and friend Debbie Hogan who has taught me everything I know about SF.

Contents

Preface Editors’ Biographies Contributors’ Biographies Introduction to “utilising the everyday in SF practice” 1 Listen to the music

xiv xvi xix xxvi 1

GUY SHENNAN, SANDER VAN GOOR AND JONAS WELLS

2 Music as unifying language for a co-creative process: A community art project with a street piano illustrates the Solution Focused approach

9

CHRISTIAAN VAN WOERDEN

3 Developing Solution Focused games

14

IAN SMITH

4 How to use text messages as a dialogue tool in Solution Focused conversations

25

ANNE-MARIE WULF

5 Sharing experiences in a Solution Focused way: Reflections and learnings from the first two EBTA summer camps

36

NAOMI WHITEHEAD, DR URSULA BUEHLMANN, PETER SUNDMAN, JOHN WHEELER AND DR FERDINAND WOLF

6 Introduction to Solution Focused theory KIRSTEN DIEROLF

48

xii

Contents

7 Stretching the world: A friendly explanation of SF practice

50

MARK MCKERGOW

8 Recursive Frame Analysis (RFA) as a research tool for mapping professional helping conversations

57

LEOŠ ZATLOUKAL AND EDITA BEZDIČKOVÁ

9 The extended iSelf

71

ESTHER DE WOLF AND GUY SHENNAN

10 Narrow and wide ways of solution-growing

80

LEOŠ ZATLOUKAL AND LENKA TKADLČÍKOVÁ

11 Solution Focused markers in programmes for youths

91

JOE CHAN

12 Introduction to SF in organizations

98

SVEA VAN DER HOORN

13 Clean Space and Solution Focus

100

FANIA PALLIKARAKIS, KLAUS SCHENCK, TIM NEWTON AND SANDRA COLLIN

14 Meta for solutions: How metaphors are simply unavoidable when focusing solutions

108

KLAUS SCHENCK

15 Being and doing SF as an organisational coach

115

SUSANNE BURGSTALLER

16 How a Solution Focused approach helps a CEO

127

JULIA KALENBERG

17 Solution Focused work with conflicts: The know and how of Solution Focused mediation

134

MARTINA SCHEINECKER, PETER RÖHRIG AND SIEDS RIENKS WITH LEO BLOKLAND

18 Room the bloom: Let’s have the right meetings! Meeting culture development in brief ENIKŐ TEGYI AND ÁRON LEVENDEL

144

Contents

19 Solution Focused therapy

xiii

152

SUKANYA WIGNARAJA

20 On Metamorphoses: Three different questions, or variations on a theme

154

BOYAN STRAHILOV AND PLAMEN PANAYOTOV

21 The Thesaurus of useful explanations

160

PLAMEN PANAYOTOV

22 Short-term Solution Focused group intervention for refugee torture survivors

171

STEPHEN M. LANGER AND DRAGANA KNEZIĆ

23 Solution building with children

179

PAMELA K. KING

Index

188

Preface

“Solution Focus around the world” is the result of the collaboration of many SF practitioners. The chapters in this book were presented as workshops or talks at the first global conference on Solution Focused practice organised by a collaboration of the majority of SF associations worldwide: SOLworld (Solutions in Organisations Linkup), EBTA (European Brief Therapy Association), SFBTA (Solution Focused Brief Therapy Association), UKASFP (United Kingdom Association for Solution Focused Practice), ASFP (Association for Solution Focused Practitioners), Svenska Föreningen för Lösningsfokuserad Korttidsterapi (Swedish organization för SF Brief Therapy), Ratkes (Finnish Organization for SF Practice), NLA (Network for SF Practice, Switzerland),ASFP-I (Association for Solution Focused Practices – India), SolworldCEE (Central European SOLworld), SolworldDACH (German Language SOLworld), SFCT (Association for the quality development of Solution Focused consulting and training), OSTA (Latvian Association), AASFBT (Australasian Association for Solution Focused Brief Therapy), ASFIO (Association for Solution Focus in Organisations), ASC (Austrian Solution Circle). The organizing team representing these associations was: Kirsten Dierolf, Anne-Marie Wulf, Monica Rotner, Jen Unwin, Elliott Connie, Jonas Wells, Riitta Malkamaki, Kati Hankovszky, and Jaseem Koorankot. The conference took place in Bad Soden, Germany, on 22 to 24 September 2017 with 350 participants from over 30 countries including all continents, except Antarctica, with over 20 scholarships awarded to people who could otherwise not afford being there. It aimed at bringing together Solution Focused practitioners from all over the world and from all applications of Solution Focus: therapy, organizational work, education, social work, etc. We wanted to be as inclusive of all SF practitioners and their organisations and networks as possible to facilitate learning, exchange, mutual support, and the further development of Solution Focused practice all over the world, to honour the SF roots in Milwaukee and envision together what the future is bringing to us. From our participants’ joyful descriptions of their sparkling

Preface

xv

moments (http://sfworldconference.org/mysparklingmoments/) you can see that we seem to have succeeded. I first envisioned this conference late in 2014, in one of these moments when the thought “shouldn’t one be able to …” leads to lots of conversations, a lot of work and then finally success. The SOLworld steering group was the first to officially endorse the endeavour of creating a joint conference of as many associations as possible. Soon EBTA joined and my idea was met with great enthusiasm from all the associations who were involved. The organizing group represented the diversity of areas and practice and nationalities. I have seldom encountered a richer collaboration than in this group of like-minded, yet diverse SF practitioners. I am forever grateful for this experience. In this book, I hope you can relive (if you were there) or experience (if you weren’t) the inclusive, creative, energizing spirit of the conference: you learn about utilizing the everyday in SF practice, about theory, about applications of SF in organizations and in therapy. The diversity of our authors reflects the diversity of the conference: authors from Europe, Asia, Africa and North America. Reading this book will give you a full experience of what Solution Focused practice can do. Even if you are only working in one area, you will broaden your perspective and deepen your knowledge. SF practitioners and anyone who is interested in SF practice can gain a wonderful overview of what is possible when you are using this approach. This book would not have been possible without the diligent work, creativity, ingenuity and intelligence of the editing team and the contributors of the chapters. A special thank you belongs to Caitlin Bower, our editor and proofreader extraordinaire from Cape Town, South Africa. I want to express my heartfelt thanks to all who made this possible! Kirsten Dierolf

Editors’ Biographies

Kirsten Dierolf Dierolf is a theologian and linguist by training which explains both her stubborn insistence on logic (consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds) and passion for creative uses of language. She started her Solution Focused journey when she acted as translator for Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg in numerous workshops during the years 2001 to 2007. She continued with SF coach training and helped found the first formal association for SF in organization and acted as its president for eight years. She co-founded and co-edited the first peer-reviewed journal for SF in organizations, which was published from 2008 to 2016. Kirsten authored the book “Solution Focused Team Coaching” in 2013 and many articles on the use of SF in organizations. She is a Master Solution Focused Practitioner (IASTI) and just received her accreditation by the UKASFP. She is the owner and managing director of SolutionsAcademy, a coach training school with programs accredited by the International Coach Federation. Kirsten herself was awarded the credential “Master Certified Coach” by the ICF in 2016. She spends her time training coaches, coaching executives and teams and providing mentoring and supervision to fellow coaches. Kirsten is based in Frankfurt, Germany and works globally via online conference calls and by spending too much time in airplanes. Debbie Hogan Debbie Hogan has been in the mental health field for over 30 years, the first seven years in psychiatric mental health in the US and is now in private practice in Singapore. Feeling burned out and ineffective, she began a search to help her find energy and creativity in her therapy work. In 1995 she was introduced to Solution Focused Brief Therapy in a counsellor’s support group and decided that she wanted to pursue this at the Brief Family Therapy Center. To her delight, Insoo Kim Berg and Steve de Shazer came to Singapore in 1999 and she enrolled in the inaugural Graduate Diploma in Solution Focused Brief Therapy. Debbie started the Academy of Solution Focused Training in 2004, committed to the teaching and development of Solution Focused Practice in Asia. Her

Editors’ Biographies

xvii

therapy training is accredited by the International Alliance of Solution Focused Teaching Institutes (IASTI) and the Canadian Council of Professional Certification (CCPC). In 2017, the seminal book, Solution Focused Practice in Asia, co-edited by Debbie Hogan, Dave Hogan, Jane Tuomola and Alan Yeo was published. She is also a contributor to Encounters with Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg, and The Art of Solution Focused Therapy. Debbie, who is also an executive coach, runs an Accredited Coach Training School with the International Coach Federation. Through the Academy, hundreds of therapists and coaches have been trained in Solution Focused Practice across Asia and the US. Debbie is a Registered Clinical Member and Registered Clinical Supervisor with the Singapore Association for Counseling. She has a Masters in Counseling, is a Certified Solution Focused Therapist and Coach (CCPC), Master Solution Focused Practitioner (IASTI) and Professional Certified Coach (ICF). Svea van der Hoorn is a word-smith by passion who works with people to co-construct environments where constructive conversations can grow and flourish. She is committed to working with people facing hardship, uncertainty and complexity, who may have good reasons to be low in hope that change is possible or likely. She is known for “words are everywhere. We use them all day. How we use our words, to what benefit or harm to self and others, is a choice. Let’s forge conversations with audacious, compassionate ingenuity”. Svea draws on her expertise in Educational Psychology (D.Ed Ed Psych – Adult Education and Eco-systemic Thinking), in qualitative research and evaluation (trainer, supervisor, independent consultant), in Professional Coaching (ICF-MCC) and in Solution Focused Brief Practice (trainer, supervisor, practitioner, materials developer). Svea’s experience with the intricate web surrounding mental illness, mental health and living a worthwhile, constructive, contributing life is honed by her work in primary, higher and special education, private, organisational and community-based practice, senior management in labour law dispute resolution, as well as living in the diversity arising from multi-lingual, multi-national and multi-generational environments. Svea is intrigued by the counter-intuitive, and perplexed by the wellintentioned policies and practices in workplaces that act counterintuitively to create and maintain stuckness. She seeks to partner people in identifying the smallest word-tweaking changes that they can experiment with under current conditions, so as to create rippling benefits. Audacious ingenuity and ruthless compassion are her resource companions when facing hardship and opportunity. She is based in Cape Town South Africa, working locally and in the online international space.

xviii

Editors’ Biographies

Sukanya Wignaraja is a Certified Solution Focused Therapist and Coach. Of Indian origin, she has lived and worked in the UK, the Philippines and Japan. Sukanya did her Masters in Social Work from Oxford University in the UK. She worked in London in mental health services in a variety of settings ranging from community teams, hospitals and prisons. From 2003 to 2004, Sukanya was the Social Work Advisor in a Specialist Advisors Unit at the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, advising British consular services around the world on handling psychiatric cases. In the Philippines and in Japan, Sukanya worked for mental health NGOs where she practised as an SF therapist, seeing clients from different countries and backgrounds presenting with a range of clinical issues and also conducted training programmes for volunteer phone counsellors. Sukanya is accredited by the International Coach Federation as a Professional Certified Coach. Since 2017, Sukanya has been based In Sri Lanka, where she is in private practice as a therapist and also conducts training for companies.

Contributors’ Biographies

Edita Bezdicˇková received a master’s degree in Comparative Psychotherapeutic Studies and a master’s degree in Sociology at the Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic. She is currently coordinating a training institute Narativ, which focuses on introducing Collaborative and Dialogical practices to the Czech Republic and is a strong supporter of the development of the Peer Support Movement. She is currently training to become a Solution Focused Supervisor. She trained at the Dalet Institute and is a certified member of the Czech Psychotherapeutic Association, a certified Reteaming Coach and Kids Skills Coach. She has participated in the foundational training in Open Dialogue approach and holds the International Certificate in Collaborative Practices. She currently works in Berlin, Germany as a social worker in supported housing and as a therapist in private practice. Ursula Buehlmann-Staehli is an FMH specialist in child and youth psychiatry and psychotherapy in Bern, Switzerland. She has qualifications in Solution Focused Brief Therapy, Creative Children’s Therapy, hypnotherapy and Traditional Chinese Medicine. She is a licensed supervisor, coach and trainer, as well as the cofounder of creathera.ch. She is the Vice President of the European Brief Therapy Association EBTA. Susanne Burgstaller is a Solution Focused organizational coach, consultant, team developer and the founder of usolvit consultants GmbH (www.usolvit.com). She has been working in the areas of organizational and HR development for the last 30 years, both as a manager and independent consultant. She has published a book – Solution Focus in Organizations. Leading and consulting from the Future (Carl-Auer, 2015) together with 20 co-authors from the international Solution Focused community. Susanne Burgstaller coaches organizations in the business and public sectors, working internationally from her base in Vienna/Austria. She has gained extensive experience in working with complex organizations and their stakeholders. She coaches executives and boards on transformational change, strategy, collaboration, innovation, organizational design and culture, and facilitates leadership and transformation journeys. Her current focus of research is on fostering

xx

Contributors’ Biographies

enterprise agility, establishing collaborative cultures and adaptive leadership and talent development. Joe Chan is the Head of Youth Service, REACH Community Services Society. He is a Professional Certified Coach (PCC) and Master Solution Focused Practitioner (IASTI). As a youth worker for the past 15 years at REACH Community Services Society (RCSS) in Singapore, he specialises in working with troubled youths and their families. He experienced the challenges and thrills of youth work starting as a case worker in overseeing individuals, families and youth programmes in the community. Currently, he is heading the Youth Service of RCSS, providing comprehensive youth programmes and services through sports, arts, counselling and casework serving various youth clientele groups from voluntary, community to mandatory clients in the community. Joe also provides supervision and coaching to his staff team of 15 while providing strategic directions to the growing service. Sandra Collin is a Yoga teacher in the Netherlands with international experience, specialising in Yin and Restorative approaches to yoga. She is developing new ways to integrate yoga with coaching through Solution Focused Practice, Clean Space and creative and nature-based approaches. Esther de Wolf, MSc, Solution Focused Concepts, Netherlands, is a Solution Focused psychotherapist and works in a private practice in Amsterdam. She trains professionals in Solution Focused practice in the mental health care, education and medical fields. Esther has been Chair of the Dutch Association of Solution Focused Professionals since 2015. Julia Kalenberg, Member of BPW Business and Professional Women and SOLWorld, holds a business degree in business management. After having worked in an international direct selling company, she founded her own company in 1997. There, she specialises in leadership and sales, facilitates workshops and offers coaching for teams and individuals and mental training for athletes. She also delivers leadership training and mental training for entrepreneurs at the KMU-HSG University of Sankt Gallen. She is a sought-after speaker; her favourite topic is “mental strength – my mind makes the difference”. Julia is fascinated how our mental focus influences our level of satisfaction, our motivation, our performance and last, but not least, our relations with others. Julia’s clients appreciate her practical approach, her consistency, her constant search for small steps and her wide experience in different industries. They say she walks her talk. Pamela K. King, LMFT, is an enthusiastic and experienced Solution Focused practitioner, international speaker, author and trainer. She has over 25 years of experience in numerous settings, including domestic violence treatment programs, public schools, as adjunct university faculty and in private practice. Ms. King designed and implemented innovative Solution Focused play therapy treatment programs with children and families; she has specialised training in play therapy,

Contributors’ Biographies

xxi

trauma, family violence and child development. Ms. King earned a bachelor’s degree in Theatre Arts and a master’s degree in Family and Human Development from Utah State University. She is the author of Tools for Effective Therapy with Children and Families: A Solution-Focused Approach, published by Routledge. She is the 2017 recipient of the Steve de Shazer Memorial Award for Innovations in Solution Focused Brief Therapy. Dragana Knezić , MA psychologist, works in the non-profit Rehabilitation Centre for Stress and Trauma (RCT), Zagreb, Croatia as program coordinator, psychologist and human rights activist. RCT is a member organization of International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Survivors – IRCT. She studied psychology at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy and started training in SFBT in 2016 at Northwest Brief Therapy Training Center, Olympia, Washington, USA. Stephen M. Langer, PhD, clinical psychologist, is in private practice and is Director of Northwest Brief Therapy Training Centre, Olympia, Washington, USA. Since the 1980s, he has worked in a wide variety of settings as a clinician, consultant and trainer/presenter using Solution Focused Brief Therapy. He is on the SFBTA Research Committee, and recently finished his term as President of SFBTA. He contributed a chapter “SFBT with Survivors of War and International Conflict” to a book published by Oxford University Press in 2018 titled: SFBT with Clients Managing Trauma. Áron Levendel, PCC, MBA, is a coach, trainer, entrepreneur, member of the SolutionSurfers network, co-founder and managing partner of KAPTÁR coworking office in Budapest, and freelance organization development consultant. Mark McKergow, PhD, MBA, is director of the Centre for Solutions Focus at Work (sfwork). He is a global pioneer in applying SF ideas in management and organizational settings and is a thought leader in the philosophy of SF work and speaks worldwide at conferences and trainings. He has written/edited four books and dozens of peer reviewed articles over the past two decades. From 2013 to 2017, he led the HESIAN research hub on enactive and Solution Focused ideas at the University of Hertfordshire, was closely involved in setting up both SOLWorld and SFCT. He was an editor of the peer-reviewed journal InterAction from 2009-2016. Mark is currently based in Edinburgh, Scotland, and is a member of SFIO, the European Brief Therapy Association, the Edinburgh Solutions Group, and the UK Association for SF Practice. Tim Newton, MSW, is an interim manager and consultant with local authority children and adult services, and a registered social worker in the UK. He has been involved – intermittently – with Solution Focused Practice for many years, and is now on the Board of Directors of the United Kingdom Association for Solution Focused Practice.

xxii

Contributors’ Biographies

Fania Pallikarakis is an SF Coach and HR professional. With a background in communication, she uses SF to ease soft skills development within SMEs and start-ups. She is often active in the technology field. Plamen Panayotov is a psychiatrist, working as Chief Physician at the Day Clinic of Rousse Mental Health Centre, Bulgaria. He is Chairman of the Board of Solutions Brief Therapy and Counseling Centre Rousse, a non-governmental, not-for-profit organization, running a number of social services for people with mental problems and addictions – protected home, day center, social rehabilitation and integration center and social firm. The Centre spreads SF ideas in diverse social areas. Plamen teaches Solution Focused Brief Therapy at Angel Kanchev Rousse University, and Conversations Led by Clients (formerly Simple Therapy) at the Bucharest University, and in private courses. As a student of Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg, he is a fan of doing more with less. Lately, however, he tries to go Zen – doing almost everything with almost nothing. Sieds Rienks and Leo Blokland work together. Leo is a very experienced lawyer and formerly CEO of Hospitals and Residential Care. Sieds is psychologist and former director and manager of Institutes and Hospitals in Care and Commerce. They mostly operate as a duo, and they use all the disciplines in which they are experienced. Peter Röhrig is a former manager and whole-heartedly supports leaders and organizations in challenging situations. He is an experienced international speaker and works as an organizational consultant, mediator and coach, co-founder and partner of ConsultContor in Cologne. He is a lecturer at different universities in Germany, Switzerland and Luxemburg and editor of “Solution Tools”, a bestselling handbook for Solution Focused work with organizations and teams. Martina Scheinecker is an experienced consultant for conflict management, mediation, organizational and leader’s development. She is also trainer for conflict management and mediation. She is an Executive Partner of TRIGON Development Consultants Vienna, university lecturer, author of articles in books and journals concerning Solution Focused conflict management. Klaus Schenck, PhD, is a regular contributor to the SOLWorld discourse and has attended most of their conferences since 2003. All his professional activities have been inspired by the practice and the attitude of Solution Focus since he first met Insoo Kim Berg in 2001. He works as a management coach, project management improvement expert, psychotherapy practitioner, agile facilitator, conflict mediator, teaching level certified “systemic consultant”, academic lecturer for a range of management topics – and as occasional photographer at SOLworld events. Guy Shennan, MA, Solution Focused practitioner and trainer, amateur philosopher and music listener. Having been part of a musical duo with Jonas Wells, he is delighted to be extending this to a trio with Sander. Guy’s favourite Solution

Contributors’ Biographies

xxiii

Focused song at the time of writing is “Feeling Good Is Good Enough” by Matthew E. White. He is an independent consultant, who practises, teaches and writes about the Solution Focused approach. For his MA in philosophy, Guy’s dissertation concerned implications of embodied and extended cognition for personal identity. Since then, Guy has been considering the implications for Solution Focused brief therapy. Guy is a co-founder of the Solution Focused Collective, which is developing ideas for using Solution Focused practice in the interests of social change. Ian Smith is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist and the Research Director of the Clinical Psychology Training Doctorate at Lancaster University, UK. He specialises in using and teaching Solution Focused approaches and has a special interest in game-based methods of learning and teaching. He has taught workshops on Solution Focused working and on learning and teaching across the UK, in Europe and in South America. He was the editor of Solution News (the newsletter of the UK Association for Solution Focused Practice) between 2006 and 2009. Peter Sundman, BA, is a social worker, clinical supervisor, coach, licensed Solution Focused psychotherapy trainer, consultant, coordinator of the TaitoBa House Solution Focused network. Boyan Strahilov is a psychologist with more than 30 years of experience in therapy. He is one of the pioneers developing the Solution Focused approach in Bulgaria. He is also the founder of PIK Center (1999) – the Solution Focused home where his primary activities are training, counselling and therapy. Boyan has experience as an HR manager and consultant. In 2010, he established the first EAP service in Bulgaria. Nowadays he works as a coach, therapist, trainer and consultant applying the Solution Focus approach at PIK Center. Together with his colleague and friend Plamen Panayotov, Boyan works on their latest ideas of helping people – QUQu (Questioning of Useful Questions) and CoLeC (Conversations Led by Client). He also develops client-oriented forms of SF online and telephone counselling in Bulgaria. In his free time, he likes travelling and fishing. Enikő Tegyi PCC, MA, MBA coach, consultant, coach trainer. Her special field is building self-organising, resilient teams. She uses brief coaching extensively in organisation-wide culture development and resilience programs. She is also the leader of the Brief Coaching in Organizations program in Budapest. Enikő is an author and guest lecturer on Solution Focus at Budapest universities. Lenka Tkadlcˇíková teaches at CARITAS – College of Social Work Olomouc and gives lectures at Palacký University in Olomouc. She studied Arts and Philology and thus specialises in expressive therapies, namely music therapy and drama therapy. She graduated from the long-term training in Solution Focused therapy in Dalet, Olomouc, with which she cooperates.

xxiv

Contributors’ Biographies

Sander van Goor, BA is a Solution Focused music therapist and studied at the Korzybski Institute in Bruges. He is developing Solution Focused music therapy, Safe and Sound, for working with trauma. Listening to music with clients is an important part of his work. Sander’s favourite Solution Focused song at the moment is “Trouble You Can’t Fool Me” by Ry Cooder. Christiaan van Woerden, MD PhD, is a Dutch paediatrician, trained in Solution Focused Brief Therapy by Esther de Wolf, Yvonne Dolan and Anne BodmerLutz. He completed his medical training at the University of Amsterdam, and worked in the Netherlands, England, Dutch Caribbean and South Africa. During his PhD research, entitled “Primary Hyperoxaluria type 1: clinical, genetic and biochemical studies”, he discovered that vitamin B6 can cure a liver disease that otherwise destructs the kidneys in patients with a specific gene mutation. Christiaan enjoys how children and their families use their wisdom and skills to promote health, ultimately involving their doctor in an exploration of their preferred future. He combines the medical and Solution Focused approach in clinical practice (Red Cross Children’s Hospital), medical education and consultation research (University of Cape Town and Global Child Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centers). Christiaan sings in the choir Vox Cape Town and plays the piano wherever he can. Jonas Wells, BA, Swedish National Network of Coordination Agencies, Sweden. Jonas is in love with music, Solution Focus and coordination in the public sector. He works in Sweden as a Solution Focused trainer and manager of a Coordination Agency. He also curates the Solution Focus playlist on Spotify and his favourite Solution Focused song at the moment is Junip’s “Walking Lightly”. John Wheeler, MA, is a UKCP Registered Systemic Psychotherapist. He is a full member of Solution Focus in Organizations and a Member of Board for European Brief Therapy Association. John is a past President of International Alliance of Solution Focused Training Institutes, a member of the Editorial Board for Journal for Solution Focused Brief Therapy and the Head of Centre for Solution Focused Trainers. He is also an external lecturer with Newcastle University. Naomi Whitehead BA, ILM trained. She is the owner of Naomi Whitehead Training, an associate trainer, therapist, coach and consultant for Solution Focus Sheffield and Solution Focused Trainers. Naomi has a Certificate in Solution Focused Practice and Counselling. She is a member of the United Kingdom Association of Solution Focused Practice, a member of the European Brief Therapy Association, International Cooperation Task Group and Solution Focus in Organizations. Ferdinand Wolf is a clinical psychologist, systemic Solution Focused psychotherapist in private practice, licensed systemic Solution Focused psychotherapy trainer, as well as a supervisor and coach.

Contributors’ Biographies

xxv

Anne-Marie Wulf is an independent social worker and family therapist and a Master of Education Development. She is a well-known and experienced coach, trainer and supervisor in Solution Focused Brief Therapy and established Solutionsbywulf in 2009 where she offers activities in the social field. In 2016, she founded the Danish Solution Focused Institute, which provides a three-year training program as Master Solution Focused Practitioner accredited by International Alliance of Solution Focused Teaching Institutes (IASTI). She is cofounder of the Danish SF-blog, Danish network of Solution Focused Practitioners (Facebook), and board member of both EBTA and IASTI. Leoš Zatloukal received a PhD in clinical psychology at Palacký University in Olomouc and PhD in Social Work at the University of Ostrava. He is a co-creator of training institute Dalet, the first and the largest training institute in Solution Focused therapy, Solution Focused supervision and Solution Focused coaching in the Czech Republic. He is a trainer in the fields mentioned above and he had long-term training in psychotherapy (710h, ISZ Praha), Brief Coaching (120h, SolutionSurfers), Reteaming (Ben Furman) and more. He works as a therapist, coach and supervisor in private practice and as a researcher and staff-member at Palacký University in Olomouc.

Introduction to “utilising the everyday in SF practice” Debbie Hogan

This section highlights one of the unique features of Solution Focused Practice: it is adaptable in many contexts and its’ isomorphic quality allows practitioners to utilise various aspects in their everyday experiences. This book and the wider literature provides many examples that Solution Focused Practice has been successfully applied in therapy, coaching, supervision, consulting, organisational development, schools and residential treatment facilities against a wide range of issues. Five chapters in this section offer the reader a glimpse into the creative applications of Solution Focused thinking in utilizing music, facilitating games, in text messaging and participation at EBTA summer camps. A common question that often emerges for those learning Solution Focused Brief Therapy is the curiosity in knowing “Does it work?” in certain contexts or situations. Perhaps a more relevant question is “How does it work?” in different contexts and situations. Perhaps, as a reader, you have wondered about how to use a Solution Focused approach in your every practice or perhaps in a new area you are exploring. I invite the reader to utilise their curiosity as they read this section to discover new and creative ways in which they might utilise their everyday practice and infuse it with a Solution Focused approach. Perhaps you may find yourself discovering a new way in which SF can be utilised in the everyday. Guy Shennan, Sander van Goor and Jonas Wells’ chapter, “Listen to the Music”, describes the universal appeal of music and its benefits and how it can create a mood or facilitate learning. They describe their process in facilitating the use of music in a workshop and its impact on the participants. And, finally, we can enjoy and reflect on the various aspects of the Solution Focused approach by listening to the Spotify Solution Focused playlist with 676 songs, created by Jonas Wells! Christiaan van Woerden, a paediatrician, shares a touching story in “Music as a unifying language for a co-creative process.” He was recruited to build a hospital service for children on a small island in the Caribbean, a fragmented community that struggled with poverty and socio-political tensions. As a classical pianist, Christiaan was convinced to ship his piano to the

Introduction to “utilising the everyday in SF practice”

xxvii

island. By utilising music as a unifying language and creating a preferred future, the community experienced hope and healing. Ian Smith’s chapter, “Developing Solution Focused Games” explores how games can be well-suited to facilitate change in a therapeutic setting or in facilitating learning in other group contexts. Through the various stages of learning the Solution Focused approach, he offers suggestions and ideas of various games to enhance the learning process. Modern technology has given us the capability to expand the ways in which we connect and communicate. Anne-Marie Wulf in “How to use text messages as a dialogue tool in Solution Focused conversations” utilises this everyday experience with her clients. Through the lens of Microanalysis, she discusses how text messages can be a medium for solution talk by being aware of choices we make in what we text and how those choices are very significant in Solution Focused Practice. The final chapter by Naomi Whitehead, Ursula Buehlmann, Peter Sundman, John Wheeler and Ferdinand Wolf on “Shared experiences in a Solution Focused Way” are reflections and learnings from the first two EBTA Summer Camps. The idea of the camps was in response to a question about how can the younger generation learn from the older generation. Through the everyday activities of being together, cooking, discussing and getting to know each other, the summer camp experiences were viewed as an important process in the development of a Solution Focused community and transfer of learning. We hope the reader is inspired and enriched by the experiences of these authors. And perhaps lead to more expanded ways in which your experience in the every can be utilised even further in a Solution Focused way.

Chapter 1

Listen to the music Guy Shennan, Sander van Goor and Jonas Wells

Overture Music is often used as a beginning. The overture was originally the instrumental introduction to an opera, while in the cinema the term refers to a piece of music setting the mood for a film before its opening credits roll. National anthems are played before sporting contests, and fanfares introduce important people or events. However, it is less common for music to be used at the start of a piece of writing, especially an academic one, so this opening paragraph stood out: We begin with a musical reference, an unusual academic practice perhaps, but a helpful starting point in our thinking to try and “capture” a mood or a sentiment, within which our subsequent analysis emerges. “Downpressor man”, written by Peter Tosh of Bob Marley and the Wailers, depicts elites who oppress and exploit people, but who will one day suffer for their actions … (McKendrick & Finch, 2017, p. 287) The mood these authors wanted to capture is one that fitted their concerns about social workers being drawn into a “security safeguarding” role within a national counterterrorism policy, and if you were to listen to the Peter Tosh song, you might well think they succeeded. We also want to capture a mood, though a very different one. This article is, in part, a celebration of the use of music in Solution Focused practice, and its authors are all helping professionals, of different kinds, who use this positive approach. So which song might we begin with, to provide the right sort of setting for what we wish to convey? We have chosen “I Can Help” by Billy Swan, as it provides a positive counterpoint to the potentially oppressive role a social worker might play, signified by the Peter Tosh song. There is also a disarming simplicity in Swan’s straightforward offer – “If you need a hand, I can assure you this, I can help” – that also fits the Solution Focused approach. We have used music to help create a desired atmosphere in various contexts in which we work, including training

2

Guy Shennan et al.

courses and conferences, and we began our workshop at the 2017 Frankfurt conference with “Take It Up” by the band World Party, which we hoped would be an uplifting song for people to listen to as they arrived. We invite you, too, to consider what music might fit the beginnings of the various pieces of work you are engaged in.

Introduction Playing music to begin is just one of many ways in which music can be used as a therapeutic or educational resource. It can have either a central role, as in music therapy (Wigram, Pedersen, & Bonde, 2002), or be more of an adjunct, for example, in the ways songs can be used within a Solution Focused approach (Shennan & Wells, 2014). In this chapter we are going to focus on listening to music and how this can benefit the different types of work that we do. We will argue that everyone has musical ability, which can be brought to their music listening, and that this ability is a resource we can utilise with clients or in our training. Listening to music can help us listen to our clients, whom it can also help in their everyday lives. For listening to music can have beneficial effects, as we will see, and we will show how these effects can be amplified by bringing music and conversation together, as we did in the first of our two exercises in Frankfurt. Our second exercise involved listening together in a group, which can be a powerful experience, and on which we will share some thoughts. This exercise also acted as an experiment in relation to music being played to accompany another activity, in this case reflection on a given question. We will discuss some of the results of this experiment and connect this with related uses of music as a means of “accelerated learning” (Smith, 1998). We will end with some more music, sharing a useful resource comprising a collection of Solution Focused songs, and selecting one song to bid you, the reader, farewell.

Musical ability If you can walk you can dance, if you can talk you can sing. (Zimbabwean proverb)

When we talk about musical ability, we are usually referring to making music, through playing an instrument or singing. People who think they are not musical often say things like, “I cannot keep to the rhythm” or “When I sing, I’m completely out of tune”. If you say things like this, we want to congratulate you on your musical ability. You are able to hear, feel and recognise that the rhythm you are playing is different, or that the tone is out of tune, and musical perception is another aspect of our ability. Not keeping time or being out of tune can happen from a lack of practice, or practising

Listen to the music

3

in a way that is not right for you, and the fact that most people recognise rhythm and melody shows that we are all musical beings. In fact, only 4% of people in Western Europe and North America have significant problems in recognising and processing melody and rhythm (Honing, 2009). This minority is said to have amusia, a musical disorder that appears mainly as a defect in processing pitch, though it also encompasses musical memory and recognition (Pearce, 2005).

Benefits of listening to music Our abilities in perceiving music are helpful to us, as research tells us that music has an influence on our brains, both when we make music and when we listen to it (Croom, 2012). You do not have to be a musician to listen to music. We are all experts in listening to music even without any conscious knowledge of musical rules. Music affects our minds and our bodies. We have all experienced the effect that music can have on our emotions or on the atmosphere around us. It affects our memories too. Listening to music can transport us back to a holiday, or to a special person or event. We also know that it can stimulate our muscles and encourage us to move, as well as help us to relax, rest, and even feel safe. Music, in fact, transcends the mind-body divide in a way that other modes of communication, that focus on words or pictures, do not. The benefits of music also arise from its social qualities. Musical engagement, whether through making or listening to music (Small, 1998, coined the nice term “musicking” to encompass both activities) can “positively strengthen one’s social bonds with others” (Croom, 2012, p. 6). It facilitates social interaction and cultural expression, and functions as a tool for motivating collective as well as individual actions (Krueger, 2014, p. 1). We have all experienced the differences that music can make to us and our lives. If this is the case for us, then so it will also be for the people with whom we work.

Listening to music and listening to our clients We can see too that we are musical beings from the variety of ways in which we use music in our speech, including tempo, volume, melody, staccato, legato and timbre. This helps us to communicate the emotional message we want to express and also makes clear when a sentence begins and ends (Honing, 2009). The musicality added to content such as “Well done!” or “That’s so good of you” helps others to be clear when we are giving them compliments, which will sound different from warnings, such as: “Stop doing that!” or “Be careful!” And the musical elements will be different again when saying something romantic to a partner. We can focus on these musical elements when we are having conversations with our clients. Luc Isebeart (2017) of the Korzybski Institute in

4

Guy Shennan et al.

Belgium refers to “de papegaaitechniek” – the parrot technique – to refer to how we fit our way of speaking to that of our clients, to complement how we echo their content. By matching the musical aspects of their speech, using their tempo, pitch, timbre, melody, volume and rhythm, we can connect more deeply and enable our clients to feel heard in a musical way. Listening in this way enables us to truly listen to the richness of what the client is telling us.

“What difference has that music made to you?” As Solution Focused practitioners, we engage in conversations with our clients, and we know how powerful talking and listening can be. We do both in a very specific way. We ask questions that encourage our clients to focus on positive differences in their lives, and, influenced by the seminal work of Milton Erickson (O’Hanlon, 1987), we utilise, by listening carefully for them, the resources they bring to the conversation. We want to share with you how we brought all these ideas together in an exercise we created for our Frankfurt workshop, which drew on people’s musical interests and listening abilities. It is an activity you will easily be able to integrate into your work with your clients. Participants formed groups of three and each person took a turn to play a piece of music that had made a difference to them. We were utilising the fact that almost everyone now carries a smart phone with them, which is likely to contain favourite songs or music. All three participants listened to a couple of minutes of the music together, and then the person who had chosen the music was asked by one of the other two to talk about the differences it had made to them. The third person then shared some reflections on what they liked about listening to the music and the subsequent conversation revolved around the differences it had made. Everyone had a chance to swap roles and share music, questions and reflections. We were fascinated by the effect that listening to these pieces of music, and discussing their effects, had on the workshop participants. Picture the scene and remember that this was a world conference: among the 30 or so participants, most regions of the world were represented, and most people did not know each other very well. Yet, after a relatively short period of time, the groups came back energised by the activity. In the ensuing discussion, a consensus was reached around the emergent experience, to the effect that they had connected closely with each other, some saying that they had made friends for life, simply through sharing music that had made a difference to them. It seemed also that the exercise had been experienced as useful irrespective of people’s contexts. One reason we listen to music is to elicit powerful feelings (Krueger, 2014) and it was interesting to hear about what led to the choices people

Listen to the music

5

made. The music chosen reflected times associated with strong emotions, from times that were very tough to those that had been joyful. Playing just a brief portion of music evoked such feelings together with their original context – with interpersonal aspects being a particularly important part of this – and several people reported the resulting conversations to be deeply personal. Listening to music is also an embodied experience, and this was reflected in some comments, and in the ways the exercise merged stories, feelings and something expressed through the body, all within significant social contexts. It was striking how listening to music together made it easier to then talk about such personal content with strangers in a short space of time.

Group listening – and an experiment The second exercise of the workshop continued the theme of listening to music together, expanding this to the whole group listening to one piece of music. There is a difference between listening alone at home to music and listening with a large number of people in a concert hall. We wondered whether we could utilise the powerful effect of the latter to support or enhance a Solution Focused activity. We decided to perform a sort of experiment, by playing a piece of music twice, with a different instruction to the group on each occasion. First, we asked the group to simply listen to the music, and as they did so, to be mindful of their thoughts and emotions. The music we chose was “Quiescence” by Avishai Cohen, a piece of great and simple beauty. One piano repeated a simple melody, while another in a lower key pondered between two notes, some simple hi-hat drumming meandered in the background and a single trumpet added gloss and depth. The tempo was mindful, though not slow. On the second occasion, the group was invited to reflect, while the music was playing, as follows: “As you are listening to this music, reflect on how music might be useful in your work”. After playing the music twice, the participants shared their experiences, in particular of the differences between the two times the music was played. Most people reported that, while they had enjoyed just listening to the music, they found the second time confusing. It had been difficult, and for some impossible, to simultaneously listen to the song and reflect on the question. Although what they had been invited to reflect on was thought to be potentially useful, this had got in the way of listening to the music. Perhaps what happened here simply reflects that it is not possible to focus on two things at the same time. Other uses of music suggest there might have been a different way to deliver the second instruction, which might have had a different effect. Before we consider some of these, let’s end the account of this second exercise with a comment from one participant at the end of the discussion,

6

Guy Shennan et al.

which connects to something we said above: “This exercise was very useful to me. I learned that I must listen to my clients as I listen to a piece of music I love!”.

Music to aid learning Dhority (1991) developed various uses of music to aid language learning. He noticed that while teaching his students, playing classical music in the background “helped group attunement and rapport”, and provided “a cohesive element” (p. 95). Certain ways in which he uses music relate to our experiment. In a “concert session”, the teacher makes two presentations of the same material, first in an “active concert” and then in a “passive concert”. In the first, the teacher delivers the material in a dramatic fashion, fitting his or her tone to the music, so that the spoken text and music are wedded closely together, and the music is a partner to the text rather than being in the background. The idea is that this helps to “carry” the text to the receptive learners (and into their brains), who are reading the text while silently listening to the teacher and music. In the passive concert, typically accompanied by slower music, the teacher reads out the same material but in a more natural way, following the semantics of the text rather than the rhythms of the music. This time the students are invited to close their eyes and listen in a relaxed way to the mixture of words and music, unconcerned either with meaning (bearing in mind they are listening to the new language they are learning) or with whether the text or music is foregrounded. Dhority’s work was not empirically based, other than on his observations that students benefited from music being used in these ways, and involved speculations about its effects on the brain. In a more recent “accelerated learning” account, which draws on his ideas, Smith (1998) refers to more sophisticated research now available on “brain hemisphericity” and music, which he suggests supports Dhority’s speculations. Our own experiences provide further anecdotal evidence along the same lines. Two of the present authors (Guy and Jonas) have experienced something similar to the second of these processes, a passive “concert review” towards the end of a training course in accelerated learning (McKergow, 2004). We were each struck by how music aided our concentration on the key learning points being summarised, and our later impressions were that the process aided our retention of the material. There were both similarities and differences between this concert review and the second part of our group listening exercise. They both involved listening to music, and in both cases the music was intended to support another activity: in the concert review, listening to a spoken summary of key learning points, and in the exercise, internal reflection. The listening also took place in a group context, and in this similarity, we can also see

Listen to the music

7

one of the differences. In the review, everyone was listening to the same words, while in the exercise the reflections were individualised and private to each person. Another difference was that in the exercise the participants had already listened to the music, on the first occasion having been instructed to listen to it, with no other activity taking place alongside this. These differences might account for the different reactions to the two activities. If listening to some music is perceived to be a main focus, then being invited to do another activity simultaneously might be experienced as impeding this primary activity. On the other hand, it appears that music can support another activity, if introduced in a certain way.

Conclusion Listening is one of the most important ways we engage with music, and it has numerous benefits. It is also an activity that just about everyone is experienced in doing and has ability in. It therefore makes sense to utilise this activity in our Solution Focused work, as we want to focus on our clients’ abilities and ask them about what is benefiting them. As well as asking clients about their listening and the differences it makes to them, we can sit and listen together with them to music they find important. The responses to this in our workshop suggest its potential value, which we have experienced ourselves in our client work. Listening to music can also help us as practitioners in listening to our clients. Listening to music in a group and as a group opens up a host of other possibilities. Music has a social function and most people have experienced the added dimension that listening to music in the company of other people brings. Music is used to aid learning activities, though it is important to be careful about the type of music played, and the instruction given to a group when this is done. The usefulness of music in these learning contexts suggests possibilities for Solution Focused practice and training. The whole Solution Focused community – and the world beyond! – is now able to listen to a body of music put together to express and reflect various aspects of the Solution Focused approach. At the time of writing, the Spotify Solution Focused playlist has 676 songs and we recommend you give it a listen, either on your own or in company. Watch out for the abilities you bring to your listening, and who knows what benefits the songs there will bring you.

References Croom, A. (2012). Music, neuroscience, and the psychology of well-being: A précis. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(393), 1–15. Dhority, L. (1991). The ACT approach: The use of suggestion for integrative learning. Philadelphia, PA: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.

8

Guy Shennan et al.

Honing, H. (2009). Iedereen is muzikaal. Nieuw Amsterdam: Uitgevers. Isebeart, L. (2017, June 8). De Papegaaitechniek. [YouTube video]. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIgVtUlXONI Krueger, J. (2014). Affordances and the musically extended mind. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(1003), 1–18. McKendrick, D., & Finch, J. (2017). ‘Downpressor man’: Securitisation, safeguarding and social work. Critical and Radical Social Work, 5(3), 287–300. McKergow, M. (2004). Accelerated learning: Training for trainers. Training course notes. Bath: Mark McKergow Associates. O’Hanlon, B. (1987). Taproots: The underlying principles of Milton Erickson’s therapy and hypnosis. New York: Norton. Pearce, J. (2005). Selected observations on amusia. European Neurology, 54(3), 145–148. Shennan, G., & Wells, J. (2014). Solution-focused practice and song—An overture: The best part of us. International Journal of Solution-Focused Practices, 2(1), 24–31. Small, C. (1998). Musicking. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Smith, A. (1998). Accelerated learning in practice. Stafford: Network Educational Press. Wigram, T., Pedersen, I., & Bonde, L. (2002). A comprehensive guide to music therapy: Theory, clinical practice, research and training. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Chapter 2

Music as unifying language for a co-creative process A community art project with a street piano illustrates the Solution Focused approach Christiaan van Woerden

Introduction Bonaire is a small island in the Caribbean Sea, sheltering barely 15 thousand inhabitants. Formerly known for salt production during the transatlantic slave trade, it is now called a “diver’s paradise”, honouring its touristic means of income. Bonaire, being the smaller unit within the Dutch Antilles – five islands which constitute the overseas part of the Dutch Kingdom – felt undervalued when competing with the bigger islands for a fair share of the Antilles’ budget. On the other hand, the larger islands of Curaçao and Saint Maarten aspired for more independence. In order to do justice to these local sentiments, the Dutch Antillians were consulted by referendum to determine whether they wanted their island to become an independent country or dissolve the governing bond with the Antilles and become a municipality under direct Dutch reign. Bonairians choose for the latter, hoping for a more prosperous future. It soon became a disappointing move, as expenses of living rose markedly following the introduction of the US dollar as the currency, replacing the local Antillian guilder. Worse, the influx of new immigrants from the Netherlands to be employed in various governing institutions pushed up prices of land and housing. It became impossible for local people to own plots and build houses, as subsidizing advantages that would normally support people with lower incomes in the Netherlands did not apply on the island. Soon, long-time islanders felt very disappointed and started to regret their choice. As part of the upgrade of public services, the Dutch government decided to advance the health care system, so people would not have to be dependent on the medical goodwill of nearby islands anymore. Therefore, basic specialist medical care had to be provided in addition to the already present care of general practitioners. Having just graduated from my specialist training, which included a one-year training on Curaçao, I became

10

Christiaan van Woerden

the first paediatrician in the hospital service in October 2011. Aware of the socio-political tensions, I also wanted to become part of their society in a meaningful way. Therefore, I invited a friend and visual artist, Frouwkje Smit to join me for five months on Bonaire. We aimed to initiate a community art project that could embody our hope of living together in a society where everyone could participate in his or her own desired way.

The plan As piano playing is my hobby, Frouwkje came up with the idea of shipping my upright (150 kg) piano to the island, mount it on wheels and push it along the streets. At first, I found it a crazy idea and asked her if she wanted me to play concerts on the streets – for which I was not prepared at all. She, however, said that it would not be about the performance, but about the process: if I played my music, people might join, play along or contribute in another artistic way. As a classical pianist, Bach, Mozart and Debussy are my favourites. We were curious what styles other (amateur) musicians would play. Frouwkje predicted that our styles and compositions would mix and create a new musical experience. This chapter describes the events that took place after introducing the piano on the island with a reflection on the Solution Focused character of the project. A video of the musical journey can be found on YouTube (https://youtu.be/jBXOtodZC_4). Illustrative sections will be indicated in minutes and seconds between accolades. Names have been changed to respect the privacy of participants.

The art project: a piano on Bonaire My piano landed within five weeks after my arrival on Bonaire. Three men helped to transport it from the harbour and carry it inside my house. It was out of tune, but all the keys worked. As the movers joked about me joining the island’s classical music club, I played Bach’s 11th invention. Enchanted by the melody, one of them promised to introduce me to his sister who had come to live on Bonaire recently and also had a piano in her house (www. youtube.com/watch?v=C__xyFrbj8A). Two weeks later, we met and played her piano at home. Our musical try-outs needed strong hands to lift the heavy piano. It encouraged me to liaise with people from all layers in the hospital and ask for their assistance. Manuel from the storage department, Ashley, a nurse, and Claude, a professor in nephrology came to help. Claude said: “I find it an insane idea, having the piano next to the salt lakes, but I will come and watch”. I tried to find Manuel, while he was spending time with his family on the beach. His puzzled face made me realise that he had no clue of what I wanted from him. But as soon as we entered my house, he said: “Oh, it’s

Music as a unifying language

11

a piano that you want to bring outside!” and added that he loved singing gospel songs. Without further ado, he lifted the piano on the back of the pick-up. At one of the salt lakes we tried our luck. As I played a melancholic song that glorifies the canals in Amsterdam, a flock of pelicans flew over the water. Claude then called out: “Awesome! This is a great image. Fantastic! Did you tape this?” (“Dit is top! Oh, wat een mooi beeld. Dit is gaaf zeg. Heb je dat?”) [2:52–3:06]. On our next trip, Manuel invited his brother and his 19-year old friend Gloria to join us. At the time, she was an aspiring jazz singer. A local man joined too and initiated a song, encouraging others to sing [4:01–5:35]. On our way home, Manuel and his brother spontaneously sang a church hymn in Papiamento, the local language [5:53–6:21]. Gloria invited her 20-year-old friend Simon for the third visit. He wanted to be a rap artist but had been cast out by his father and lived under Spartan conditions on an isolated rock. My vast experience in ensemble playing hadn’t quite prepared me to interact with a rap artist. Gloria, however, invented a musical idiom that I could join playing. This paved a rhythmical path for words that carried Simon’s story: a spontaneous ballad about the hardships of his life and his bond with God [8:30–10:12]. As we progressed our accompaniment in a more upbeat motion, his spirit became instantly more joyful and he displayed great pleasure in pacing the rhythm even faster [10:13–10:42]. To our supreme honour, a well-known local group of musicians who performed the traditional Tambu invited us for their annual performance in the remote town of Rincon. The group played a variety of percussion instruments, including agricultural tools, and sang about the important life events of the past year. This stemmed from the tradition of enslaved people on the island’s plantations, for whom it was forbidden to communicate with others on neighbouring plantations. An exception to this, music-making was allowed. Slaves would update each other on their lives and tribulations through their songs, supported by percussionists’ rhythms. The loudness of the metal percussion challenged me to find an appropriate style and tone on the piano. I managed to surrender to a collective musical trance [14:22–14:52]. After playing for half an hour, we paused and the band leader offered us drinks, saying: “We are going to order for the whole group. You are part of us” [14:53–14:58]. I was impressed by their energy to endure the loudness of the steel tools’ beats. Elvin, the leader of the band said it was his roots that gave him the spirit to deliver the music. He pointed out that he had a family tree at home, tracing his ancestry back to Gabon. In this way, we toured 20 times over the island. A growing collective of musical friends joined in playing or carrying the piano, providing drinks and preparing meals. One of the hospital’s patients helped us to gain access to a remote community on the island where she lived and offered her skills to

12

Christiaan van Woerden

translate the local language for us in the hospital. One of the island’s family physicians invited me to her house to play her grand piano. Family portraits were displayed on its top and she told her relative’s life stories. Also, a primary school organized a musical meetup for the children [https:// youtu.be/9lOFVWQjyHw, 3:50–4:17]. In the end, my employer, the hospital, invited us to organise a musical event on its premises. The director said it should be the place for people of all walks of life to meet and interact with each other. It became a very wellattended event, with vibrant music-making. Patients and hospital staff joined collectively. We celebrated our experiences of the past weeks, praised our musical friends for their leading roles and commitment to make us feel at home on the island while uplifting our collective spirit in the musical journey. Simon took the opportunity to thank the audience and explain how our musical road trip had been shaped. He was grateful to have been reunited with his father who was also present at the event, proudly watching his son performing.

Epilogue Handing over the clinical work to colleagues in June 2012, I left my piano with Gloria. Over the consecutive five years, I visited Bonaire a few times to work on short-term contracts. Parents of children attending the hospital would often start the consultation by asking “Doctor, where is your piano now?” In 2013, I supervised a music student in her graduation project, investigating the rhythm of the Tumba, another Caribbean musical tradition. In 2017, a hurricane destroyed the island of Saint Maarten. Bonaire’s hospital director reached out and asked if we could think of a new musical project to organise for fundraising and visit Saint Maarten together with musicians from Bonaire in order to bring some hope, energy and funds for the children who had lost everything.

Discussion In this chapter, we describe the interactions between people engaging in musicmaking with a mobile, public piano. The project was designed to facilitate musical exchanges in a society that was under pressure during a governmental transitioning phase. Though coming from different socio-political backgrounds, the participants were able to establish unity within their artistic performances. This evolving project can be recognised as an example of a Solution Focused approach: there was a multifactorial, wicked problem that caused tensions between people. Instead of trying to find the root cause of the societal problem, we envisioned how life could be, had the challenges been overcome. We projected what we would be doing instead, in this so-called preferred future: making street music. By moving with the piano in public spaces, we acted as if

Music as a unifying language

13

already having entered into our preferred future. This ignited others to contribute to the musical play in their own way: by singing a personal song and sharing their love of music, by helping to create the right environment in a physical way or by taking care of the musicians. It became a collective striving for a desired situation that was going to be shaped during its journey. The musical interactions were characterised by joy, unity, and inclusiveness: desirable characteristics of the preferred future. They can thus be seen as instances of the preferred future. As each contribution towards its fulfilment could not have been predicted beforehand, each interaction became a co-creative moment: the personal engagement and the meaning that each participant would bring to the musical encounter would be immediately responded to by one or more other participants, with a reciprocal new response from the initiator. This culminated in new musical sounds and, on an emotional level, a shared understanding. On a small scale, the musicians created a new reality and a new mode of living together: listening to each other’s contributions, adding new value and challenging each other with new musical suggestions. It resulted in friendships that became inclusive for an expanding group of people as the project evolved. Despite the actual societal difficulties, the project kept drawing on personal resources, where every participant would be his or her best self at the meetings. The personal invitations of people and the hosting of a musical event in the hospital illustrate how people felt encouraged to become personally involved. The engagement with personal strengths is one of the important first steps in a Solution Focused approach. The successful continuation of musical events elaborated on what worked: rhythms that supported rap music were repeated and accord schemes that worked well in small groups were used in larger groups to engage the participating audience in music-making (https://youtu.be/grHuxIombeM). The renewal of encounters around the piano, and the request for a second community art project to install hope at a neighbouring island, indicate the sustainability of the concept and its power to connect and engage. Therefore, it has transcended beyond the particular situation of Bonaire in 2012 and has become an ongoing inspiration for people to revive and redefine their preferred future.

Conclusion As social tensions rose during a complex transition of governance, this community art project has shown to improve local cohesion. The pivotal moments in the project are examples of Solution Focused tenets. Music offers an accessible language for a meaningful co-creating dialogue.

Chapter 3

Developing Solution Focused games Ian Smith

Introduction – the accidental workshop, part one This chapter is the product of a conference workshop that I ran, without intending to, in 2017. I’ve had an interest in using games as a tool in both therapy and in higher education for a few years, and so when I was at the Solution Focused (SF) World Conference in Bad Soden I was really pleased to see a brief workshop on the schedule presenting an ‘SF resource game’. However, I, and the other delegates, who went along were to be disappointed, as it turned out the presenter was unwell and couldn’t attend. Instead, in true SF style, we stayed on in the room and had our own discussion about how we thought games might be used in SF work. I left this conversation wanting more, and so, when it was announced that the conference would also feature some ‘open space technology’ (e.g. Owen, 2008), I volunteered. I love how open spaces can lead to some productive and creative discussions and was hoping to continue a discussion about using games in Solution Focused work with perhaps five or six interested people for maybe half an hour. Or perhaps no-one would, and I could go to someone else’s open space. I had some trouble finding the room my conversation was due to take place in, and only just arrived by the start time of the session. Imagine my surprise then to find 30 plus keen delegates who wasted no time letting me know that they’d come along excited at the prospect of experiencing a ‘workshop on Solution Focused games’ for the next 90 minutes. Time to think quickly …

What’s the point of Solution Focused work? Although there are many texts on how to ‘do’ Solution Focused working, the mechanism by which SF techniques are seen to work (beyond the global ‘to help people move toward their preferred futures’) is rarely articulated in the literature, and there is not one commonly accepted description. For me to explain how I think games can help in Solution Focused work, therefore, I first need to outline how I think Solution Focused conversations operate, and what I think their active ingredients are.

Developing Solution Focused games

15

If we think about core ideas in psychological therapy in general, and Solution Focused therapy in particular, some of its key purposes are usually to help socialise people to the model, help people develop new perspectives on their experiences, motivate people to act and encourage creativity. The contextual model of psychological therapy, a trans-theoretical conceptualisation of the ‘active ingredients’ shared by therapies, identifies the client engaging in ‘health promoting actions’ as being one of the three key pathways to change. Such actions might include thinking about the world in new ways, improving interpersonal relations, being more accepting of one’s self, expressing difficult emotions and/or taking the perspective of others (Wampold, 2015). Similarly, Gilbert and Kirby (2019) have described key active components across different psychotherapies as discovering new variations of our mental processes: … maybe starting to think, feel, or become motivated in new ways that might have been previously outside the person’s experience or awareness [and] helping to build new meanings and increasing new ‘positive’ dimensions to one’s lifestyle. (p. 154) How does this work in the specific case of Solution Focused therapy? As mentioned above, given the huge amount of literature on the practice of Solution Focused therapy and use of Solution Focused techniques in other contexts, there is surprisingly little that has been written exploring the underlying aims of the approach. This is partly because the minimalist stance of the approach has created a culture where providing a detailed theory of change is often not considered necessary (Lipchik, 2002, p. 9). However, one key overarching goal of the approach that is broadly agreed upon is helping someone develop alternative descriptions of their story, which will lead to them developing new behaviours (George, Iveson, & Ratner, 1999, p. 11). The specific techniques of the approach can be seen as helping to achieve aims which will facilitate this goal. As a trainer and educator in Solution Focused practice, I have worked for many years to find ways to communicate Solution Focused techniques as simply and straightforwardly as possible. The method I currently use to do this, is to consider Solution Focused conversations as comprising three specific types of technique, each of which fulfils distinct, although overlapping, functions in helping facilitate change. I’ll review each of these in turn, before moving on to look at how games may link to the functions identified.

Preferred futures Under this category I also include the miracle question, questions about best hopes, goals and scaling questions that ask for descriptions of a higher number on the scale in future.

16

Ian Smith

Discussing a preferred future is often seen as the first building block in helping someone develop alternative descriptions more generally and is often introduced at the very outset of Solution Focused conversations. I regard this technique as being helpful for four reasons. Firstly, it enables the production of ‘low level’ construals (Trope & Liberman, 2003), which in turn facilitate more accurate predictions of future mood in response to a given situation; secondly, it helps remove the fear of failure through altering the perspective on the problem; thirdly, it provides motivation for the client (I use the term client in this chapter to refer to anyone receiving a Solution Focused intervention) to make changes in their life, and finally, it facilitates the monitoring of change through providing concrete benchmarks against which the current situation can be judged. Social psychology research (e.g. Gilbert, Gill, & Wilson, 2002) demonstrates that people’s ability to accurately ‘affectively forecast’ (predict how future circumstances will make them feel) in everyday life usually tends to be quite poor. These skills can be improved, however, if the future is considered through low rather than high level construals (Trope & Liberman, 2003). Experimental research shows that when people make ‘low level’ construals of the future, they can make more realistic predictions about how they will feel in that future (e.g. Wilson, Wheatley, Meyers, Gilbert, & Axsom, 2000). Low level construals are concrete, complex, contextualized, and do not form a coherent narrative or revolve around a specific goal, just like the kind of descriptions that we encourage and develop through ‘video talk’ (O’Hanlon & Beadle, 1996) and other methods of preferred future questioning. ‘High level’ construals, on the other hand, tend to be abstract, simple, coherent, decontextualized and goal relevant descriptions of the future, i.e. much more like the descriptions clients tend to offer at the very beginning of Solution Focused conversation. This is probably a key reason why the nature of the preferred future descriptions, as well as people’s stated goals, seems to continually evolve during Solution Focused conversations. In so doing, new descriptions of what the person wants and needs in the future are developed, which may then have significant implications for priorities in the present. The ‘removal of fear’ in preferred future questions is probably best described as a process of ‘decoupling’ the future from the present. Cheng (2017) analysed the discourse between Solution Focused therapists and their clients during a first meeting in order to investigate what led to changes in perspective in the conversation. One of the most interesting findings of this study was how, in more successful exchanges, specific language framing by the therapist managed to remove blame, effort and the potential for failure from the questions asked. This was achieved through the use of ‘mental state verbs’ (Brown & Fish, 1983; verbs which avoid attributing causality to person, such as ‘notice’ or ‘see’). Conversely, the use of ‘action verbs’ assigned agency to the client or others, and where this kind of attributional language was used, clients

Developing Solution Focused games

17

tended to respond more negatively or cautiously. To put this another way, future questions that imply that an action by the client (which gave them responsibility, would require effort and could fail) or by others (which the client may have little or no control over and so could also fail) tends to produce less positive or less detailed future descriptions. Removing these restrictions, however, allowed the client to imagine the preferred future as a whole ‘other world’ free of these fears. The latter kind of descriptions tend to be far more effective as motivators to change. In addition, such detailed, fear-free narratives also enable comparisons with present circumstances that help highlight elements of the preferred future already present. In doing so, these descriptions provide a concrete standard against which current and future change or progress can be noticed by the client.

Resources Under this category I also include coping questions, compliments (which are the feeding back of resources noticed by the practitioner) and scaling questions, which ask how the client has managed not to be lower on the scale. I see the key function of resource questions as facilitating the identification of elements of potential solutions, increasing the sense of self-efficacy and internal locus of control through placing the problem in perspective and of the client through both identifying competence and placing the problem in perspective. Experiments in positive psychology (e.g. Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005) show that asking people to contemplate their strengths can temporarily increase happiness. More importantly, these experiments also show that if people consider how to apply these strengths in new contexts these benefits can be extended to the medium term. In his attempt to explain how therapy practised by Milton Erickson operated, Bill O’Hanlon proposed in his first book Taproots (1987, Ch. 4) that such conversations could help people generalise the solution they had been applying successfully to a specific problem to other unresolved problems of the same ‘class’. This is done through the use of metaphors, which enable the generalisation to occur. A similar (but more directive) use of metaphor is characteristic of strategic family therapy approaches (e.g. Cade & O’Hanlon, 1993). Identifying personal strengths, skills and resources available can also have the general effect of increasing a client’s self-efficacy, and facilitate a perspective focusing on a more internal locus of control. Self-efficacy is seen as having a key role in emotional regulation (Bandura, 1997), and those with an internal locus of control tend to feel less anxious and helpless and have fewer mental health difficulties (e.g. Hashemi Nasr Abad, 1993; Roddenberry & Renk, 2010).

18

Ian Smith

Exceptions Under this category I also include progress questions, problem free talk and scaling questions that ask about past times when the client would rate themselves as higher on the scale than at present. Exception conversations indirectly link to the identification of both elements of preferred futures and resources, but they go beyond the latter by also prompting the client to identify specific autobiographical memories (ABMs) of occasions when the situation was somewhat improved. This is important because cognitive psychology research indicates that the generation of specific ABMs is a key component in effective social problem solving (Beaman, Pushkar, Etezadi, Bye, & Conway, 2007), which is what prompts pretty much all Solution Focused conversations. It seems that low level construals in remembering facilitate more effective identification of potential past strategies that can be utilised to solve future problems (Evans, Williams, O’Loughlin, & Howells, 1992). Actively prompting the generation of specific ABMs is of particular importance in people suffering psychological distress, as a range of research shows that people suffering with depression and other forms of mental health difficulty struggle to generate this type of memory (Williams et al., 2007). However, simply prompting people to produce specific memories that have positive, negative and neutral emotional valences, as happens in the asking of exception questions, has been shown to lead to lasting improvements in people’s skills in this area, and also potentially their mood (e.g. Leahy, Ridout, Mushtaq, & Holland, 2018; Raes et al., 2006).

How games can help In the previous section I argued that Solution Focused conversations make use of the following mechanisms to effect change: 1. Encouraging concrete descriptions (low level construals) of past, present and future to assist with both solution strategy identification and accurate affective forecasting 2. Decoupling future from the present and removing fear of failure 3. Improving motivation to make changes 4. Creating structure to facilitate the monitoring of change 5. Using metaphor to facilitate the generalisation of solution strategies 6. Increasing the client’s sense of self-efficacy and control 7. Facilitating the taking of new perspectives on existing situations So can these be achieved using games? To date, beyond the realms of entertainment, games have primarily been employed as tools for learning and education. Pedagogic researchers have identified that games can

Developing Solution Focused games

19

embody some key characteristics that make them particularly useful for this purpose. These include the fact that they can provide meaningful challenges and social interactions; they can be excellent motivational tools with their own reward mechanisms; they provide a protected ‘playground’ space where players can experiment, where mistake-making is the norm and so not to be feared, and where fear and stress can be reduced as peer feedback can be received without players feeling examined. In game environments, players can also engage in worlds entirely separate from current day-to-day reality, where they can change and experiment with identities and possibilities (Whitton, 2014, Ch.1). Whitton also suggests that ‘(o)ne of the most powerful features of games that support learning is their ability to move players from one way of seeing the world to another’ (2014, p. 133). All of this seems to map extremely well onto many of the aims and mechanisms of Solution Focused conversations we have identified. In addition to this, key feature of games that work well for learning work by providing a ‘thickly authentic’ learning experiences which take account of the context within which situations occur (Shaffer & Resnick, 1999). This means that games can be used not just to promote the sort of concrete future and solution descriptions that we seek in Solution Focused conversations, but to go beyond this by actually playing out examples of these, allowing experiential learning as to their effect in a context that is ‘safe’ as it is framed as taking place in ‘another world’ separate from the ‘real’ one (Moseley, 2013). In discussing the steps of designing games for learning, Moseley also encourages the use of translation of the ‘most important’ concepts to be learned into game elements. This is essentially the creation of metaphors for the purposes of the game, and as such has the potential to facilitate the generalisation of solutions. Given all of this, it would seem that games show a huge amount of promise as facilitators of Solution Focused interventions. So, how can we begin to realise this potential?

Getting started with designing games for solutions Within the now well-established field of developing games for the purposes of learning, there exists quite a bit of guidance for novices wanting to design their own games for specific purposes. One key message which comes across in the literature is the importance of aligning the intended outcomes of the game with the mechanics, rather than ‘forcing’ these together (Moseley & Whitton, 2013). Moseley and Whitton also highlight the advantages of developing (at least initially) ‘traditional’ board or card games, rather than digital games, avoiding the budding designer being defeated early on by technical challenges and allowing for ‘local’ testing of the game to evaluate and develop it prior to any larger roll-out process.

20

Ian Smith

Moseley (2013) lays out helpful basic steps in the development of a game for learning from scratch. The first of these is making a list of key concepts to be learned, and to make sure this is reduced to the most important. In the case of a Solution Focused game, this would translate as the element(s) of Solution Focused intervention that one wishes the game to focus on. Secondly, Moseley suggests that you think about each concept in game terms. In SF games, the concept can either be transferred literally (for example the game might involve generating actual preferred futures) or metaphorically (e.g. happiness, success or progress might be mapped using tokens). The next step is to combine the chosen elements to produce a simple game as a starting point. Moseley and others (e.g. Paull, 2013) have further tips for developing your game thereafter, including playtesting, prototyping, revising and even marketing, but these fall beyond the scope of this chapter. When running the workshop that was sprung on me back in 2017, I wasn’t even wellaware of the advice I’ve already relayed to you. But somehow, something magic happened anyway that I’d like to share with you, in the hope it inspires you to have a go at making your own games …

The accidental workshop, part two So, what happened in that room in Bad Soden? Well, for me, initially, panic set in. Getting hold of myself, I quickly turned my plan for the ‘conversation’ into an icebreaker exercise; I created small groups and asked them to share experiences of using games or play in their SF work and what had worked well. This gave me ten minutes of thinking time to structure a larger workshop, which I decided (naturally) should be in the form of a game. I decided to ask my ‘players’ to follow a simple guide to produce the best game to teach Solution Focused thinking. Here are the seven steps I developed in my ten-minute preparations to help participants develop their games: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Who is your game for? What are your best hopes for the players? How long should your game take to play? Is/are there (a) winner(s)? What Solution Focused ideas are involved? (e.g. resources, futures, doing something different …) How many players can/does there need to be? (Solo? Family? Worldwide? Something else?) And most importantly, what will the game be called?

Surprisingly, providing such a small amount of structure seemed to be all that was needed for people to start playing with ideas, be creative and

Developing Solution Focused games

21

develop some game mechanics. By the end of the 90 minutes, we had the beginnings of several fantastic games to help Solution Focused interventions; each different, and illustrative of different ways games might be helpful. I’ll close this chapter by describing a few of them, using the words of their creators.

The games Game 1: the journey to knowing yourself

This is a game for two to six players aged five to ten years (or for a family) that takes around 30 minutes to play. The aim of the game is to help players build their self-esteem, recognise their resources and define their goals. The journey is a board game where players move around the board using dice, landing on squares that prompt them to pick up cards relating to different activities and answer the questions on them using that activity. Effectively it’s like Trivial Pursuit™ but where the specialist subjects are all you, and there are no wrong answers! Activities include drawing, singing, acting out and making things to represent the answers. Questions on the cards might include ‘What are you good at?’, ‘Describe someone who is proud of you’, ‘What are your dreams?’, ‘Describe when you last felt really good’ or ‘What do other people like about you the most?’ Analysis: The prompting of participants to identify their own strengths as part of a competition and the use of playful, non-verbal media not only decouples future descriptions from the fear of achieving them but also creates a similar effect with regard to resources by enabling them to be admitted without fear of being contradicted. Using non-verbal means to describe resources and futures can also enable low level construals (unexpected context can end up getting included because of the communication medium) and also encourages the use of metaphor (which may be needed to communicate some aspects non-verbally). Game 2: solution stars

This is a game for players of any age, to be conducted at the end of doing some group activity together over hours or days. Each player is allocated to two other players, who then work in different corners of the room, each drawing pictures of ‘target’ person at their best. There is a pool of paper stars available to all players, containing one-word descriptions of positive qualities such as ‘kind’, ‘happy’, ‘fun’, ‘friendly’, ‘helpful’, etc., with each description on at least two stars. Each player attaches stars to their picture that described the target person. The two players then compare their drawings and stars, and discuss any differences in front of the target person.

22

Ian Smith

Analysis: Whilst in its present state, this is more activity rather than game, it nevertheless contains elements that could be further developed as part of a game, and it does an excellent job of focusing on one facet of Solution Focused interventions – resource identification. It is clearly aimed at helping to increase the target person’s sense of self-efficacy. By highlighting qualities in the abstract, it is also likely to facilitate the generalisation of resources which could be applied in new contexts. Game 3: the game of hearts

This is a game for people who have experienced heart failure and their families. Many people with heart failure struggle to adapt to the different lifestyle they need to keep healthy, and communication with those close to them can often break down. The best hopes for the game are that it will help the family develop a shared preferred future that is desirable, realistic and safe for the person with the heart problem. The game is played over ten to twelve-week period. There are no absolute winners, but players can earn prizes and ‘level up’ by completing certain tasks, such as sharing their thoughts with other players. The game would be played online with some facilitation by a therapist, but with activities taking place in the real world too. Family members get points for completing tasks. The first tasks involve defining some of the ‘prizes’ with which family members agree to reward each other (e.g. a family day out, being let off chores, etc.). The facilitator generates tasks and allocates some to specific family members whilst leaving others in a general ‘pool’ that anyone can choose to complete. Each task is worth a set number of points, and rewards are received when an individual player gets enough points to reach the next ‘level’. Tasks include answering SF questions about yourself and other people, interviewing other people using ‘set’ SF questions and uploading the results to a forum only the players can see, and ‘experiments’ which involve activities or having conversations with another family member. Sample questions might include ‘find out what dad’s perfect day would be like’, ‘interview four family members about what X’s best skills are’, and ‘note down what’s better for you this week than last week’. Analysis: This game provides extrinsic motivations for players to try out new ways of interacting with each other and prompts communication. It also creates a structure for and prompts players to monitor their own progress, and through extensive use of circular questions and getting the views of others aims to prompt new perspective taking.

Conclusion The games and activities generated in the workshop represented the start of a thought process rather than the finished product, and all tended to focus on directly facilitating Solution Focused questions rather than more abstract

Developing Solution Focused games

23

representations. Nevertheless, they all have the potential to be useful tools even at their current stage of development. Just imagine what can be achieved with more a little more time to be creative and knowledge of game design for learning principles!

References Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (4th ed.). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman. Beaman, A., Pushkar, D., Etezadi, S., Bye, D., & Conway, M. (2007). Autobiographical memory specificity predicts social problem-solving ability in old and young adults. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(9), 1275–1288. Brown, R., & Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14, 237–273. Cade, B., & O’Hanlon, W. H. (1993). A brief guide to brief therapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co. Cheng, J. (2017). The mechanisms of psychological therapy with people with long-term physical health conditions (Doctoral thesis), Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Evans, J., Williams, J., O’Loughlin, S., & Howells, K. (1992). Autobiographical memory and problem-solving strategies of parasuicide patients. Psychological Medicine, 22(2), 399–405. George, E., Iveson, C., & Ratner, H. (1999). Problem to solution: Individuals and families. London: BT Press. Gilbert, D. T., Gill, M., & Wilson, T. (2002). The future is now: Temporal correction in affective forecasting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 430–444. Gilbert, P., & Kirby, J. N. (2019). Building an integrative science for psychotherapy for the 21st century: Preface and introduction. Psychol Psychother Theory Res Pract, 92, 151–163. Hashemi Nasr Abad, T. (1993). The relationship between locus of control, self-esteem and social support with coping in University of Tabriz students. (MS Thesis), Tarbiyat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. Leahy, F., Ridout, N., Mushtaq, F., & Holland, C. (2018). Improving specific autobiographical memory in older adults: Impacts on mood, social problem solving, and functional limitations. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 25(5), 695–723. Lipchik, E. (2002). Beyond technique in solution focused therapy. New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Moseley, A. (2013). Dicing with curricula: The creation of a board game to speed up the course creation process. In A. Moseley & N. Whitton (Eds.), New traditional games for learning: A case book (pp. 5–19). London: Routledge. Moseley, A., & Whitton, N. (2013). Introduction. In A. Moseley & N. Whitton (Eds.), New traditional games for learning: A case book (pp. 1–4). London: Routledge. O’Hanlon, B., & Beadle, S. (1996). A guide to possibility land: Fifty-one methods for doing brief, respectful therapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co. O’Hanlon, W. H. (1987). Taproots: Underlying principles of Milton Erickson’s therapy and hypnosis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

24

Ian Smith

Owen, H. (2008). Open space technology: A user’s guide. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler Publishers. Paull, A. (2013). Designing card and board games. In A. Moseley & N. Whitton (Eds.), New traditional games for learning: A case book (pp. 195–206). London: Routledge. Raes, F., Hermans, D., Williams, J. M. G., Beyers, W., Eelen, P., & Brunfaut, E. (2006). Reduced autobiographical memory specificity and rumination in predicting the course of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(4), 699–704. Roddenberry, A., & Renk, K. (2010). Locus of control and self-efficacy: Potential mediators of stress, illness, and utilization of health services in college students. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41(4), 353–370. Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–421. Shaffer, D., & Resnick, M. (1999). ‘Thick’ authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 195–216. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421. Wampold, B. E. (2015). How important are the common factors in psychotherapy? An update. World Psychiatry, 14, 270–277. Whitton, N. (2014). Digital games and learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Williams, J. M., Barnhofer, T., Crane, C., Herman, D., Raes, F., Watkins, E., & Dalgleish, T. (2007). Autobiographical memory specificity and emotional disorder. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 122–148. Wilson, T. D., Wheatley, T., Meyers, J. M., Gilbert, D. T., & Axsom, D. (2000). Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 821–836.

Chapter 4

How to use text messages as a dialogue tool in Solution Focused conversations Anne-Marie Wulf

Introduction Nowadays most people have a mobile phone and know how to text. This is a fairly new format of communication, where the mobile phone (or almost any digital media) puts time and place out of order and thus gives clients (and us) an opportunity to text 24/7. In my practice, I receive lots of text messages from clients, and I became curious as to how to respond to those messages in an appropriate and acceptable way, so my responses would be helpful. What happens in the client’s responses when the coach in a text message asks Solution Focused questions and what impact does the coach’s choice of formulations have on the text dialogue? This chapter will attempt to answer these questions and bring forward some ideas of how to use text messages as a dialogical tool in your practice and the benefits of having text-dialogues.

Digital and mobile mediated communication One of the earliest forms of digital communication was the telegraph, which minimized the communication to the least possible and understandable entity (Tagg, 2012). With the development of computers and the Internet, the field has gained additional dimensions, and today we communicate in a variety of contextual contexts (Dalsgaard, Pedersen, & Aaen, 2013) on different media and very often at the same time. The patterns of digital communication can be analysed and put into perspective depending on the sender and recipient (Hoem, 2006). “Sender” can be a TV channel that broadcasts a program or a post on Instagram with lots of likes, likewise “recipients” can switch between being a reader of a blog post or a group on FaceBook that collaborates and exchanges knowledge and information. My research focused on text messages put together into dialogues, characterized by a communication pattern produced, distributed and used by single individuals. Mobile-mediated communication is communication on mobile phones, tablets and laptop with communication forms such as conversations, chats,

26

Anne-Marie Wulf

mails and text messages, some of which requires access to the ubiquitous Internet (Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2006). Mobile-mediated communication is asynchronous, thus giving the individual time to think and formulate the answer. It gives a shift in time, but only the time it takes to formulate, type and send the message. This means that mobile-mediated communication can be relatively quick from minute to minute, but also take several hours (Baym, 2015). Referring to Giddens (1994, p. 21) sending a text message can be described as “a human act under the conditions of modernity”, where the social system is tied together by time-and-space. But with mobile-mediated communication, the context is removable and changing, and thus dialogues can take place, regardless of where we are and whether we are moving or not. The separation of time and space creates the opportunity to have relationships with “absent” others, which is one of the characteristics of textdialogues. Over the past 20 years, a number of scientists in the fields of linguistics, media science and communication have researched text messaging and various aspects of it. The linguist Caroline Tagg did a discourse analysis of 11,000 text messages from teenagers to the elderly, looking at factors such as spelling, grammar, discourse markers and identity construction. Based on the sociologist Erving Goffmanns conceptual understanding of identity as being constructed and created in the interaction between people, Caroline Tagg talks about the “construction of identity” (Tagg, 2012, p. 176), and how to perform differently in online and offline connections. Tagg points that paralinguistic features such as intonation, gesticulation, clothing and otherwise are absent in online contexts in which individual identity alone is expressed through the use of words and characters in text messages, and she concludes in her analysis, that “performance of their identity draw on elements of their offline relationship” (Tagg, 2012, p. 172). The discourse analysis from Tagg is interesting in terms of the linguistic approach, but does not focus on the significance of the linguistic and lexical changes in text messages.

The Solution Focused approach Solution Focused practitioners integrate the linguistic focus in their practice (De Jong & Berg, 2002). de Shazer (1988, p. 78) writes about a woman, who in a therapy session expresses “I’m depressed”, that “once there is doubt, once the exception is seen to make a difference, the client can change the form or grammar of his statement to ‘At times I feel depressed’”. And if there is the opportunity to talk about the fact, that “sometimes I am depressed”, there is also the opportunity to talk about the negation, “sometimes I am not depressed”, which makes a difference for the client, and the problem becomes less static and more dynamic. Thus, by building on the client’s experience of problem-free moments, solutions can be constructed,

Text messages as a dialogue tool in SF

27

and in texting, the linguistic focus is enhanced, as words and characters become the central parts of the dialogue. The Solution Focused approach speaks of “listening with a constructive ear” (Ratner, George, & Iveson, 2012, p. 54), as a way of listening beyond the spoken words, as listening for small cracks and openings pointing in the direction of the client’s goals and preferred future. Working with text-dialogues, we can talk about “reading with a constructive eye” as we search for the same small cracks and possibilities to construct our next question. The Solution Focused approach is pragmatic rather than theoretical with presumptions and assumptions about people that can be summarized as follows (de Shazer et al., 2012, pp. 2–3): • • • • • •

There is not necessarily a connection between a problem and the solution Small changes in one area lead to greater changes in other areas of the client’s life The client is an expert in their own life and has inherent resources and potential No problems are constant; there are always exceptions to the problem Linguistic grips affect the client’s work towards changes The client’s work is oriented towards his preferred future, which can constantly change

Microanalysis A useful method for investigating and analysing communication between coach and client is the conversation analysis (CA), which tries to clarify patterns and examine what can be said jointly about communication. The idea of “turntaking” is a central concept and refers to how we understand each other in the exchange of speech (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974, p. 696). A turn is a constructed entity, an action, a speech or a text message, and there are rules that one constructs the first turn and that the next turn can be assigned or the next turn can be self-chosen. Another central concept in CA is adjacency-pairs, which are the smallest organized sequence, and can consist of bow □ bow, question □ answer, request □ response or request □ rejection (Steensig, 2010, p. 297). Sacks worked together with ethnomethodologist Harold Garfinkel, and they referred to situations where one person said something, and the other summarized, described or reproduced this with verbal expressions, as formulations (De Jong, Bavelas, & Kormann, 2013, p. 25). Understanding communication as an interactive co-constructive process led psycholinguist H. H. Clark to the development of the “collaborative model” in cooperation with his colleagues (De Jong et al., 2013, p. 20). The collaborative model argues that meaning is merged into a three-step

28

Anne-Marie Wulf

process between speaker and listener: a) X presents information, b) Y shows that he has understood or not understood, c) X confirms that Y has understood. Any such completed sequence represents a collaborative constructed unit. Clark named these units “grounding circles” (De Jong et al., 2013, p. 21), and considered dialogues as a complex process in which understandings and meaning are constantly co-constructed in collaboration with the other. Based on Clark’s ideas on collaborative processes, Janet B. Bavelas and her colleagues at Victoria University, Canada experimented in collaborative co-constructing processes in face-to-face dialogues, leading to the development of Microanalysis (De Jong et al., 2013), as a tool and method for research. Specifically, film recordings of conversations, mainly therapeutic with the software program ELAN, were analysed by playing micro sequences of perhaps ten to twenty seconds in duration to examine how coach and client co-constructed the dialogue. Through her research, Bavelas identified at least three major traits that a therapist uses in the collaborative process: questions, formulations and lexical choices (De Jong et al., 2013, p. 21). Part of the co-creation of the dialogue will often be the coach’s question, understood as a presentation of information: What’s your name? Where do you come from? In a contextual framework, such as the coach/ client relationship, questions from the coach will be influenced by her experiences, knowledge and theoretical references. These assumptions affect the formulation of questions to client. McGee, Del, and Bavelas (2005, p. 19) points out: Therapists who have cultivated an appreciation of the efficacy of questions understand that to question is to wield a powerful linguistic blade. It is necessary to ensure that the blade is used to reveal strength and beauty rather than to carve away these same qualities. Formulations are in a therapeutic context transferred as mirroring, paraphrasing, echoing, summarising and reflecting the client’s words, where the response was used to normalise the client’s situation (De Jong et al., 2013, p. 26). De Jong et al. (2013) suggest, “all formulations are influential choices rather than passive evidence of understanding” (p. 26), and present three distinctions. Thus they: 1. Omit some of the client’s words 2. Preserve some of the client’s words precisely 3. Preserve some of the client’s words in a transformed version. The altered form is influenced by the lexical choice and can thus be a summary or an offer of another understanding anchored in the coach’s theoretical frame of reference, i.e. adding new words

Text messages as a dialogue tool in SF

29

In the following you will see the importance of lexical choices in practice and what influence these choices have on the text-dialogues, as well as the impact of Solution Focused questions in text-dialogues.

Microanalysing text messages Text-dialogues are very different than therapeutic dialogues, where we are present together. One major difference is the fact that we cannot see each other, and that the communication can be both largely synchronous – and asynchronous. It would be too extensive to analyse, for example, pauses in text-dialogues, as we don’t know the cause of the break. Firstly, it would be necessary to define “a pause”, which is difficult in asynchronous communication. That is, if there were a pause between two text messages, it would be difficult to know what made the pause, and whether this pause could be related to the dialogue. Mobile-mediated communications as text-dialogues are an obvious field for research, such as length of message, length of dialogue, the use of emojis and images, abbreviations of words and the question-answer combinations. Some of these topics have already been subjects of research, but how textdialogues can be seen as an approach or tool to support clients reaching their goals or working towards their best-hopes has not yet been explored. The empirical data includes text-dialogues with three clients from three Solution Focused practitioners, of which I am one. The group of clients were between 18 to 64 years old with mental difficulties such as anxiety, depression, stress and PTSD, which often causes loneliness, isolation and poverty. The relationship between client and practitioner is built upon weekly sessions and the text-dialogues in this research are seen as an appendix to these conversations.

Questions In Solution Focused conversations we ask a lot of questions, we listen-select and build our question upon the client’s answers, and thus questions can be seen as an invitation to dialogue. Implicit in questions are the practitioner’s assumptions and preconceptions about the client, based upon the practitioner’s theoretical foundation. As a Solution Focused practitioner it should be possible to find embedded Solution Focused assumptions in the questions by microanalysing them, see the following text message: It isn’t good, that you’re feeling so bad, Line, because it’s probably very hard to get a faster appointment. I’m thinking, what do you do of good things to keep up the spirit despite pain and discomfort? – Maybe we can take some time to talk about it after tomorrow’s meeting. Have you also informed Lone that I’m participating?

COACH:

30

Anne-Marie Wulf

Assumptions about the client are seen in the example and fits with the Solution Focused mindset: • • • •

Client is able to take action: I’m thinking, what do you do … Client is able to target her actions in a certain direction: – do of good things The actions are targeting a specific effect: – good things to keep up the spirit Client is competent and full of resources: keep up the spirit despite pain and discomfort

Another example of questions using scaling puts focus on what’s already working (what puts you at two, and not at one?) and on detailed descriptions on what’s working (and what tells you, that you’re on your way?) Is there any way that would make it easier for you to accept, how things are? On a scale of zero to ten, where ten would mean that you have accepted it in a way that is good for you, where would you place yourself? CLIENT: I don’t know, maybe two COACH: What puts you at two, and not at one? CLIENT: That I’m on my way, that I have the courage to feel COACH: Okay, and what tells you, that you’re on your way? COACH:

Summarizing, how to use questions in text-dialogues, the most frequent used questions begin with what, when, where, who or how, which gives the client an opportunity to reflect and respond with explanations and descriptions of their thoughts and feelings, as attempted initiatives. Clients respond with perspective of life and potential opportunities for action, which creates opportunities to talk of themselves as humans with skills, resources and competences.

Lexical choices De Jong et al. (2013) introduces the importance of lexical choices in the coach’s formulations, meaning the coach makes a selection of the client’s words in the formulation of a response, question or summary. This selection is governed by the coach’s theoretical foundation and understanding, and is important for the co-construction that occurs between client and coach. Analysing formulations you will find that words have been omitted, words are preserved in exact form, as well as words are being transformed in a certain direction. Tom Andersen (2003, p. 114) writes about connotation of words:

Text messages as a dialogue tool in SF

31

The use of negative connotations will inevitably lead to the definition of someone or something in a way that drives to the user of the negative connotation (…) and it’s easy to think, that there is something about a “someone” or the “something” that should be different …. The words and opinions, that a person hears and speaks, become, as I see it, now a part of the person’s condition. Words can thus be connoted both positively and negatively, and the analysis will centre on the coach’s lexical choice of words that are positively connoted, as lexical elections are rooted in the coach’s theoretical reference (De Jong et al., 2013).

Text-responses preserving words from the client in exact form The coach can preserve single words or phrases from the client to construct the next text message. When the coach includes client’s words in the response, it contributes to a collaborative dialogue and to create a coconstructive process. I could express some emotions that I had tried to suppress, so I could have a good day in the woods tomorrow. But I cannot really do that. And it closed up for it. COACH: What difference does it make for you to be able to express some emotions? CLIENT: I would have felt walking in the woods tomorrow, even though I couldn’t handle it and could not enjoy nature or his company at all because of oppressed anger. And as I now experienced, one feeling leads to another, so the whole thing becomes clear for me. And by staying with the feeling, it’s going faster, – not to stay with them, are terrible torture. CLIENT:

In the example the client introduces the concept of expressing some emotions as a potential opportunity, with which the coach constructs her next question: what difference does it make for you to be able to express emotions? In the coach’s question is implicit an understanding, that the client can do it (express emotions), and thus the client is presented by the coach as a person capable of acting. Preserved words can be used in the formulation of questions, such as the presentation of a possible action, as recognition of a feeling or as reinforcement. When the coach retains the client’s words in text message, the client responds with either further perspective or description, which can create associations and change focus towards more positive and actionoriented thoughts.

32

Anne-Marie Wulf

Text-responses omitting words from the client I was really sorry, so I thought, now I’ll go to the café, even though they only have one hour open, so I wouldn’t be sitting at home. COACH: Super. What else do you know, can be helpful? CLIENT: To be in the feelings. I wasn’t aware of the birthday invitation waiting and now that I have answered, I have been incredibly sad yesterday and today. I was very restless before I went to the café and I just sat down and cried down by the lake. COACH: Wow, it must be hard (emoji with blurred eyes). What does your experience say about, how long you have to be in your feelings before it just gets a little bit better? And how will you notice, that it has become just a little better? CLIENT:

In the client’s first message all texts are omitted, and instead the coach formulates a question based on the client’s actions: “What else do you know, can be helpful?” In the second response of the coach, most of the client’s words are (again) omitted and four words (be in the feelings) are preserved and used in construction the following question: “What does your experience say about how long you must be in the emotions before it just gets a little better?” Thus, the coach doesn’t focus on the client’s problems and negative emotions, but on what will be helpful and work towards feeling better. The research shows, that client’s negative descriptions of thoughts, feelings and actions are omitted, but can also be used as a form of recognition, affirmation or as a starting point for a question. Issues, that omit the client’s negative descriptions, thus direct the client in a particular direction and allow responses with action-oriented descriptions and focus on what goes well. Negative words can be preserved for the purpose of adding, through a lexical choice, “the positive contradiction” to balance or offer an alternative, so “inner feelings are being transferred into actions for other to observe”.

Text-responses transforming words from mentee in a positive direction You have to try it too, it tastes delicious! I was very happy to get up and bath and wash my hair and get and then get baked crispbread (smiley with happy smile) COACH: Lovely Line. I sit here and smile broadly over your recovery and maybe mostly your will and strength (strong arms emoji), May I disturb you with a request from Hanne-Vibeke? So can I call? CLIENT: Yes ☺ CLIENT:

Text messages as a dialogue tool in SF

33

The client expresses that she was very happy to get up, shower and wash her hair and then got baked crispbread. Her statement is supported by a happy, smiling emoji. The coach’s response is a summary, a formulation in which all the actions the client has made (got up, bathed, washed hair, baked crispbread) and the feeling it has given rise to (very happy) are transformed and presented positively as your recovery and with an invitation of an explanation of this recovery; that she has will and strength. On the other hand, the client’s actions are connoted in a positive direction by “recovery” and anchored in her with the word “yours”. The lexical choice is also seen in the words will and strength, both of which are strong positive. From the microanalysis it appears that to a greater extent than actual words, sentences about emotions, actions and process, are summarized and transformed. Positive connoted words are added as lexical grips in the transformation and makes it possible to bring new perspectives to the client and to reinforce expressions. When problems are transformed constructively, the client responds with detailed descriptions of their own actions, thoughts, and next possible steps to take. Challenges and efforts of the client can be transformed into words such as will, courage, strength, profits and boundaries. Text-responses assuming Solution Focused assumptions: Hehe, thank you, it’s nice and relaxing for me, it’s a bit like when people watch series I think (smiley with crooked eyes). But will try to sell some if the flea market turns into something, I can’t use so many. COACH: Nice with a place in the flea market (thumbs up). We do hope the flea market can be possible. Can I book the card with the Goose? Perhaps the best thing about the cards is that you have found a good way to relax. I think that could be yet another important positive spiral?! CLIENT: Sure you can (emoji: hands clapping). Hope it’s going to happen. But my mother also said that I might also ask the florists if I had to sell them there. Yes, and the time I spend walking and looking for things to do, is a good way to be positive, – would you believe, that once for many years I ate and threw up (smiley with hospital mask for mouth) – so yes, that’s a spiral of good-stuff. CLIENT:

The text messages clearly show a dialogue, where both client and coach to support the dialogue frequently use emojis. When the coach writes “great with a market stall on the flea market” it’s supported with a “thumbs-up” emoji, which indicates a kind of approval or acceptance. Assumptions are also seen in the coach’s expression of finding a good way to relax, where one can see the assumption, that Line will find a way to relax and the way will be good. Another example in which the coach’s assumption is showed, is in the sentence yet another important positive spiral, where the coach with the lexical grip “yet” indicates the assumption that there is more than one, and with the word

34

Anne-Marie Wulf

“important” points out that the good spirals are significant – focusing on the positive and pointing into certain direction: a positive spiral. With the addition of the word “spiral”, the coach also creates the opportunity for the client to see one more procedural development with loops as in spirals, again comes a presumption that development is not a continuous progressive process, but can take place circularly, in loops and with “two steps forward and one back”. Solution Focused assumptions appears in the coach’s lexical choices, additions and formulations. The presumptions get the coach to make lexical grips, selecting and adding words pointing in the direction of the next step or what are you most satisfied with. It all introduces opportunities for the client to talk about herself as an active person. The client responds with detailed descriptions, produces ideas, forms part of processes and formulates perspectives on her life in positive terms.

Conclusion The research concludes that, working from a Solution Focused approach choosing premeditated lexical grips, a coach using text-dialogues can create possibilities for the client to talk about herself in a way where she is active, energetic, capable as a human with resources, strength and possibilities. A coach can formulate questions with “Wh”-words that invites reflection and perspective. In text-dialogues where the coach preserves the client’s words in exact form and applies them to questions, recognition or opportunity of action, this can invite the client to focus on describing himself as being active and with opportunities. The coach’s lexical grips appear in the choice of words that are exactly preserved; these are often positively quoted words, just as the coach makes lexical choices in transforming the client’s sentences into positively connoted words or phrases. It allows the client to respond with reflections, new perspectives and detailed descriptions. Formulations from the coach containing Solution Focused assumptions provide the opportunity for the client to respond with reflections, detailed descriptions, produce new knowledge and talk about herself as competent and active about which next step to take. Since linguistic grasp and relational positioning to the client are rooted in the coach’s theoretical reference, the knowledge produced thus confirms the coach’s anchoring in the Solution Focused approach. Central to the text-dialogue is the linguistic and relational aspect that can arise and be present in different contextual contexts. This relationship can be described as coach-client, therapist-client or teacher-student. I prefer to talk about my practice as conversations about changes – the changes people want in their life – thus I don’t talk about myself as therapist, coach or mentor. I have shown what happens in text-dialogues between coach and client, when the coach formulates questions anchored in the Solution Focused

Text messages as a dialogue tool in SF

35

approach. The knowledge produced is applicable to 1) other professionals who 2) work relationally with different groups of people and are 3) already applying or wanting to use text-dialogues in their practice 4) with the purpose of working in a developmental perspective. The prospects in my research is mainly moving into two directions. Firstly, as we move into a more digital mobile lifestyle, text-dialogues can be a helpful collaborative tool, for instance for people in remote areas. Secondly, the research states that working from a Solution Focused approach gives clients the opportunity to talk about themselves in a positive, future-oriented way.

References Andersen, T. (2003). Reflekterende processer: Samtaler og samtaler om samtalerne (2. Udgave). Danmark: Psykologisk Forlag A/S. Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age: Digital media and society series (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press. Dalsgaard, C., Pedersen, N. F., & Aaen, J. (2013). Læring på tværs af kontekster: Læringspotentialer i mobilt medieret information og kommunikation. Læring & Medier (LOM), 10, 1–23. De Jong, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Kormann, H. (2013). An introduction to using microanalysis to observe co-construction in psychotherapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 32(3), 17–30. De Jong, P., & Berg, I. K. (2002). Løsningsfokuserede Samtaler. København. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag. de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. de Shazer, S., Dolan, Y., Kormann, H., Trepper, T., McCollum, E., & Berg, I. K. (2012). More than miracles: The state of the art of solution focused brief therapy. Abingdonon-Thames, UK: Routledge. Giddens, A. (1994). Modernitetens konsekvenser. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Hoem, J. (2006). Openness in communication. First Monday, 11(7), online journal. McGee, D., Del, V. A., & Bavelas, J. B. (2005). An interactional model of questions as therapeutic interventions. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 31(4), 371–384. Ratner, H., George, E., & Iveson, C. (2012). Solution focused brief therapy. 100 keypoints and techniques. East Sussex: Routledge. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. NYC: Linguistic Society of America. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2006). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage handbook of elearning research (pp. 221–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Steensig, J. (2010). Konversationsanalyse. In S. Brinkmann & L. Tanggaard (Eds.), Kvalitative metoder - en grundbog (pp. 287–313). København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Tagg, C. (2012). Discourse of text messaging: Analysis of SMS communication. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Chapter 5

Sharing experiences in a Solution Focused way Reflections and learnings from the first two EBTA summer camps Naomi Whitehead, Dr Ursula Buehlmann, Peter Sundman, John Wheeler and Dr Ferdinand Wolf

Introduction As a group of senior Solution Focused (SF) practitioners, all of whom had meaningful contact with the founders, alongside members of the up and coming younger generation, we present our reflections from the European Brief Therapy Association’s first two summer camps in 2016 and 2017. These reflections are based on personal discussions with and feedback from the participants. We analysed the feedback and made two consecutive workshops of the Summer Camp concept and then compared the concept with some related events and methods. We endeavour to encourage others to reflect on their own untested formats that may replicate the essence of these experiences.

How our summer camps compare to other similar gatherings We are aware that our summer camps have not been the first gatherings of SF practitioners being together in SF ways over a period of time and have considered, in particular, the SOL world retreats and the BRIEF summer schools as being in some ways similar and in some ways distinct. In contrast to the SOL world retreats, our summer camps have particularly catered for practitioners working in practice settings, as opposed to organizational work. Our main emphasis has been to use the support of EBTA to keep costs low for the benefit of practitioners starting out as SF pioneers. This connects to the emergence of the summer camps which arose from a best hope identified by the younger generation of SF practitioners.

Our reasons for experimenting with the first summer camp The EBTA board wanted to experiment with a summer camp, an idea generated in an open space workshop at the EBTA 2015 conference in

Sharing experiences in a SF way

37

Vienna inspired by Biba Rebolj, in which she asked, “How can the younger generation learn from the older generation?” The EBTA board discussed the question and concluded a summer camp may be a compelling way to facilitate this. The board recognised that in spite of the exciting nature of the offer, future participants might need encouragement to see this as an opportunity due to the busyness of their lives. Board members thought carefully about who they knew in the wider community, who might thrive at and benefit from the summer camps, and who were showing signs of spreading and developing SF practice more extensively. The board discussed who of the seniors would be willing to make this voluntary effort. The first group which emerged was a combination of people unlikely to connect in other contexts. The group comprised a rich and thoughtprovoking blend of participants from Latvia, Russia, Germany and the UK, hosted by seniors, one from the UK and the rest from Finland, Austria and Switzerland. Before commencing, the seniors established that they would pursue a non-hierarchical, collaborative format for each day, which explored participants’ best hopes and remained focused on an atmosphere of coconstruction. This was alongside the sharing and passing on of their years of experience, learning and relationships with the founders, thus embodying the role of mentors (Vogt, Wolf, Sundman, & Dreesen, 2015). The result was a peaceful and respectful learning experience. The spirit of SF practice was woven throughout.

Our readiness to engage in an iterative process The role of iteration, not as a repetitive mechanical task but as a deeply reflexive process, is key to sparking insight and developing meaning. Reflexive iteration is at the heart of visiting and revisiting the data and connecting them with emerging insights, progressively leading to refined focus and understandings. (Srivastava & Hopwood, 2009, p. 76) From the outset there was a strong commitment to engage in an explicitly iterative process. On a micro level, we began each morning with a conversation on people’s aspirations for the day ahead and flip charting these into a loose daily schedule. On a macro level, we evaluated at the end, and then bi-annually since, about the impact. Not only has this been important for our learning and preserving the legacy of the first experience, but also in preparing for the next summer camps and presenting at conferences. The replication of the Finnish design in 2016 included consistencies and adaptations for the 2017 Slovenia design. The two camps considered together have provided valuable information about what people appreciate when they are learning and discussing SF practice, and what is likely to

38

Naomi Whitehead et al.

create openness to engage fully with and absorb the shared wisdom and knowledge available. The following steps have helped us to engage with an iterative process and gather qualitative data: 1. Requesting evaluative comments from participants verbally and in writing on or soon after the final day of both summer camps 2. Sharing the most detailed versions of these comments on the EBTA website as a record and celebration of what was achieved, and an invitation to others to showcase the continuation of the founders’ traditions 3. Reflecting on the evaluative comments over Zoom when preparing for a workshop at the SF World Conference. 4. Attempting to disseminate in our workshops what we felt were valuable components 5. Modelling one of these in a workshop, “The SF way of being”, by inviting participants to say what most resonated for them and what and how they might be inspired to replicate or design similar learning experiences, asking, “What difference might this make”? 6. Asking participants in a workshop to build their own food canapes with randomly provided ingredients and asking them to explain their choice of ingredients, and analysing their process for co-constructing a new reality 7. Meeting over Zoom to agree on submitting this chapter and deciding to follow up and assess the impact again from the participant’s perspective and in behavioural terms 8. Compiling all of the above in preparation for this chapter and extracting SF and related findings on the concept of mentorship to offer a context for wider research.

The story of the two summer camps EBTA’s first summer camp in 2016

EBTA’s first summer camp was hosted by Peter Sundman in his summer house on the tiny island of Jakob-Ramsjö near Helsinki. For each participant the camp commenced with an introduction to the intricacies of the island and requirements for effective inhabitation, including necessary tasks which elicited an element of surprise. Activities included convening on the beach and discussing how each respective country had grown and developed their use of the SF approach, and which actions had achieved the most notable changes. Suggestions were made about ways to take this further. Examples discussed included online conferences in Russia, translations of SF material into Latvian, invitations by

Sharing experiences in a SF way

39

John in the earlier days to the founders to visit the UK to make it affordable for practitioners locally and attendance at EBTA by Matthias Schwab, connecting to his German introduction of SF into offender work. John was reminded of a way for people from different cultures to be together, described by McCarthy (2010) as “The Fifth Province” – a mythical place in Irish history where kings in ancient times would set aside their power to meet together, which has been described as follows: It was envisaged to be a forum where people of difference, whatever this was (religious, ethnic, cultural, etc), might peacefully co-exist, inter-act and cocreate. It was a forum for viewing oneself and the “other” (one-and-other/one another) differently – or “inter-viewing”, as it were! It was a forum where one might “be” differently in a more peaceful harmony – a space of inter-being (p. 8). Each day the learning was peppered with engaging illustrations from practice. John shared Brian Cade’s (1982) example of a couple talking about the challenge of working together to decorate their house and Brian recognised this as a metaphor for sexual challenges with which they had initially asked for help but had been too embarrassed to talk about. Through enquiry into the detail of decorating and when decorating went well, the couple found solutions. Dimitry Stebakov discussed the importance of recognising what is a priority to someone, no matter how different or alien this may be to one’s own frame of reference, with the example of one client’s views on spirituality. This was beautifully illustrated by an example from one of Insoo’s clients, “I think I’ve been cursed by the gods”. To which Insoo replied, “How will you know when you are no longer cursed?” Ursula developed this idea further in sharing another client example, a young woman who had recently stated they wanted to sell their family. Ursula replies, “Ok, so if you would sell your family, what would you say to make a sale on the market?” How clever to shape questions which invite people to think of their desired differences while aligning to their unique reality. We were privileged with honest questions, such as those posed by Victor Bogomolov about if and when it is ever okay to acknowledge a shared struggle that we too may have experienced, in order to normalise clients’ experiences. We heard about Steve de Shazer’s skilled, yet sometimes, uncomfortable conference style. Ferdinand recalled a time in Vienna where Steve entered the workshop and sat in complete silence for more than half an hour until an utterly courageous delegate felt able to ask a question. EBTA summer camp in 2017

Ursula reported to the EBTA board regarding their experience of the 2017 camp. Whereas the first summer camp was set up as an opportunity for older and younger generation proponents to meet together, the second summer

40

Naomi Whitehead et al.

camp became more of an exchange between the younger generation of SF practitioners to learn from one another. The camp was hosted by Biba Rebolj in a summer house, owned by a relative of her husband. Like the first camp, people from different countries, fields, experience levels and ages attended and shared and developed ideas in a nonhierarchical atmosphere of learning. And similar to the first camp, each day started with best hopes, and Biba facilitated conversations about activities necessary for the group to live well together. Fascinating discussions and activities again took place on many topics, including how everyone begins a first session. Videos were created from live conversations between the participants, and other areas were explored such as the difference between “absence of a problem” talk and “presence of future” talk. Participants emphasised aspects of the approach that were crucial for them: the necessity to be careful about descriptions because they are evaluations; if the client knows what to do it’s important to emphasise what kind of change they have to do to start the action; don’t be afraid to ask “what else?”; start broad and then go narrow; confirm aims with the client; use fewer words during session feedback; keep your mind open; do less and do not interpret without checking with the client. The learning process in the second summer camp was again built on hearing from and discussing with other people, with other experiences and other perspectives. This led people to check their own ideas and habits, to integrate ideas or to discard. This process was and is still even more exciting than normal as there were people from many different countries, with different language skills, from different fields of SF work. This process was also about new tools. And again, participants were aware how important the correct use of language is. There were differences highlighted in practitioner’s working styles. The difference was obvious and yet what was even more obvious was the common ground of the SF attitude.

Reflections from the up and coming younger generation participants We present a sample of the replies to our follow up email sent by Naomi Whitehead to all participants on January 10, 2019, which was two and a half years after the first summer camp and one and a half years after the second summer camp. Which aspects of your preferred future do you now see happening in your Solution Focused work that you feel is happening because of your experience at the EBTA Summer Camp?

Sharing experiences in a SF way

41

Mikhail Ponomarev from Russia: I think our activities concerning the promotion of SFBT in Russia became more organised and concrete. Our SFBT conference took place offline right after the camp (November 2016) for the first time and since then has become a regular event for the Russian Solution Focused community. What other benefits do you think you, your clients, country, networks and society have gained as a result of your participation at the EBTA Summer Camp? Elfie Czerny from Switzerland: A great example is that even our smallest members (our daughter Bibi was two and a half years when we were at the summer camp) are welcome in our communities and can contribute in a valuable way – and YES! Solution Focused practitioners are great in observing kids and seeing interactions with kids as an invitation to build connection and learn from them in a joyful way instead of seeing them as a disturbing factor. Also Ryszard as a result of the Summer Camp wrote an article about our SF on Tour journey for a Polish magazine. (personal communication) Biba Rebolj from Slovenia: My clients have surely benefited. I was inspired by other people’s practice and the questions we threw at each other (mainly the “younger ones”) which made me reflect upon my own practice more and made it more conscious. (personal communication) What do you think are the core elements to the Summer Camp that make it so beneficial for your Solution Focused work, the spread of the Solution Focused approach internationally and good Solution Focused practice, (e.g., Mentorship, Coaching, Generations passing on to one another, watching videos, Solution Focused ways of being, meeting in an unusual environment, etc.)? Matthias Schwab from Germany: I think the generosity of the summer camp framework and the willingness to share are the core elements. And I think this is supported by setting up a frame different from a conference or workshop. When cooking together and eating together and learning together are more connected, it is harder to separate “bits of information” to take away and easier to have “conversations” that carry on. (personal communication)

42

Naomi Whitehead et al.

What would you MOST like to see written in the SF World Conference EBTA Summer Camp chapter? Dimitry Stebakof from Russia: I think it is important to describe the concept of the camp and show the significance of such events for developing Solution Focused practice and a Solution Focused community throughout the world. (personal communication) Reflections from the seniors: Why learning together? Ferdinand’s summer camp experience reminded him that humans are community beings. The importance of cooperation at all levels has always been evident, for example in hunting the mammoth together in earlier times. Human beings have always learned together, from each other and with each other. The joint exchange and the gathering of different experiences, results in more than the gadgets of an individual. Ursula reflected that new views and perspectives can thus be explored. One experiences new knowledge and another is brought to new thoughts. Your own knowledge is checked, supplemented or changed and thereby stabilised. The fact that the summer camps could take place in nature, without much distraction, and that the participants not only learned together in the narrower sense, but also lived together, meant that full sensory experiences could take place. Learning was a lot of fun and aroused many emotions.

Thoughts about the context Ferdinand was also reminded of the ancient stories around the Agora in Athens, where people interested in philosophical issues walked together in the marketplace and talked about different topics with an open end about the outcomes of knowledge (see for instance Plato’s dialogues). This sort of “open dialogue” or “open process” has been a main source of being together during these gatherings. Lots of interesting experiences could be shared mutually between the seniors and the other participants. Such as the encounters of the seniors with the founders of SFBT, and the struggles and successes in implanting SFBT in countries like Latvia or Russia. Even the other activities, like singing songs together, doing interesting exercises spontaneously or simply going for a walk, were characteristics of this ongoing process of spending time together in a relaxed atmosphere, in a special and uniquely mindful way. This kind of mindfulness, experienced and practiced in such a context, can be seen as putting some of the main cooperation principles of the SF approach into

Sharing experiences in a SF way

43

daily life. This means: “Stay in life, listen carefully and look for what works and improve it instead of repairing it!” By focusing on the needs of the moment (“disciplined observation”) and combining practical life activities (like preparing breakfast together) with the ingredients of empowering experiences of the past and interesting future perspectives (like starting new projects), SF was put into practice.

The magic of meeting in unusual contexts Peter was led to wonder “What is special in the ‘summer camp’ context?” and reflected that we recognise all practice happens in a context, where the words and actions get a specific meaning. The meanings are created, evoked and negotiated by the participants in conversational actions, which also evoke and induce other meaning-systems connecting the context to other and future contexts. Summer camps are usually programmes in the summer months for children and youth. The purpose is usually to learn or develop new skills. “Camp” can also refer to a “camp site” or similar nature venue. Young people often get new friends and experiences being away from their families. In a similar way, our EBTA summer camps have had an element of “adventure”, creating exciting experiences where people facing something new and demanding can lead to the development of new skills to master. All seniors and participants agreed that there was a magic to meeting one another in these unusual contexts. By its very nature, it caused pattern disruption. It was difficult to respond in a habitual way because no one had any idea of what the place would look like, what would happen, what conversations would occur or how others would react. Of course, this is applicable to most of our existence. However, when commencing a work project, you usually have an idea of the location, schedule, stock responses and professional dialogue, which normally occurs, timings are often predictable and there are less demands for improvisation. High and explicit levels of belief in one another as the expert in whatever was happening at any given moment, meant the improvisation and flow was effortless, it also offered us with subtle new ways of seeing the world. Peter further reflected that suddenly, out of our normal, easily anticipated daily rhythms, we were all together in a completely different rhythm, sharing tasks with people we would normally work but not live with. Alan Kay (Stellamans, 2014) shares the sentiment that: … the kitchen table is a place where hospitality, sharing knowledge, having a rambunctious conversation and encouraging disagreements, plus a few laughs, frames the opportunity for people to be creative in ways they do not expect. (p. 84)

44

Naomi Whitehead et al.

Figure 5.1 Naomi and Ursula pose for the camera in the rain as they smoke some fish caught by Arsenyi Pavlovsky.

This is nicely shown in this short episode from the 2016 Summer Camp and depicted in Figure 5.1. A dialogue emerged as follows: Hii Laughing Hii NAOMI: We’re the smokers URSULA: Yeah NAOMI: No, we’re the smoke masters URSULA: Yeah, of course NAOMI: Yee … that sounds (unclear) as helpers URSULA: Masters NAOMI: Yeah, fishinados URSULA: Laughing NAOMI: Laughing URSULA: Solution Focused NAOMI:

URSULA: URSULA:

Naomi and Ursula are in a context that is unusual for them. Naomi and Ursula had agreed to smoke a fish Arsenyi had caught, which was a challenge as neither had smoked fish before. The challenge became harder due to heavy rainfall where they had to stand. The smiles and laughter in

Sharing experiences in a SF way

45

the interaction reveal how both enjoyed the experience. The dialogue shows that they not only did their task, but did so with expertise as “Solution Focused fishinados”. This expertise was nicely built up by Naomi, the mentee and supported by Ursula, the mentor. The fish was perfectly smoked, so the expertise clearly worked well! This is one example of how the unexpected, the challenge and a resulting expertise can occur in a summer camp context. Peter reflected that this can be compared with experiences from a SF rehabilitation context, where it was found that people often set new more demanding goals for themselves after adventurous and successful activities (Virtanen, 2011).

Mentorship In evaluating the essence of the summer camps, we agreed mentorship was an important feature of their success. The original design had purposefully encompassed and aimed to resonate with how SFBT spread in the early days as described in Miller and De Shazer’s paper on SFBT as a rumour (1998). Communication and marketing of the SF approach has historically always been less through formal professional means, such as journals, and typically more through people meeting in unusual ways such as at the Brief Family Therapy Centre in Milwaukee, and then going back home and creating clusters of interest there. The summer camps appeared to have achieved a similar outcome, perhaps, in part, linked to the effective mentorship. Mentoring, support and guidance of a mentee is often led by one or more experienced and skilled professional mentor, to support and expand the professional development of the former through the effective transference of knowledge, skill and experience. It can lead to enhanced innovation and performance, fuelled by reflective practice, shared learning and improved ownership for Solution Focused thinking. The emphasis is on developing the expertise of the mentee, encouraging independence, autonomy and selfdevelopment (NHS Academy). This description, at least in some part, appears to be congruent with the assumptions and philosophy of the founders of the SF approach, and we think the unfolding of a version of this process 30 years on is something worth noticing (Vogt et al., 2015). Also worth noting from the mentee’s feedback, is how the mentors made them feel and think and how this increased confidence. The mentors both inspired and made them feel inspiring. By showing huge interest in what the mentees had to say, and listening attentively, they made them feel important, equal and therefore very open to learning, even when the discussions were complex and academic. They somehow facilitated openness and a desire and ability to be the best version of oneself. Both mentors and mentees were careful to build on each other’s responses in a validating way. This connected well to ideas presented by Nancy Kline (1999) and Danny Wallace’s (2006) memoir based upon a year

46

Naomi Whitehead et al.

of his life in which he chose to say “Yes” to any offers that came his way. When interacting in a way that assumes that responses are likely to be affirmative, we can obtain untapped courage and a significant sense that the world is full of possibilities, not limitations. Implicit within this way of being is the sense SF supporters have an intrinsic wish to transfer their wisdom and amplify its scope and reach. Summer camps, combining international SF minds in an intellectual and ambient situation, appear to be an effective formula to enable this. A formula which we have found through conversation has instilled an appetite to understand what role they play, particularly in the creation of other novel ways of being to develop the SF approach that may emerge as a result. Peter recalls that discussions about mentoring between the authors also lead to observations about the connections which have been established, and the knock-on effect of these connections. Thus, emphasising the importance of personal relationships. Peter felt that summer camps bond people in a way Barbara Fredrickson (2013) calls “love” (in a broad sense such as in the Greek word, “agape”) – the “firing” being “micromoments” of love. We also see a connection to the idea of “grounding circles” as cited by Wulf (2018) as follows: For me it all began with Harry Korman … and the work he has been doing with Janet Bavelas and others. I was impressed by the impact this research had on conversations. (p. 161) Seeing communication as an interactive, cooperative process, psycholinguist H. H. Clark developed the “collaborative model” together with his colleagues. The model argues that meaning becomes united in a three-step process between talking and listening: 1) A presents information, 2) B shows that he has understood 3) A confirms that B has understood. Any such completed sequence represents a collaborative meaning-creating entity. Clark called these devices “grounding circles” and considered dialogues as a cooperating complex process in which understanding and meanings are constantly co-constructed with the other (p. 161).

Conclusion The low-cost, low-maintenance, non-hierarchical EBTA summer camp model is one of many unique and intriguing ways for people to deepen their SF knowledge and practice, develop networks and be further energised to promote the approach internationally. We also conclude that the model can play an important part in continuing the legacy and spirit of the approach as begun by the founders. Summer camps provide SF practitioners with opportunities to learn, laugh and live together doing common tasks in an uncommon context which,

Sharing experiences in a SF way

47

so far, has led to significant developments in new countries and new professional relationships and projects. We hope that others will be as influenced as we are to try out their own SF ways of being, which encompass threads of mentorship, equality, attentive listening, unusual beautiful environments, exchange of specialisms and co-construction. Finally, we think this whole chapter bears tribute to the observation that: The international SF community has a reputation for openness, generosity and appreciation, and is seeking to keep the approach an open source in an age of licensing and intellectual property. (McKergow, M. Solution Focused Approaches to Management. Chapter 21. Retrieved from http://sfwork.com/solution-focusedapproaches-in-management)

References Cade, B. (1982). Some uses of metaphor. Australian Journal of Family Therapy, 3(3), 135–140. Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Love 2.0: How our supreme emotion affects everything we feel, think, do, and become. New York, NY: Hudson Street Press. Kline, N. (1999). Time to think: Listening to ignite the human mind. London: Ward Lock. McCarthy, I. (2010) The fifth province: Imagining a space of dialogical co-creations! Context, December, 6–11. McKergow, M. (2011). Solution focused approaches to management. Chapter 21. SF work. Retrieved from http://sfwork.com/solution-focused-approaches-inmanagement Mentoring. (2019). NHS leadership academy. Retrieved from www.leadershipacademy. nhs.uk/resources/coaching-register Miller, G., & de Shazer, S. (1998). Have you heard the latest rumor about …? Solution-focused therapy as a rumor. Family Process, 37(Fall), 363–378. Srivastava, P., & Hopwood, N. (2009) A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Retrieved from https://jour nals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/160940690900800107 Stellamans, A. (2014). SF at the kitchen table – An interview with Alan Kay. InterAction, 6(1), 81–87. Virtanen, V.-M. (2011). Korkeita vuoria ja suuria kokemuksia (Meaning: High mountains and big experiences). MLL Lasten- ja nuorten kuntoutussäätiö. Helsinki: ISBN 978-952-5082-71-5. Vogt, M., Wolf, F., Sundman, P., & Dreesen, H. N. (Eds.). (2015). Encounters with Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg – Inside stories of solution-focused brief therapy. London: Solutions Books. Wallace, D. (2006). Yes man. London: Ebury Books. Wulf, A. (2018). Working as a solution focused mentor – What we do and how we do it. In T. Switek, B. Strahilov, & P. Panayotov (Eds.), Making waves: Solution focused practice in Europe (pp. 149–169). Sofia: PIK-BS.

Chapter 6

Introduction to Solution Focused theory Kirsten Dierolf

Theory It is often said that Solution Focus (SF) is an approach without a “theory”. And in some senses of the word this is true. SF practitioners do not have a theory about their clients, nor do they have a theory about why they are experiencing problems or challenges that lead them to talk to a practitioner. We do, however, theorize about what it is that SF practitioners are doing, why this is working, how it can be understood, which philosophies of cognition or psychology fit with the approach and so on. Links have been established to discursive psychology, enactive and embodied cognition, social constructionism, the philosophy of Wittgenstein to name a few. In this section of the book, you will be able to immerse yourself in the state-of-the-art thinking and theorizing about SF. Mark McKergow writes about “world-stretching” as a friendly explanation of SF practice: SF therapists are not “shrinks” but “world-stretchers”. He asks and answers the question of how it is possible that describing things in therapy sometimes changes the situation for the client. McKergow explores what is happening when practitioners encourage the clients to describe better futures or successful past experiences. How the client describes his or her world, how the client views his or her world has an impact on what the client deems possible. If the client describes in detail what the world will be like when things are better, more of such possibilities become visible and the world of the client is “stretched”. Leoš Zatloukal and Edita Bezdicˇková describe how Recursive Frame Analysis (RFA), developed by Bradford Keeney, can be used as a research tool for mapping professional helping conversations. Using this form of discourse analysis as a research methodology for SF practice offers interesting opportunities. RFA allows for visualization of the process of a conversation. Anyone who wants to examine his or her practice in detail will benefit from reading this article. Esther de Wolf and Guy Shennan explore their mutual interest in embodied cognition in their article “The Extended iSelf”. They introduce

Introduction to Solution Focused theory

49

the fields of embodied cognition and examine whether the extended mind thesis suggests that smart phones, for example, can be seen as augmenting our brains and bodies. We learn about how Esther experimented with inviting her clients to think of gestures or movements representing their perfect future and capturing those on video in her sessions. Clients were invited to view those recordings in between sessions – one of the things they remembered most clearly where those gestures of the perfect future. Esther and Guy also describe their very creative workshop exercises from the conference. In their chapter “Narrow and wide ways of solution-growing”, Leoš Zatloukal and Lenka Tkadlcˇíková write about another distinction beyond problem-solving and solution-development: the imaginary width or narrowness of the solution – development process. The metaphor of width and narrowness pertains to whether the client is invited to think more narrowly about a solution to a problem or more widely about other areas of behavior, thought and interaction. The authors give many examples of these different practices and provide hints and tips that help practitioners to decide when to invite the client to a more narrow or a wider description of their preferred future. Joe Chan from Singapore explores what marks a program for young people as an SF program. In his chapter on “Solution Focused Markers in Programmes for Youths”, he delineates markers or criteria that can help recognize whether a program is using the SF approach. His thoughts can be very helpful for anyone who is starting a program or who wants to reflect on their stance in working with young people. The title “theory” suggests something a dry and not particularly enjoyable read. As I was editing these lovely contributions, I was amazed at how all of the authors bring to life theory in an amusing and easily understandable way! I hope you will enjoy reading these chapters as much as I did.

Chapter 7

Stretching the world A friendly explanation of SF practice Mark McKergow

Introduction In Solution Focused (SF) work we are traditionally very wary of explanations. There are good reasons for this, particularly in terms of explanations relating to the client and their situation. After all, what else is a diagnosis but a kind of explanation? SF work is based on what the client wants, and what is working for them. We are definitively not interested in how they got into their current predicament and why they are stuck; that is the problem-solving route, the opposite of our principles. If we succeed in investigating the reasons or explanation for the client’s troubles, we risk merely confirming that progress will be difficult. Steve de Shazer himself pointed out that once accepted, the explanatory metaphor can obscure and distract from all kinds of useful conversations (de Shazer, 1991, p. 25). This is all well and good in terms of working with clients. But what happens when we are asked by other professionals about our work? An interested colleague might ask us, “This Solution Focused thing you do … how does it work?”. It seems like a reasonable question – after all, other schools of practice have their own explanations. But if we stick to our noexplanations position, we either try to educate the colleague about why they asked a difficult conceptual question (which will take a deal of time and energy and is probably more detail than they had in mind) or we go with a not-knowing position and say “I don’t know …”. This may appear nicely coherent to us, but risks looking dumb, incurious and downright unethical to others. Not a good look. This chapter explores the question of how we can give a brief and convincing explanation of our work – while maintaining a theoretical coherence with the SF literature and practice. If we can point to the aspects of what we are doing that make a difference for the client, our work will appear more grounded and clear to our colleagues, funders, regulators – and clients. I propose we are “stretching the world” of the client.

Stretching the world

51

SF 2.0 – building descriptions, not devising interventions Before we look for suitable explanations of what we do, let us attempt to be clear about exactly what it IS that we do. Since SF appeared as SolutionFocused Brief Therapy (SFBT) at the Brief Family Therapy Center, Milwaukee in the late 1980s (McKergow, 2009), it has been undergoing gradual renewal and adjustment. In the initial incarnations, SFBT is clearly an evolution of the interactional brief strategic therapy devised by the Mental Research Institute, Palo Alto (see for example Fisch, Weakland, & Segal, 1982) under Don Jackson and John Weakland, Steve de Shazer’s supervisor and mentor. Their work involved one-way mirrors, a team of therapists observing the therapeutic interaction, consultations between the main therapist and team out of sight of the client, leading to the construction and delivery of an end-of -session message and task to the client. The intervention was intended to interrupt some key pattern holding the problem in place, allowing new behaviours to emerge. There have been various shifts over the past two decades which have gradually moved away from this “interventionist” model of SF work. Many practitioners don’t (and indeed can’t) work in the highly structured and resource-heavy environments of mirrors and teams, and single-practitioner work is now the norm (outside north American university counselling departments, at any rate). The focus of our work has moved away from exception-finding towards helping clients build descriptions of better futures, as well as connecting those with supportive events in the past and present. The influential book chapter by Guy Shennan and Chris Iveson (2011) pointed to this move, with clarity about the difference between “action language” (“what are you doing?”) and description language (“what are you noticing?”), with the conversation being seen as the intervention rather than the tasks given to do later. This shift to description has been extended by Iveson and McKergow (2016). I have dubbed this shift in emphasis “SFBT 2.0” (McKergow, 2016). It feels to me a bit like one’s child growing up; there is little to notice day-today but comparing a photo of the six year-old with the reality of the 16 year-old shows dramatic differences. A key part of this shift is an increase in the level of detail sought by the practitioner in terms of the client’s descriptions – not just that something would happen, but exactly what; what would be the first signs that others noticed, what difference would that make, what would happen next, and so on. There are key differences in practice here from the tapes of (for example) Insoo Kim Berg 20 years ago and Chris Iveson today. This quest for detail is pursued rigorously and with purpose by the practitioner, even in the face of initial protestations from the client that they don’t know! Given that there is initial evidence that this form of SF work is at least as effective and efficient as the previous ones (and potentially more efficient,

52

Mark McKergow

with fewer sessions taken), we have a question to answer: how does simply describing something change things? What is happening when we encourage our clients to describe better futures and instances from the past in detail? I propose that the mechanism is that we are ‘stretching the world’ of the client in the conversation – so that when the client leaves the consulting room, their world is already different from when they arrived. But they don’t quite know how it’s different … yet. To explore this idea, we need first to consider what we mean by ‘the world of the client’ – which means going back a century, to some ground-breaking work from Jakob von Uexküll.

The world as Umwelt – opportunities for interaction Jakob von Uexküll was a German biologist working in the early decades of the 20th century. He became interested in how organisms interacted, or knew to interact, with their environments. He proposed the idea of an Umwelt (Von Uexküll, 1920); a species-specific subjective self-in-world reference frame, constituted by “carriers of significance” – signs of opportunities for interaction that were important to the creature. Von Uexküll gives the example of a tick (a small insect existing by sucking animal blood) – sensitive to light (to aid in climbing to the top of blades of grass), the “odour” of butyric acid (emitted by hairy mammals like dogs) and warmth (to tell them whether they are on a suitable creature or not). These signs are what makes the world of the tick – other matters such as the time of year or the state of the stock market are simply not of concern (to the tick). This kind of argument was extended by American psychologist J. J. Gibson, who proposed that humans (and other species) see the world as affordances – opportunities for interaction. Gibson (1977) proposed that perception is not a neutral sense-gathering activity but rather a key part of action, and so we perceive (say) a wooden café chair not as an interestingly twisted construction of steamed shaped wood coated with varnish but rather as a place to sit. (We may of course reflect on the chair too, taking a new look at it, rather in the same way that Marcel Duchamp forced fresh perspectives on a ceramic urinal by placing it in an art gallery and calling it ‘Fountain’.) Note that this is still species-specific; a small bird flying into my office might see a guitar on a stand as a place to perch, whereas I see it mostly as an opportunity to make music rather than as a seat. As humans, we possess at least two key tools that expand our range of affordances – memory and language. Whereas the tick responds to warm fur in its immediate vicinity right now, we can remember many things which are not immediately present – I know to go to the kitchen when I am hungry and want an apple. (I don’t dispute that many animals have memory at some level too, which helps them make their living.) With the question of language however, humans are way ahead of any other species. We can bring things like crocodiles into our presence with language, we can learn and pass on information with language, we can co-ordinate and co-operate with language.

Stretching the world

53

With language and memory, affordances and Umwelt move from being species-specific to being individual. Imagine walking through a forest with a botanist, an artist and a survivalist. The botanist notices different plants, talks about how they grow and multiply and where they are normally found. The artist is noticing the light, the colours, the shapes, and can produce work which somehow brings these things into a new representation. The survivalist knows what can be eaten, what is poison and how to make useful artefacts like cords and hammocks from what’s around. It’s the “same” forest – and yet these are three different Umwelts.

A world as a “field of affordances” Looking at worlds as Umwelts and affordances has returned to the agenda with the rising interest in the paradigm of enactive cognition (see for example Chemero, 2009; Hutto & Myin, 2013; Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991). In contrast to the prevailing cognitive paradigm of brain-ascomputer, enactive cognition see the brain as a linking organ playing a part in a much wider process of action/perception. Gibson’s idea of the critical role of affordances in perception has been extended by Sanneke De Haan, Rietveld, Stokhof and Denys (2013) with their idea of ‘landscapes’ and “fields” of affordances. Remember that an affordance appears in the interaction between an organism and its environment. Thus, it doesn’t make sense to speak of an affordance as simply “out there” in the environment, or “in here” in the organism – we need both. A chair may offer a sitting opportunity to a human – but it also offers sleeping to cats, eating to moths, chewing to dogs, and so on. De Haan and her co-authors (2013) whittle this down with their idea of the “landscape of affordances” as “all possibilities for action open to a specific form of life” (p. 7), which depends on the abilities available to this form of life – the entire field of possibilities open (say) to human beings. They then narrow this down further by proposing a “field of affordances”, the relevant possibilities for action that an individual is responsive to in a concrete situation. This field of affordances corresponds to the “world” of the individual – the opportunities for interaction, which are noticeable and usable. Of course, this is an excerpt from the landscape of affordances, the set of all possible interactions for humans. For example, my office has a large chunky door frame, which I use to enter and exit. My friend David, a climbing enthusiast, uses it to practice pull-ups to strengthen his fingers – indeed, his world is full of handholds, lines of ascent, ledges and opportunities for gymnastic exertion, which is probably why he is much skinnier than I am. (And yes, he also uses the door frame to enter and exit.) De Haan et al. (2013) go even further in proposing “dimensions” for the field of affordances. They propose that it can be characterised by “width” (broadness of scope, choices and options), “depth” (extending from now into

54

Mark McKergow

the future, including anticipatory responsiveness) and “height” (relevance and importance of affordances, including motivation and “affective allure”). One can easily grasp how the worlds of (say) someone who is depressed might be rather small in width and depth with not many possibilities and little chance to change them, or how an OCD sufferer’s world might be dominated in height by washing their hands or checking the gas. In my view, the work of De Haan and her colleagues open up huge possibilities for all kinds of clinical work, which have so far made little impact in practice.

SFBT as “stretching the world of the client” What is going on when we engage the client in describing tiny signs of progress, of the miracle happening, that things were going better, that they are now closer to ten on the scale? I propose that we are helping them generate new, or at least newly relevant and important, affordances. The client describes “better …” • • • • •

In In In In In

their own language the future, past and/or present everyday terms detail particular, in terms of “noticing” and “signs” …

The language of “tiny signs” and “noticing” could hardly be more suited to such a task. Here is a small example taken from a session reported in Iveson and McKergow (2016), where Mary is talking about her partner returning from work the day after the miracle. And what is the first thing he would notice when he got home, even before you spoke? What is the very first thing? MARY: I would be … instead of a worried, stressed, anxious look on my face maybe a smile. INTERVIEWER: Okay. And what would be the first thing you would notice about his response even before he spoke? MARY: I think my body language would just be so … you know normally he has to come looking for me whereas I would imagine that I would be open to go and cuddle him instead. You know? So … INTERVIEWER: Would he faint or …? MARY: Possibly, yeah, absolutely. You might have to have the paramedics on standby, yeah. I think it would be shock, but pleasant shock rather than shock shock. INTERVIEWER: So where would that be? Where would you be cuddling him? INTERVIEWER:

Stretching the world

55

I would imagine that … because I do almost always hear him pull up. I never go to the door. I let him come in through the door and come find me. Whereas I would probably go find him. INTERVIEWER: Okay, so that would be a different … MARY: Yeah. INTERVIEWER: And what would you notice about the way you cuddled him that fitted with this sense of peace and pleasure, of being you? MARY: He describes sometimes that when he asks me for a cuddle … he said, “When I ask you for a cuddle …” and I do give it to him, he goes “You are rigid and you almost … you cuddle me but you are pushing me away.” So I would imagine that it would be a much more natural, open embrace where I felt relaxed and safe enough to do that. Not rigid and tight. INTERVIEWER: And what would you notice about his response to your cuddling and that kind of relaxed …? MARY: I think that he would be delighted with how it felt to have a cuddle that didn’t feel like he was a) having to ask for or b) being pushed away from. INTERVIEWER: And what would you notice about his arms? MARY: I think they might be quite tight around me and probably hold me for longer than normal. INTERVIEWER: Okay. And what would you notice about how you handled that? MARY:

It is quite clear that there are now more significant possibilities in the cuddle, and different ways of doing it, that Mary has created for herself. Her world is stretched – there are more possibilities, more affordances, newly relevant affordances for her. Why “stretching” the world rather than “changing” or “rebuilding”? The idea of “stretching” seems to me to fit this situation particularly well, for a number of reasons. • • • •

A stretch requires effort from the client. When the first response to (say) a miracle question is “Ummmm …”, that is a good sign that the client is going to work A stretch may show tendency to return somewhat towards original size. We can’t know how much of newly stretched world will persist, and it may relax back somewhat after the session. We have to wait and see Changes will continue after the session too. The client will leave the consulting room with their world already stretched and will live into their new worlds. The impact of that only appears over time “What’s better” questions at follow-up sessions can be seen as asking about how the newly stretched world is fitting for the client, how they are experiencing it, what else they need to do. This kind of conversation also fits well into the world-stretching paradigm

56

Mark McKergow

Conclusions This kind of detailed yet everyday language seems to have appeared in our work on the basis of empirical trial and error rather than any grand theoretical scheme, yet here is a well-fitting theoretical construct which not only helps to support our work, but also offers way to extend it and research it. It’s possible to see how research into the language of noticing and detail might be carried out. And, in a potentially controversial move, this idea moves SFBT away from purely “social construction” and towards an even more overarching bio-social contextual position. Discussion of that must await further writing and conversation.

References Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. De Haan, S., Rietveld, E., Stokhof, M., & Denys, D. (2013). The phenomenology of deep brain stimulation-induced changes in OCD: An enactive affordance-based model. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 653. Retrieved from www.frontiersin. org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00653/full de Shazer, S. (1991). Putting difference to work. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Fisch, R., Weakland, J. H., & Segal, S. (1982). The tactics of change: Doing therapy briefly. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hutto, D. D., & Myin, E. (2013). Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Iveson, C., & McKergow, M. (2016). Brief therapy: Focused description development. Journal of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy, 2(1), 1–17. McKergow, M. (2009). Gale Miller: The man behind the mirror behind the mirror at BFTC. InterAction, 1(1), 78–88. McKergow, M. (2016). SFBT 2.0: The next generation of solution-focused brief therapy has already arrived. Journal of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy, 2(2), 1–17. Shennan, G., & Iveson, C. (2011). From solution to description: Practice and research in tandem. In C. Franklin, T. S. Trepper, E. E. McCollum, & W. J. Gingerich (Eds.), Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence-based practice (pp. 281–298). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Von Uexküll, J. (1920). Theoretische B=biologie. Berlin: Paetel.

Chapter 8

Recursive Frame Analysis (RFA) as a research tool for mapping professional helping conversations Leoš Zatloukal and Edita Bezdicˇ ková

Introduction Currently, a relatively large variety of “helping professions” exist, whose main instrument of choice, when “helping” would be a conversation. Among the most renowned ones are psychotherapy, counselling, coaching or supervision … However, the final number, and also the actual definition of the aforementioned professions, varies greatly. Yet, even though these professions differ from each other significantly, they all share an emphasis on the conversation being the main instrument of change. They also share the importance they give to researching their activities. In this chapter, we present one of the possible methods of analysis used to study the professional helping conversations, the Recursive Frame Analysis (RFA). The text first offers a short overview of the position of the RFA method among other research methods. It then provides an introduction of the methods, theoretical guidelines and principles, and ends by offering a practical application illustrated by a case description.

Research into helping conversations The “helping professions”, whose main instrument of choice is a conversation – regardless of whether we are speaking about psychotherapy, counselling, coaching, supervision or about any other similar profession – are necessarily faced with two basic questions. The first question asks about the outcome and the second one about the process. These two questions correspond with the two main types of research in this area – the so-called “outcome research” and the “process research” (Timulak, 2008). The outcome research field, no matter if regarding therapy, coaching, etc., is centred around our aim to demonstratively recognise and to measure if the desired change occurred (De Haan, 2008; Goodheart, Kazdin, & Sternberg, 2006). This question necessarily comes hand in hand with another one – one asking for an explanation – how did the change occur (Kazdin, 2009). The “how” question not only naturally leads us to the field of “process research” (Timulak, 2008), but it also represents a crucial question in relation to the

58

Leoš Zatloukal and Edita Bezdicˇ ková

“outcome research”. In the context of a scientific methodology, it is not substantial enough to conclude an outcome, or even to postulate an existing causal relationship between the outcome and the helping conversation without a necessary understanding of the process of change and its rational explanation (Elliott, 2010; Kazdin, 2009). The “change process research” field dedicates itself to answering this crucial question by situating itself at the threshold between outcome and process research. (Elliott, 2010; Greenberg, 1986). Elliott (2010) includes the microanalytic sequential process design among the most renowned research designs used in the “change process research” field. The Recursive Frame Analysis (RFA) represents one type of microanalytical sequential process designs.

The theoretical guidelines and principles of RFA RFA was originally developed as a tool for transcription and close observation of therapeutic conversations and, further, for widening the spectrum of new, creative possibilities of therapists’ actions and interventions (Keeney, 1990; Keeney & Keeney, 2012b). It has later been developed into a standalone qualitative research method, which is being used in studies of not only therapeutic, but of professional conversations overall. Its applications are wide-ranging (Chenail, 1995; Keeney & Keeney, 2012b; Keeney, Keeney, & Chenail, 2015). An important theoretical source of inspiration for the development of this research method lies in the works of Bateson (1979, 2000), Goffman (1986) and Spencer-Brown (1994); it also finds its source in the theories of cybernetics (Chenail, 1991; Keeney, 1983; Keeney & Keeney, 2012b; Von Foerster, 2002), in social constructionist theories (Chenail, 1991; Gergen, 1999; Keeney & Keeney, 2012a, 2012b) and in performing arts (Keeney, 1990, 2009). As the last theoretical source of inspiration of the RFA, we have mentioned the performing arts. Bradford Keeney, the author of the RFA, is a jazz piano player and composer. He understands the helping profession as being of artistic character (Keeney, 1990, 2009). The interest in performing arts had led him and his colleagues towards creating a method, which enables the capturing of the quality of the “performance” of a helping professional, along with the course of the conversation. The authors of the RFA understand the process of change in a helping conversation to be present in the way in which the client talks about their situation – if we manage to capture changes in the helping conversation, it’s possible to expect some changes to appear in the clients’ lives, even outside therapy (Chenail, 1995). Chenail likens the RFA to a listening aid: Just as a hearing aid helps a person to hear sounds which would have otherwise “fallen on deaf ears,” RFA as a listening aid would help a therapist to recognise meanings or differences in a conversation which

Recursive Frame Analysis (RFA)

59

would have otherwise have been meaningless or just noise to the therapist’s “untrained ears.” (1995, p. 4) Field’s “three-act play” is another aid instrument used by the RFA. This instrument can be helpful in “scoring” any type of creative activity and therefore can be used in “scoring” a helping conversation (Keeney, 2009; Keeney et al., 2015). According to this model, the creative performance requires a gradual transition through the three acts: an opening act, followed by a middle fulcrum bridging to the culmination of the performance in an ending act (Keeney, 2009; Keeney et al., 2015). This simple three act structure (Figure 8.1) helps to capture whether any change occurs in a conversation moving from the original vicious circle of impoverished experience (Act 1), through the opening of new possibilities (Act 2), towards the development and solidification of change (Act 3). The entire process can be depicted in the following way:

Act 1

Act 2

Act 3

Impoverished Experience

Transition

Resourceful Experience

Figure 8.1 Three act structure

However, the movement between individual acts is never linear, nor is it ever unidirectional. The recursivity (circularity) principle still applies, and so the movement between acts takes place in a rather cyclical revolving manner – from the vicious circle, in which one gets stuck in a problem or trapped in a pathological frame (Keeney, Keeney, & Chenail, 2012), towards a more desirable, constructive virtuous circle. The authors of the RFA describe the individual acts of this movement as follows: We must, again and again, remind ourselves that neither a session nor life itself is a straight ahead linear plot line. People go back and forth between frames, take side road exits, and most importantly, go in circles, or in other forms of loopy meanderings … Getting a virtuous circle of interaction in motion is the first goal of transformation and change.

60

Leoš Zatloukal and Edita Bezdicˇ ková

Keeping it moving is the second goal. The final goal is leaving it alone to continue feeding itself in a positive and resourceful manner. (Keeney et al., 2015, pp. 35–36) Apart from the fact that the transition between individual acts is not linear, it is not unidirectional. The second act sometimes referred to as the “middle” or the “bridging” (Keeney, 1990, 2009; Keeney et al., 2015) can be compared to the pendulum (Keeney et al., 2015). By moving into Act 2, a helping conversation appears to move out of the frailty of the impoverished frame towards something creative and potentially useful for the client. However, this move is just an initial step that can once again return to the original frame, as much as a pendulum could, or it can “merge” into Act 3 and lead to the reinforcement and sedimentation of change and towards the development of a new resourceful framework (Keeney, 2009). A useful session usually includes several transitions between Acts 1, 2 and 3, revolving in both directions, before finally settling in Act 3. Let us add that in the research context, RFA can be seen as the form of discourse analyses (Chenail, 1995; Chenail & Duffy, 2011; Keeney et al., 2015), particularly close to the “discursive psychology” research tradition (Wooffitt, 2005).

The process of using the RFA The process of using the RFA as a research methodology isn’t clearly defined. According to our experience, it is possible to describe it in eight general and overlapping steps, similar to the ones used in discursive psychology (Keeney et al., 2015; Lester, Wong, O’Reilly, & Kiymba, 2018): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Research objective Data collection Data processing Transcription Data analysis Presentation of outcomes and the visualisation forms of the RFA Additional methods of analysis Quality management of the research

Research objective

The RFA can be used to analyse the performative level of the usage of language in a conversation. It cannot be used to study perceptions, or any other “internal entities” belonging to the individual participants of a conversation, nor can it be used for any kind of classification of these “entities” (Chenail & Duffy, 2011). The objective of the research studies

Recursive Frame Analysis (RFA)

61

using RFA as their methodology is usually formulated in a general way and is developed by the aid of additional research questions (Keeney et al., 2015; Lester, Wong, O’Reilly & Kiymba, 2018). These specifying research questions can be reformulated, or newly formulated based on the actual work with the data. Such an approach allows for higher research flexibility and for the inductive focusing typical for the qualitative research strategies (Lester et al., 2018). Data collection

The collection of data is directly linked to the research objective. Generally speaking, RFA analysis intends to work with naturally occurring data, data that would occur even if they were not collected for research purposes (Lester et al., 2018; Potter & Hepburn, 2005). A typical and fully “naturalistic” source of data for the RFA comes from recording the sessions – therapeutic, supervising, coaching, etc. (Chenail, 1995; Keeney et al., 2015; Lester et al., 2018; Tseliou, 2013). For the purposes of the RFA, it is ideal to use video recordings, which allow the researchers to capture both verbal and non-verbal aspects of the conversation, but in many research projects, it is also possible to use audio recordings (Chenail, 1995; Rudes, Shilts, & Berg, 1997). Data processing

The next phase, data processing, is closely related to the previous one. During this phase, the data gets stored, shared, organised, transcribed and annotated (Lester et al., 2018). It is key for the data processing phase to be done in a transparent, structured and legal way. Due to the character of the RFA, where the researchers constantly oscillate between the recordings, the transcriptions and the analysis outcomes, setting up the data processing system represents a crucial step for possible future success. Transcription

The recordings need to be transcribed. Transcription is a key element of the analysis process (Chenail, 1995; Lester et al., 2018), it creates “solid ground for the analysis” (Nikander, 2007), enables a truly empirical exploration (Keeney et al., 2012) and reinforces the transparency of the study (Nikander, 2007). At the same time, it’s important to notice, that the transcripts cannot take place of the primary database (O’Connell & Kowal, 1995, p. 105). The analysis always works with the transcripts and with the recordings in a parallel manner (Lester et al., 2018). When transcribing the recordings, the researchers either follow one of the established transcription systems, like for example the Jefferson’s one (Jefferson, 2004), or they develop their own system, which thus becomes an important instrument in gaining familiarity with the data (Lester et al.,

62

Leoš Zatloukal and Edita Bezdicˇ ková

2018). When deciding which transcription system to use, it’s important to be mindful of the intended use of the transcript and of the research itself as well as to keep in mind who will be the target audience of the resulting text (O’Connell & Kowal, 1995). The RFA studies most commonly use simple transcriptions with only a minimal number of comments and labels (Chenail & Duffy, 2011; Keeney et al., 2015; Peng, 2014; Rudes et al., 1997). Following the recommendations of O’Connell and Kowal (1995), and with respect to our own experience, we can recommend the following system: a transcription system.

Table 8.1 Transcription system Symbol

Use

Underline Hmm, ehm… (nonverbal)

Emphasis of voice in speech. Onomatopoeia are transcribed verbatim if possible Simple descriptions of nonverbal elements can be added in brackets, avoiding any interpretation (p.ex.: laughter, tears, waving hands, closing eyes, shouts, coughs etc…) The word "pause" in brackets indicates a significant pause in the speech. In case any number is included between the brackets after the word “pause”, it represents the pause length in seconds rounded to the first decimal place – eg: (pause 8.3) Simple brackets can also be used to note other comments that appear important in the transcription process, such as mutual interruption of the other speaker’s contribution, volume, stuttering, intonation, tempo, etc. Unfinished sentence The Recording length is noted in the transcription. The frequency of the annotation is every 5 minutes and the annotation always on a new line (eg: — 15 min.). To distinguish the parts of the conversation, which are either muffled, unclear or unintelligible – different colour coding is used. Everything that is hard to comprehend comes in a different colour and things that are completely unintelligible are marked with a colour-coded XXX. If useful for the purpose of the research, any more detailed markings or signs (eg from Jefferson’s system) may be used to capture specific interaction elements.

(pause) or (pause + number)

(interruption)

… — number

Text in a different colour, or a colour-coded XXX

Any other signs

Recursive Frame Analysis (RFA)

63

Data analysis

Chenail defines the RFA as “a type of sequential analysis that helps researchers note semantic shifts in a conversation” (Chenail, 1995, p. 7). Along the course of this analysis, the content (what is said), the consequentiality (what comes when, what precedes, and what follows) and the process (exploring the movements from one topic to another) of the conversation can be followed, including how individual actors use the language to create shifts in conversation (Chenail, 1995; Wiggins, 2017). It is possible to include these observations directly into the transcripts (Chenail & Duffy, 2011; Wiggins, 2017) or to use various forms of visualising the RFA, described in the following part of the chapter, or to combine both. According to Chenail, there are four basic levels of analysis used in RFA: semantic, sequential, pragmatic, and consensual (Chenail, 1995; Chenail & Duffy, 2011). Chenail explicitly distinguishes only three levels of analysis (semantic, sequential and pragmatic), the consensual level is included rather implicitly by referring to the work of the teams analysing the recordings of therapeutic sessions (Chenail, 1995; Chenail & Duffy, 2011). The semantic level of analysis tries to capture the elements carrying meaning: the frames and the “hierarchy of contexts” that present themselves. The RFA researchers follow the “anatomy”, or the meaning “structure” of the conversation (Keeney, 1990; Rambo, Heath, & Chenail, 1993). They observe and try to capture individual details – distinctions and their organization into “frames” or into higher levels of discourse, which the RFA refers to as “galleries”, “wings” and “museums” (Chenail & Duffy, 2011; Keeney, 1990). The key principle of this analysis phase is to remain as close to the original data as possible, for example in consistently using the language of the studied conversation to name the observed frames (Keeney et al., 2015), avoiding generalised interpretations or edited terminology whenever possible. The sequential level of analysis focuses on the gradual formation of the interactional frames over time, that is, how the frames chronologically follow one after another (Chenail & Duffy, 2011). As mentioned above, the meaning of the frame gets established in its relationship with other frames – those that preceded those that follow (Chenail, 1995; Keeney & Keeney, 2012a). This level of analysis, which is very closely related to the previous one, studies the transitions between frameworks and observes how some frames work as “opening” or “closing” other frames (Chenail, 1995; Keeney, 1990). The sequential analysis also pays attention to the recursive (circular) relationships between the frames – for example when some topics are being re-cycled by appearing in new contexts, and they may be affecting and changing the relationships between different frames/contexts within the hierarchy of contexts (Keeney et al., 2015).

64

Leoš Zatloukal and Edita Bezdicˇ ková

The pragmatic level of analysis directs our attention to the area of “social action”, or “function of language” (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Wiggins, 2017). It studies how the participants of the helping conversation themselves contribute to the changing of frames. As we’ve mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the RFA uses Field’s “play” structure, which allows for the scoring of any creative activity, and therefore of a conversation (Keeney, 2009; Keeney et al., 2015). The act play structure, within the context of helping professions’ conversations, allows us to note if any movement occurs away from the originally impoverished situation (Act 1), through the opening of new possibilities (Act 2), towards the reinforcement and sedimentation of change into a resourceful experience (Act 3). This level of analysis also addresses how changes have taken place between individual acts, who from the individual participants of the conversation contributed to the change, and how they did it. Although the authors of the RFA method do not mention the work in teams directly, it is optimal to implement the usage of this research instrument in research teams (Chenail, 1995; Peng, 2014). The aim is to encourage the development of the shared understanding of the studied conversations with the aid of mutual exchanges between various team members, the so-called data sessions (Hill, 2011; Wiggins, 2017). This consensual level of analysis brings new enriching insights and enhances exchange of various perspectives, leading to a new and more complex understanding of the studied subject (which corresponds with the epistemological principles of the social constructivist theories important to RFAs), and, last but not least, increases the “trustworthiness”, or the “validity” of the study (Elliott, Fischer, & Rennie, 1999; Hill, 2011). All the analysis levels mentioned above (perhaps with the exception of the consensual level) correspond with the main focal points of sequential analysis, represented by the “what”, “when” and “how” questions (Wiggins, 2017). Over the course of an RFA analysis, one constantly circles between all of them. Presentation of outcomes and the visualisation forms of the RFA

By the RFA outcome presentation, the researchers focus on visualising the structure of the therapeutic conversation, its performative aspects and on capturing the moments of creative development and change. The various visualisation forms of the RFA correspond to these aims (Chenail & Duffy, 2011; Cotton, 2010; Keeney, 1990; Keeney et al., 2015; Peng, 2014). No unified presentation system exists and the researchers using the RFA are encouraged to create new ways of presenting, matching the focus of their analyses and research needs (Keeney et al., 2015). At this point, we would like to introduce the presentation form we use, and which is particularly suited to capturing the process of change occurring

Recursive Frame Analysis (RFA)

65

in a conversation. This visualisation captures the oscillation of the conversation discourse between the individual acts in a “three-act structure”. The first column on the left lists the utterance number from the transcript (see Figure 8.2). In a routine research report, the transcript or at least its key parts would be available for the readers to monitor the way the researcher designs individual frames and galleries. In this chapter, only an illustrative example of one of the presentation forms of the RFA is provided. The transcript has been omitted due to limited space. The individual frames (or galleries) are then shown in the three columns marked with individual acts. In an RFA report frames can either be listed individually, or they can be grouped into more generalised galleries. This example lists both individual frames and galleries. The diagram shows a Solution Focused conversation, facilitated by one of the authors (L. Z.), over the course of which the client’s objectives are gradually linked with her resources, mentioned during the “small talk” and “exception talk” (De Jong & Berg, 2008). See especially the frames marked 1.1, 1.2, 3.3, 4.2, 4.3 and 5.1. This report allows detailed observation of the process of change and development in a conversation – over time, within the frame of the “three act structure”, and in both directions. The shortcoming of this way of presenting, or visualising the outcomes of an RFA is, that it doesn’t allow for the capturing of the circular character of the process of change. We try to compensate for this shortcoming by numbering the individual frames and by listing the frame number whenever a given frame re-enters into a new frame. The use of – preferably colour coded – arrows is also possible. Additional methods of analysis

The RFA itself represents a useful “map” or a “score” of a helping conversation (Keeney et al., 2015), allowing a rich view of the entire process of conversation. Yet, depending on the objectives of the research project, it can be supplemented by (or complement) other analytical tools and procedures. In particular, the RFA provides a very interesting addition to the perspectives of the clients and consultants, when looking at significant events in a conversation (Elliott & Shapiro, 1992). Aside from being useful for a detailed analysis of the significant events, the RFA of an entire session can serve the identification of the significant events of the conversation, based on identifying the discursive shifts in the conversation (Keeney et al., 2015). It can also be useful to focus on transition points between individual frames in general and between the various acts of the “three-act structure” in particular. Various forms of conversation analysis can be used to do so (Fitzgerald, 2013; Gale, 1991; Peräkylä, Antaki, Vehviläinen, & Leudar, 2008; Wooffitt, 2005), the so-called “microanalyses of communication” being among the ones most commonly used (Bavelas, 2012; De Jong, Bavelas, & Korman, 2013; Jordan, Froerer, & Bavelas, 2013; Korman, Bavelas, & De Jong, 2013).

Act I. Utterance (impoverished context)

0023

0124

Act III.

(context of change)

(context of resources)

1. LIKES 1.1. Circus and acrobacy (rope walking). 1.2. Keeping a diary. 1.3. Reading books.

0087

0112

Act II.

2. BEST HOPES 2.1. What are your best hopes from this session? 3. OVERLOADED AT WORK 3.1. I’m overloaded at work. 3.2. My colleagues don’t cooperate with me (3.1). 3.3. I need to find the “balance” at work(3.2).

4. TWO CIRCUSES 4.1. “Morning circus” and “afternoon circus” (1.1., 3.3). 4.2. New acrobatic tricks for “morning circus” (4.1). 4.3. What helped to find and maintain the balance. (3.2., 4.1, 4.2)

0197

Figure 8.2 Solution Focused conversation

5. THE DIARY OF AN ACROBAT 5.1. Observing what helps to find and maintain the balance in “morning circus” (4.3.). 5.2. Keeping the “Diary of acrobat in morning circus” (5.1).

Recursive Frame Analysis (RFA)

67

The discursive action model (DAM) known from the discourse psychology (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Lester et al., 2018; Wiggins, 2017) can serve as another suitable method of analysis. It allows the researchers to focus on the levels of a) action b) fact and interest and c) accountability. Quality management of the research

The research using the RFA method should always include quality management. There are already numerous guidelines available for the monitoring of the quality of qualitative research in general (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Silverman, 2004) and of quality of the discursive analyses in particular (Avdi & Georgaca, 2007; Lester et al., 2018; Tseliou, 2013). A more elaborate analysis of the individual criteria of quality goes beyond the scope of this text. However, we would like to highlight the need for the quality management inclusion throughout the research process, in order to ascertain the credibility of the research outcomes required, among others, by the high-quality professional journals.

Final thoughts The Solution Focused approach has evolved into its current form thanks to carefully and meticulously researched therapeutic conversations and the factors that make them useful. RFA is a research method that allows visualisation of the process of conversation and helps to understand it more deeply. It doesn’t come as a surprise then, that most pioneering research using RFA explored the Solution Focused approach (Chenail, 1995; Cotton, 2010; Rudes, Shilts, & Berg, 1997). We believe that the identification of the factors contributing to the process of change is of interest not only to Solution Focused practitioners but to all those who are engaged in helping conversations and are trying to increase their usefulness to clients. The authors of RFA claim that by using this method one can improve the “artistic” or “performative” level of helping conversations (Keeney, Keeney, & Chenail, 2012).

References Avdi, E., & Georgaca, E. (2007). Discourse analysis and psychotherapy: A critical review. European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, 9(2), 157–176. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York, NY: E. P. Dutton. Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Bavelas, J. B. (2012). Connecting the lab to the therapy room: Microanalysis, coconstruction, and solution-focused brief therapy. In C. Franklin, T. S. Trepper, W. J. Gingerich, & E. E. McCollum (Eds.), Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence-based practice (pp. 144–162). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

68

Leoš Zatloukal and Edita Bezdicˇ ková

Chenail, R. J. (1991). Bradford Keeney’s cybernetic project and the creation of recursive frame analysis. The Qualitative Report, 1(2), 1–14. Chenail, R. J. (1995). Recursive frame analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2(2), 1–14. Chenail, R. J., & Duffy, M. (2011). Utilizing Microsoft® Office to produce and present recursive frame analysis findings. The Qualitative Report, 16(1), 292–307. Cotton, J. (2010). Question utilization in solution-focused brief therapy: A recursive frame analysis of Insoo Kim Berg’s solution talk. The Qualitative Report, 15, 18–36. De Haan, E. (2008). Relational coaching: Journeys towards mastering one to one learning. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. De Jong, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Korman, H. (2013). An introduction to using microanalysis to observe co-construction in psychotherapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 32 (3), 17–30. De Jong, P., & Berg, I. K. (2008). Interviewing for solutions. Pacific Groove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage. Elliott, R. (2010). Psychotherapy change process research: Realizing the promise. Psychotherapy Research, 20(2), 123–135. Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 215–229. Elliott, R., & Shapiro, D. A. (1992). Client and therapist as analysts of significant events. In S. G. Toukmanian & D. L. Rennie (Eds.), Psychotherapy process research: Paradigmatic and narrative approaches (pp. 163–186). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fitzgerald, P. E. (2013). Therapy talk: Conversation analysis in practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Gale, J. E. (1991). Conversation analysis of therapeutic discourse: The pursuit of a therapeutic agenda. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing. Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. London: Sage. Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern. Goodheart, C. D., Kazdin, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2006). Evidence-based psychotherapy: Where practice and research meet. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Greenberg, L. S. (1986). Change process research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(1), 4–9. Hill, C. E. (Ed.). (2011). Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Jordan, S. S., Froerer, A. S., & Bavelas, J. B. (2013). Microanalysis of positive and negative content in solution-focused brief therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy expert sessions. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 32(3), 46–59.

Recursive Frame Analysis (RFA)

69

Kazdin, A. E. (2009). Understanding how and why psychotherapy leads to change. Psychotherapy Research, 19(4–5), 418–428. Keeney, B. (1983). Aesthetics of change. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Keeney, B. (1990). Improvisational therapy: A practical guide for creative clinical strategies. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Keeney, B. (2009). The creative therapist: The art of awakening a session. New York, NY: Routledge. Keeney, H., & Keeney, B. (2012a). Circular therapeutics: Giving therapy a healing heart. Phoenix, AZ: Zeig, Tucker & Theisen. Keeney, H., & Keeney, B. (2012b). Recursive frame analysis: Reflections on the development of a qualitative research method. The Qualitative Report, 17(2), 514–524. Keeney, H., Keeney, B., & Chenail, R. (2012). Recursive frame analysis: A practitioner’s tool for mapping therapeutic conversation. The Qualitative Report, 17(38), 1–15. Keeney, H., Keeney, B., & Chenail, R. J. (2015). Recursive frame analysis: A qualitative research method for mapping change-oriented discourse. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova Southeastern University Works & TQR Books. Korman, H., Bavelas, J. B., & De Jong, P. (2013). Microanalysis of formulations in solution-focused brief therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and motivational interviewing. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 32(3), 31–45. Lester, J. N., Wong, J. Y., O’Reilly, M., & Kiymba, N. (2018). Discursive psychology: Implications for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 46(5), 576–607. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Nikander, P. (2007). Constructionism and discourse analysis. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 413–429). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. O’Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. (1995). Basic principles of transcription. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 93–103). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Peng, Y. (2014). The use of recursive frame analysis on an emotionally focused couples therapy session. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1–25. Peräkylä, A., Antaki, C., Vehviläinen, S., & Leudar, I. (Eds.). (2008). Conversation analysis and psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 281–307. Rambo, A. H., Heath, A., & Chenail, R. J. (1993). Practising therapy: Exercises for growing therapists. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Rudes, J., Shilts, L., & Berg, I. K. (1997). Focused supervision seen through a recursive frame analysis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23(2), 203–215. Silverman, D. (Ed.). (2004). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Spencer-Brown, G. (1994). Laws of form. Portland, OR: Cognizer Co. Timulak, L. (2008). Research in psychotherapy and counselling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tseliou, E. (2013). A critical methodological review of discourse and conversation analysis studies of family therapy. Family Process, 52(4), 653–672.

70

Leoš Zatloukal and Edita Bezdicˇ ková

Von Foerster, H. (2002). Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition. New York, NY: Springer. Wiggins, S. (2017). Discursive psychology: Theory, method and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chapter 9

The extended iSelf Esther de Wolf and Guy Shennan

Two questions Guy was coming to the end of his keynote presentation at the European Brief Therapy Association conference in Bruges (Shennan, 2016b) and was about to invite the audience to get up and dance together to the scene in “Saturday Night Fever” in which the young New Yorkers line danced to the Bee Gees’ “Night Fever”. Before that, he posed a research question, as follows: How can we engage with the extended self of the client which includes the client’s iPhone? Answers on a postcard by email in a text via WhatsApp please! Esther, who was in the audience, smiled to herself. She was already engaging with her clients via their smartphones. The practices she was developing followed her attendance at a lecture by Bert Otten, a Dutch professor of neuromechanics and prosthetics at the University of Groningen. Professor Otten had claimed that, due to “implicit knowledge” held by the body, it is more effective to learn a physical activity by watching a video than by being given verbal instruction. This had led Esther to start exploring a question similar to Guy’s in Bruges: How can we use the research of Bert Otten in Solution Focused conversations and processes? Otten’s research was in the field of embodied cognition, and the answers that Esther was coming up with also connected to the related area of the extended mind thesis. These two subjects, straddling cognitive science and philosophy, made up the theoretical aspects of Guy’s presentation and might explain a little why he had people dancing. Their common theoretical interests, and desire to apply these to Solution Focused practice, brought Guy and Esther together, and led to this chapter.

72

Esther de Wolf and Guy Shennan

Introduction We will structure the chapter as follows. First, we will set out the theoretical concepts and related research referred to above. We will begin by introducing the field of embodied cognition, using an embodied account of visual experience as an illustration. This account will also help to show the important part played in embodied cognition by the idea of implicit knowledge. We will then look at the extended mind and whether this concept suggests an extended version of the self, in which smartphones, for example, augment our brains and bodies. An account of the research undertaken by Professor Otten will then lead us towards Esther’s practice developments, which drew on both embodied and extended ideas. We will finish by describing the exercises we developed for our Frankfurt workshop (Shennan & de Wolf, 2017), which you are welcome to try out for yourselves.

Theory and research The growing field of embodied cognition encompasses a wide-ranging set of ideas and research programmes (Shapiro, 2011), all related in some way to the “embodiment thesis” (Wilson & Foglia, 2011): Many features of cognition are embodied in that they are deeply dependent upon characteristics of the physical body of an agent, such that the agent’s beyond-the-brain body plays a significant causal role, or a physically constitutive role, in that agent’s cognitive processing. Embodied approaches challenge the traditional computational view of the mind, in which the brain, having received its input from the senses, does all the cognitive processing, before producing its behavioural outputs. From the wide-ranging embodied cognition field, we will look at two specific approaches in more detail, which will give the reader a window into these developments, albeit a small one given our limitations of space. Our examples do, however, have a particular relevance to the practices we want to present in this chapter. The first is an embodied account of visual consciousness, in which the role of tacit, or implicit, embodied knowledge plays an important part, while in the second, cognition is seen to spread not just beyond the brain to the rest of the body but into aspects of its environment too. The standard view of visual experience holds that it arises from activations of internal representations in the brain, so that a brain sitting in a vat, “stimulated in the right way, should have the same visual experiences as a normally embodied brain” (Shapiro, 2011, p. 164). In the alternative, embodied account put forward by O’Regan and Noë (2001), a person’s body plays an essential part in vision in two ways. The experience of seeing

The extended iSelf

73

depends, first, on the body’s movement as it explores its surroundings, and second, on the person’s knowledge of what O’Regan and Noë call “sensorimotor contingencies”. This term refers to the structure of the rules that govern the sensory changes produced by various motor actions. As an illustration, eye movements produce certain effects on retinal stimulation. For example, shifting an eye’s focus from the midpoint of a horizontal line to a point above it will lead to a line represented on a flattened-out retina as straight becoming curved. “In general, straight lines on the retina distort dramatically as the eyes move” (O’Regan & Noë, 2001, p. 941), and in this account, a person’s knowledge of this and of the many other sensorimotor contingencies plays a crucial part in their visual experience. Let us examine this sort of knowledge a little more closely. It is not the sort that we are aware of and can express verbally. It is tacit, or implicit, as opposed to explicit knowledge (Polanyi, 1958). Explicit knowledge is the sort that we can put into words and transmit to another person, for example, the knowledge that Frankfurt is in Germany. Tacit or implicit knowledge is harder and sometimes impossible to put into words, for example, the sort of knowledge that gives us the ability to ride a bicycle or speak a language. Often, we are not aware that we have this type of knowledge, such as our embodied knowledge of the effects of movement on the retina. This sort of knowledge plays an important role in embodied cognition. We will shortly be describing some research that shows the impact of utilising such implicit, embodied knowledge. The pioneering practices that Esther developed inspired by this research also connect with the second embodied cognition approach we want to outline, which would be more accurately described as extended cognition. The Extended Mind Thesis (EMT) claims that the constituents of the mind include not only the agent’s beyond-the-brain body but also elements of its environment (Clark & Chalmers, 1998). This might seem far-fetched, but let us ask you, do you know your best friend’s telephone number? If you were to reply that you do not, we might gently challenge you and invite you to find it in your smartphone. It is likely that you now store it there, rather than in some of the neurons in your brain, where this knowledge of yours might well have resided prior to the advent of mobile phones. The proponents of the EMT argue that, functionally, the phone is exactly equivalent here to those neurons and that it would be just “brain chauvinism” to allow that the mind is somehow located in the latter but not in the former (Clark & Chalmers, 1998). For a second example, consider how you would set about determining what number results from multiplying 387 and 853 (in the absence of your phone or calculator). Some clever arithmeticians could do this “in their heads”, but most of us would need to reach for pen and paper. Again, from the EMT viewpoint, the pen and paper become part of your extended cognitive system, as the intermediate sums can be stored there rather than held in the brain - an extended idea of “mental arithmetic”.

74

Esther de Wolf and Guy Shennan

Believing that the mind extends in this way leads to the question of whether the self can also be thought of as extended. Are we constituted as persons not only by our brains and bodies, but by aspects of our environment too? This is a contested question, and not everyone agrees with the philosopher, Andy Clark (2003, 2008), who has developed “a full and compelling account of an extended concept of personhood” (Shennan, 2016a, p. 17). Clark’s is an exciting account, however, which allows us to entertain the thought that our smartphones, for example, can be part of ourselves, and as they seem permanently attached to the hands of some of us, perhaps this thought is not so strange. Being able to see such objects as a part of us can certainly extend our ideas of what we can do in therapy (Shennan, 2016a), as we shall discover as we turn to some of Esther’s experiments in particular.

A happy accident A year before seeing Guy’s talk in Bruges, Esther accidentally attended a lecture at a conference for paediatricians in the Netherlands, by a professor of neuromechanics and prosthetics at the University of Groningen (Otten, 2015). This proved to be a happy accident. Otten was part of a research group who were interested in prevention programmes for athletes at risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, which taught athletes to jump in ways that reduced that risk. This group carried out a systematic review of various prevention programmes for athletes at risk of such injuries (Benjaminse, Welling, Otten, & Gokeler, 2015). They found that prevention programmes that used verbal instruction to train athletes how to jump were less effective than those which showed them how to jump through the use of expert and self-feedback videos. While “self -feedback” showed the athlete what he was doing, the “expert feedback” showed the athlete what he should do. As a result of these findings, Otten and his colleagues designed a new prevention programme (Benjaminse, Gokeler et al., 2015). This consisted of showing an athlete a video in which the two types of feedback – self and expert – were projected simultaneously over each other, the expert feedback showing the preferred way of jumping, the self-feedback the current jumping style of the athlete. Figure 9.1 gives an impression of the technique that was used, in this case showing a stretching exercise (this is not an actual example from Benjaminse, Gokeler et al., 2015). The grey lines represent the expert modelling shown in the video and the black figure the actual performance. Research on the programme designed by Benjaminse and Otten (Benjaminse, Welling et al., 2015) showed that athletes instructed in this way learned more quickly and more effectively, and that the effects were longerlasting. The explanation that Otten and his colleagues gave for the effects of these videos, which combined expert and self-feedback based on physical actions, drew on embodied cognition. In particular, they suggested that the

The extended iSelf

75

Figure 9.1 Self and expert feedback

videos enabled implicit motor learning. Through watching the videos, the athletes were able to develop implicit, embodied knowledge (Benjaminse & Otten, 2011). Considering these research findings from a Solution Focused view, Esther began to think that if athletes could learn more effectively by observing on video expert movements and gestures coupled with their own current movements, then people in general might also learn by gaining implicit, embodied knowledge from looking at movements and gestures, though entirely their own, related to their preferred future and current situation. The Solution Focused leap made here by Esther was to replace the comparative feedback from an external “expert” with the client’s own feedback from their desired state in the future. The client is their own expert! If it were possible to help a client to make movements and gestures that connected to their verbal descriptions of a preferred future, and make a video recording of these, this could provide implicit knowledge of their preferred future, alongside the explicit knowledge arising from what they had expressed verbally. Esther’s idea was that this would result in a more fully described preferred future that included an embodied component, which would be both experienced directly, as the client made the movements, and later observed on video. Esther hoped this would prove more useful for the client, just as the videos had been more effective for the athletes in Benjaminse and Otten’s research (Benjaminse, Welling et al., 2015). At the very least, it would offer an additional – implicit and unconscious – way of experiencing and gaining information about their preferred future in

76

Esther de Wolf and Guy Shennan

comparison to the current situation. Reasoning in this way and realising that making videos was now quite straightforward with most people having smartphones, Esther decided to experiment with this idea.

Esther’s experiments After they had described their preferred futures, Esther began to invite her clients to think of gestures or movements that would represent their preferred futures and other gestures or movements that represented their current situations. Clients were then asked to demonstrate these movements and gestures. Esther sought consent to record them on video or by taking photos using the client’s smartphone, explaining to the client that these recordings could provide another kind of information to the talking they had done about their current and preferred situation, and that this might prove useful for them. With consent obtained, the recordings were made, and the client judged whether they were representative of their preferred future and current situation. Further recordings could be made until the client was satisfied with the results. In the two photos in Figure 9.2, a client shows, first, a movement representing her current situation, and then a movement for her preferred future (Shennan & de Wolf, 2017). Esther suggested to her clients that they might look at the recordings on occasions in between sessions and invited them to notice if doing this was useful in any way. Clients were also invited to take a photo at any time they noticed an instance of their preferred future, and to share these photos at the

Figure 9.2 Current situation and preferred future movements

The extended iSelf

77

next session. These photographs added to the descriptions of instances and served to heighten the curiosity about what the client might have done to have these aspects of their preferred futures actually happen. In later evaluations of therapy, clients have regularly said that one of the things they remember most clearly from their sessions is the movements they created as part of their preferred futures and the videos made of these. At the same time, they have not been able to tell how the movements and recordings affected them, which would fit with the movements having led to implicit learning. Further work is needed to determine the specific effects of embodied practices within Solution Focused sessions, in relation to the other aspects of the work. Clearly, however, these practices have had an impact on those clients with whom they have been used.

Our workshop exercises The impact of using embodied practices within a Solution Focused approach has also been attested by workshop participants who have participated in exercises adapted by Guy following his attendance at a dance workshop (Shennan, 2012). One such exercise formed part of our workshop in Frankfurt in 2017, and you will note the similarities with Esther’s experiments. We would like to encourage you to try this out. All you need is a willing partner and a little bit of space to move around in. You can take it in turns to be the subject and the facilitator. 1. The facilitator starts by asking the subject to talk about their hopes for themselves for the rest of the year - or for any suitable period of time ahead, or in relation to a current project – with the pair feeling free to go for a walk while doing so 2. The subject is then invited to create a movement that represents and communicates these hopes 3. The subject shows the facilitator their movement, two or three times. The facilitator then reflects the subject’s movement back to them 4. The subject next chooses a suitable word or phrase to accompany their movement 5. The subject can now make their movement, while calling out the chosen word or phrase, and the facilitator records this on the subject’s smartphone Note one difference to Esther’s use of movements with her clients, which is the addition of a word or phrase being chosen to accompany the movement. This offers another means to integrate verbal and embodied practices, and there will surely be many other ways to do so. Recording the movement on a smartphone was an innovation of Esther’s and returns us to the idea of the extended self. You might not realise it, but

78

Esther de Wolf and Guy Shennan

your own self is likely to be extended, as you will see when we mention our other Frankfurt exercise. Find a photo in your smartphone that represents a sparkling moment in your life. If you have an exercise partner, show it to them and tell them about what made this moment sparkle and about your part in this. Our Solution Focused practices can be extended too, when we realise that the memories people carry around with them are no longer only in their heads.

Conclusion We were delighted when we discovered our common interests in embodied cognition and the extended mind and self, and our common desire to apply these to Solution Focused practice, as this has enabled us to extend our knowledge and ideas about this. We are also delighted to have had the opportunity to potentially extend this further through writing this chapter. The act of sharing our knowledge and ideas with each other has forced us to make them more explicit, both in terms of the theoretical concepts and in how to apply them to our Solution Focused practice. We suspect that our common interest might be connected with shared implicit knowledge that stretches back many years. Though we come from different countries, we are close in age, and, who knows, it might even have been on the same day that as teenagers we sat spellbound through “Saturday Night Fever”, one in the Netherlands and one in England. There is a lot of implicit motor learning to be gained from that film! Although it contains no dancing sequences, our best hope from this chapter is that it helps the spread of both implicit and explicit knowledge of these exciting ideas.

References Benjaminse, A., Gokeler, A., Dowling, A. V., Faigenbaum, A., Ford, K. R., Hewett, T. E., … Myer, G. D. (2015). Optimization of the anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention paradigm: Novel feedback techniques to enhance motor learning and reduce injury risk. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 45(3), 170–182. Benjaminse, A., & Otten, E. (2011). ACL injury prevention, more effective with a different way of motor learning? Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 19 (4), 622–627. Benjaminse, A., Welling, W., Otten, E., & Gokeler, A. (2015). Novel methods of instruction in ACL injury prevention programs, a systematic review. Physical Therapy in Sport, 16(2), 176–186. Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies and the future of human intelligence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The extended iSelf

79

Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. O’Regan, J. K., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 939–1031. Otten, B. (2015, November 4–6). Presentation on State of the art: De ontwikkeling van bewegingssturing (State of the Art: The development of motion control). 37ste Congres Nederlandse Vereniging voor Kindergeneeskunde, Veldhoven. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Shapiro, L. (2011). Embodied cognition. New York, NY: Routledge. Shennan, G. (2012). Dancing towards solutions. In A. Lewinski, J. Szczepkowski, & T. Switek (Eds.), Upside down: Solution focused paradigms – revolutions and evolutions (pp. 103–110). Torun: Wydawnictwo Edukacyjne. Shennan, G. (2016a). Extended mind, extended person, extended therapy? InterAction, 8(1), 7–30. Shennan, G. (2016b, September 24). Paper presented on Personal identity, embodied and extended minds, and therapy. European Brief Therapy Association conference, Bruges. Shennan, G., & de Wolf, E. (2017, September 22). Workshop on The extended iSelf: Using smartphones in solution-focused brief therapy. SF World Conference, Frankfurt. Wilson, R., & Foglia, L. (2011). Embodied cognition. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition). Retrieved from http://plato.stan ford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/embodied-cognition

Chapter 10

Narrow and wide ways of solution-growing Leoš Zatloukal and Lenka Tkadlcˇ íková

From problem-solving to solution-growing The distinction between problem-solving and solution-development is crucial in the Solution Focused approach (de Shazer, 1994). The “problem-solving” approach is to find a key problem and uncover its (mostly hidden) causes and then remove or fix the problem in a way that is proven based on prior experience (observation, scientific research, etc.). In a psychotherapy context, this model is called the “medical model” and the way of removing a problem is often called “evidence-based practice” (Wampold, 2001). Although this model works quite well at times, it also has great limitations, especially in working with “non-trivial systems” like clients in psychotherapy, counselling, coaching, supervision etc. (De Haan, 2008; De Jong & Berg, 2008; Wampold, 2001). Solution-development can be seen as a completely different paradigm (De Jong & Berg, 2008). De Shazer defines the “solution” within the SFBT approach as “what begins to develop when the problem is dissolved and what happens once the client’s goal is met” (de Shazer, 1991, p. 121). An older text offers a more detailed definition: Solutions are the behavioural and/or perceptual changes that the therapist and client construct to alter the difficulty, the ineffective way of overcoming the difficulty, and/or the construction of an acceptable, alternative perspective that enables the client to experience the complaint situations differently. (de Shazer et al., 1986, p. 210) From our perspective, both definitions highlight several aspects of what we call “solutions” in SFBT: 1. “Solutions” represent changes (and thus processes) that are connected with various areas of the undesirable situation (the “problem”) and they are neither derived from the “problem” nor necessarily correspond to its complexity, they only “fit” in the context (de Shazer, 1985)

Narrow and wide ways of solution-growing

81

2. These changes lead somewhere (it is the development of something desirable for the client – “problem is solved or goal is met”) 3. “Solutions” create something new (it is not only about eliminating or to fixing something undesirable) 4. This change is co-created by both the client and the therapist (it is the result of cooperation, not the unilateral or instructive action of one of the parties) 5. This change is based on the resources available (de Shazer, 1988) In SFBT literature, the process is mostly described as a “solution-development” (de Shazer et al., 1986) or with the help of a technical metaphor as a “solutionbuilding” (De Jong & Berg, 2008). We offer an alternative metaphor: solutiongrowing. The advantage is that it is a metaphor connected with nature, not with the construction industry. The solution is, within this metaphor, a set of changes that are organic. They grow, influence and reinforce each other. They do not represent something that was once “made” or “built” and remains the same, like a building. This view is extremely important for the discussion of the sustainability of the change (the solution) – it is not about the new built formula being solid (as a building) and preserved, but about continuing with its development, self-strengthening and growing (Keeney & Keeney, 2012). Practically, the focus on “developing solutions” is most often manifested by examining the desired change during the consultation (what the client wants to achieve) and the achievements and resources (which the client can build on). Both can be accessed in a “wide” or “narrow” way, as described in the following part.

Narrow and wide ways of solution–growing The distinction of the “narrow” and “wide” path to solution-growing represents a metaphor that can help practitioners reflect the richness and the width of the process. If we consider the biological metaphor of solutiongrowing, it makes us think of the place where we plan to sow the seeds and let the change (solution) grow. In SFBT, the meaning of thick descriptions is very often emphasised (de Shazer et al., 2007; Iveson, George, & Ratner, 2012; Ratner, George, & Iveson, 2012). Detailed descriptions can greatly contribute to the “widening” of the solution, but an important aspect here is not only the degree of the detail, but also the overall focus of the conversation. We can explain it with the help of an example from practice: let’s imagine a client who comes to talk about the panic attacks she experiences when she needs to talk to other colleagues at work (as she is the small team leader, she has to do it quite often). As part of the “problem solving” frame, the practitioner would probably address the problem and its hypothetical causes and would seek appropriate methods to eliminate or fix it. When growing

82

Leoš Zatloukal and Lenka Tkadlcˇíková

a solution, the SFBT therapist most often focuses on the change the client desires (preferred future) together with moments when a desired change or at least its pieces were achieved in the past (exceptions, instances) (De Jong & Berg, 2008; Shennan, 2014). The following example focuses on the first area (preferred future), but it could also be applied to the other area. Case example

The sample is a transcription of the extract from the first session (it is translated from Czech to English). T indicates the therapist (L. Z.), C indicates the client. All names used in the transcript are fictional. 1. T: “You talked about the panic attacks you are experiencing when you need to talk to other colleagues at work … hmmm … suppose that this meeting will be really useful to you, just as it may be … what will help you realise without any doubt – perhaps right now or in the next few days – that things have shifted a lot to the better?” (opening) 2. C: “I would feel better at the meetings.” (feelings) 3. T: “What kind of feeling will it be when you feel better?” (feelings) 4. C: “Well, (pause) that would be a feeling of relief.” (feelings) 5. T: “How specifically would that relief be manifested? (pause) Where will you feel in the relief in your body?” (feelings, physiology) 6. C: “Hmmm … on the chest …” (feelings, physiology) 7. T: “And what kind of feeling will it be? (Longer pause, client keeps thinking) More like warmth or cold? Or some pulsation or some flow or burden …?” (feelings, physiology) 8. C: “Such as a void … a pleasant void.” (feelings, physiology) 9. T: “Pleasant void … hmmm … is it a feeling that you can easily recall? Can you recognise it when it is coming?” (feelings, physiology) 10. C: “Definitely” In the example, we can see a shift from the description of the problem to developing solutions with a “common project” question (Korman, 2017). At the same time, it is clear that, although the description of the change is quite detailed (while taking into account the nonverbal aspects of the description apparent on the recording), the “solutions” remains very “narrowly” focused on the client’s feelings and physiology. A useful tool for “extending” the solution can be the model presented by Harry Korman. It proposes to consider three basic layers in which the conversation can move and thus “extend” solution-growing (Korman, 2017): 1.“inner states” (feelings, thoughts, physiological experiences) 2. behaviour and 3. interaction with others (plus wider context). It is advisable to move from one layer to another when working on the thick descriptions so that all of them are in fact interconnected (Korman, 2017). Basically, it does not matter where the

Narrow and wide ways of solution-growing

83

conversation begins and where it goes (usually it begins where the client wants to begin). It is important to include all the layers so that the solution does not remain narrowly focused only on feelings or thoughts, behaviour or interaction with others. Each of these aspects is important because all of them together create the context for developing solutions. One of the SFBT hallmarks is to avoid the artificial isolation of individual aspects (typically feelings or thoughts, which we call “inner states”). Attention needs to be paid to the consistent perception of these aspects and their deliberate use within the overall context (de Shazer et al., 2007). The interview below shows the transition to the other layers (the layers are determined in the parentheses for easier orientation): Case example (continued)

11. T: “Okay … and if you had this feeling of a pleasant void, what would be different then? (pause) What would you do that you do not do usually? What would you think?” (behaviour, thinking) 12. C: “I do not know … maybe I would smile at the people in my team.” (behaviour) 13. T: “You would smile at the people in your team … (the client smiles, T points to it) like that?” (behaviour) 14. C: “Yes.” (she starts smiling even more) 15. T: “What else will you do?” 16. C: “I guess … I’m going to look more at people when I talk … and I will not drop my pen …” (she laughs) (behaviour) 17. T: “You will look more at people when you talk … hmm, is there someone from the team who you will be looking at more often than at others?” 18. C: “I will look at all of them … (pause) but it’s true that I’m probably going to look more often at those who will be following me and will seem to accept what I say.” 19. T: “Aaaah … well … so you will look more often at some people and somehow you will be able to keep your pen … what else will happen?” 20. (…) 44. T: “Will the people in your team notice that? (C: nods) And how will they respond?” (pause) (interaction) 45. C: (smiles) “I think they will be glad.” (interaction) 46. T: “And how will you know they have noticed the change and that they like it?” (interaction) 47. C: “I think they will tell me it was a good meeting.” (interaction) 48. T: “Is there anyone in the team you expect to tell you first?” (interaction)

84

Leoš Zatloukal and Lenka Tkadlcˇíková

49. C: “Probably Jane, she knows how hard it is for me and always keeps her fingers crossed for me.” (interaction) 50. T: “So, will Jane certainly notice it? (C: nods) And she will tell you it was good meeting … well … and during the meeting, before anybody can tell you, will you recognise somehow that some people noticed the change … and maybe even that they like it?” (interaction) 51. C: “Hmm … I do not know … they probably will not be so much on their mobile phone.” (interaction) 52. T: “If they do not write on their mobile phone, how will they react when they notice the change in you?” (interaction) 53. C: “They will make notes or follow what I say.” (interaction) In the extract from the interview above, the focus of the conversation got spread to more areas – behaviour, thoughts and interaction. Some parts of the consultation have been omitted due to the limited space (as you see in the text (…) and the numbers in the interview show it). Due to limited space, the other aspects (thoughts and behaviours) are not well represented, they were explored in other parts of the session. We have tried to capture the interaction layer (44–53) in which it is possible to see the quest for circular (interactional) descriptions according to the simplified scheme of “sequences of interactions”. A similar sequence was described by some authors as a “chain of influence” (Iveson et al., 2012). Sequence 1

• • • • • • •

Who will notice it? What specifically will this person X notice? How will the person X respond? What will the client notice about the respondent X? How will the client respond? (This can be repeated a few times – what else will the person X notice? etc. Then you can move on to the following questions.) What kind of relationship will you and person X have? What will be different in the relationship then?

Sequence 2

• • • • • •

Who else will notice it? What specifically will this other person Y notice? How will the person Y respond? What will the client notice about the respondent Y? How will the client respond? (This can be repeated a few times – What else will the person Y notice? etc. Then you can move on to the following questions.)

Narrow and wide ways of solution-growing

• •

85

What kind of relationship will you and person Y have? What will be different in the relationship then? Note: It is possible to continue in a similar way also with other people (Sequence 3,4, 5 …) who may notice some kind of change in a client

Another option to extend the solution-growing is to focus on various areas of client’s life. (“at home”, “at work”, “tennis” etc.). Sometimes we can focus very closely on one area in which change will manifest itself (the preferred future) or it already manifested itself (exceptions, instances), and sometimes we can focus on some other areas. It may surprise the client as well as the therapist how change in one area can be related to other areas that at first glance seemed completely separated and unrelated. The previous extract demonstrated (11) how to work with differences, which is another way of extending the solution. The conversation focused on differences uses the general structure “how does X differ from Y?” This general structure is different from the simple question “How does X look?” When working with a preferred future, work with differences can look like this: “What will you do differently a day after the miracle?” Similarly, when working with exceptions, one may ask, “What other thoughts kept coming to your mind at that moment and in that situation (exception), what was different from your usual thoughts?” No matter which layer a therapist and a client move in, it is always possible to extend descriptions through variations of the question “what else?” This question allows you to zoom the situation out and move from one area of the description to another one (Ratner et al., 2012). An especially important area of solution-growing is associated with questions of the client’s resources that concern both the client’s past and present time. The starting point may be the exceptions or instances of the preferred future (De Jong & Berg, 2008), but also work with a scale (in particular a description of the difference between 0 and X), coping questions. All these areas can be followed by exploring resources, for example: • • • • •

How did you do that? What helped you to manage that? How much effort have you put into this? What helped you not give up? What did you learn from it?

In a similar way, we can deal with the resources while using questions exploring the client’s confidence (De Jong & Berg, 2008). The only difference is that we do not work with a specific situation of success in the past, but with past experiences, which give the client confidence that it can change for the better. The past experience helps to empower the client by

86

Leoš Zatloukal and Lenka Tkadlcˇíková

providing him or her with an experience of having a resource that was manifested in the life of client before. Another interesting area for the extension of solution-growing is the focus on identity. (Shennan (2014) mentions inspiration through a narrative approach that instead of a typical resource-oriented question (e.g.: “How did you do that?”) rather focuses on the identity of the actors (e.g.: “Who are you to have done that?”). Michael White described the significance of the distinction between “landscape of action” and “landscape of identity” for the enrichment (in our metaphor we could say extension) leading to the creation of a new story (White, 2007). The author emphasises the premise that “renegotiation of the stories of people’s lives is also a renegotiation of identity” (White, 2007, p. 82). Extending the solutiongrowing in the area of identity can be done while using following questions: • • • •

“What does it mean to you that you managed to do something … (exception)?” “What will it mean for you if you succeed …?” “What does it say about you as a man?” “What did it take?”

Transitions between “narrow” and “wide” ways of solution-growing In the previous section, we have explored the possibilities of extending solution-growing. The opposite process – narrowing – occurs most often by simply leaving some potentially extending areas aside. Although extending the solution-growing sounds to the SFBT practitioner’s ear as a clearly desirable option, we do not think it’s automatic that the wider the conversation shot, the better. We would like to offer several guidelines: • •

•

Extending the solution-growing can be hypothetically endless, but it is obvious that it is sometimes necessary to end. From the practical point of view, the “more, the better” does not apply absolutely The wider the focus, the more demands are put on the time of the worker and the client, as well as on the quality of the cooperation with the client – the working alliance can be ruptured when it comes to the disagreement about therapeutic methods/tasks (Wampold & Imel, 2015, p. 179) Although the extension of solution-growing is a wonderful thing, it is theoretically better not to do anything, or do less, if it achieves the same result as doing something. It is better from the perspective of “therapeutic parsimony” and at the same time it reflects the philosophical stance of Ockham’s razor typical for SFBT (de Shazer, 1985, p. 58)

Narrow and wide ways of solution-growing

•

•

87

There can be transitions between “wide” and “narrow” solution-growing – when the conversation starts “narrowly,” it does not mean that it could not “extend” in another phase and vice versa. When we visualise a horizontal timeline that shows the session time, we can imagine various shapes around it that illustrate the course of the session in terms of solution-growing width. They can have the shape of an imaginary “tube” (constant “width” all the time), “funnel” (in the beginning wider, gradually narrowing), “honker” (initially narrow, gradually widened), laying “hourglass” (with a sequence: wide-narrow-wide), etc. “Extending” and “narrowing” solution-growing can be fruitfully reflected in work. This reflection can be used when working with clients. The above-mentioned imaginary shapes can serve as a tool for reflection. A rather complicated tool may be a table that includes the various elements of extending the solution mentioned here (see Figure 10.1). Of course, some other elements can be added (the last line in the table says other …). The individual columns refer to specific parts of the session that the consultant appoints to be well oriented in the session. He/she can also add the times (e.g. on the base of the recording). The X marks in the columns then indicate whether the solution-growing extended within the given area. In the example below, the first phase (column 1) stands for the “small talk” (De Jong & Berg, 2008), where the client talks about activities he likes doing and he described them with the focus on his behaviour, ideas, feelings and resources. The second column represents a day after the miracle conversation involving many more areas (with the exception of resources). The third column represents an interview about the instances of the preferred future and the emphasis is placed on behaviour, ideas, interactions, resources, differences (contrast to problem situation) and identity.

An important question remains how to distinguish the useful rate of solution-growing extension in a given session. For this purpose, it is useful to have some more evidence from intensive research. A good example is associated with the activity of BRIEF colleagues who try to both simplify SFBT conceptually and devote themselves to careful efficacy research (for example, their study did not show any difference in efficiency when there was or was not assigned a “task” at the end of the session (Iveson et al., 2012). An even smoother method of research to capture the importance of extending and narrowing the solution from the perspective of shifts within the conversation can be provided by various forms of conversational and discourse analysis (Keeney, Keeney, & Chenail, 2015; Peräkylä, Antaki, Vehviläinen, & Leudar, 2008). In addition to the research, the clinical experience of a worker and mutual reflection done by both the therapist and the client can also be a useful guide. In this context, we offer several simple guidelines for transitions between “narrow” and “wide” solution-growing:

88

Leoš Zatloukal and Lenka Tkadlcˇíková

Phases of consultation

Name of the phase1

Name of the phase 2

Name of the phase 3

(time frame from-to)

(time frame from-to)

(time frame from-to)

Area of solutiongrowing

Behaviour

X

Feelings

X

Thoughts

X

X

X

X

X

Physiology

X

Interaction (at least one sequence)

X

Various areas of life

X

Client´s resources

X

Differences

X X

Identity „Zooming“

X

X X

X

(at least 2x focus on detail and then move on to another detail)

Other…

Figure 10.1 Tool for reflection

a) Extend where it is interesting for the client In situations where the focus of the conversation is interesting for the client and he or she becomes immersed in it, it may be useful to continue and extend solution-growing. Both therapeutic change and the working alliance are strengthened. b) Extend where it is clearly new to the client Another clue can be the element of novelty. If a client “struggles” with a particular moment of the conversation, it may mean that he has never thought of it before and it is new to him. If the client responds directly by saying: “I don’t know”, it can be seen as a request: “let me

Narrow and wide ways of solution-growing

89

think about it” (de Shazer et al., 2007). A great deal of perseverance and curiosity of a consultant can bring about very valuable discoveries and shifts in that area. On the other hand, excessive rigidity may lead to the loss of collaboration with the client and slow down or even block the solution-growing process (Lipchik, 2002). c) Extend when you were formerly narrow (and vice versa) There is a high chance of usefulness provided the consultant reflects the “extension” and “narrowing” of solution-growing throughout the consultation. If a “narrow” style of solution-growing (small number of X in the table) has been used repeatedly, it may be useful to start focusing on extending it. Conversely, in the “wide” implementation of all phases during the conversation, it may be appropriate to consider the “narrowing” of its focus. d) “Extend” solution-growing so that the solution can be further spread in the client’s everyday life Focus on the everyday life of the client rather than the session itself plays a key role in the Solution Focused approach (Ratner et al., 2012; Shennan, 2014) and corresponds to the research findings that make the greatest contribution to the therapeutic change associated with extra-therapeutic change or client’s resources (Flückiger, Wüsten, Zinbarg, & Wampold, 2009; Wampold, 2001). From the perspective of spreading changes in the life of the client, it might be helpful to take into account the “ripple effect” (de Shazer, 1985). Mapping the changes between sessions (De Jong & Berg, 2008) plays very significant role in extending changes to the client’s life because the “ripple effect” is an inherently unpredictable process (we know that minor changes lead to further changes, but we can hardly predict to which ones). So, mapping the changes between sessions should be mostly extended.

Conclusion The “solution-growing” metaphor suggests that developing solutions is an organic process. As with most life processes, it is not a process that can be precisely planned or fully controlled. It is not a process in which we could simply say “the more, the better”. Although solution-growing is a process that takes place in a very complicated and complex environment (system), it does not necessarily have to be a complicated process. On the contrary, cybernetics teaches us that working with a complex system can be simple and cost-effective, while full of creative improvisation (de Shazer, 1985; Keeney & Keeney, 2012).

References De Haan, E. (2008). Relational coaching: Journeys towards mastering one to one learning. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. De Jong, P., & Berg, I. K. (2008). Interviewing for solutions. Pacific Groove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

90

Leoš Zatloukal and Lenka Tkadlcˇíková

de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & company. de Shazer, S. (1988). Utilization: The foundation of solutions. In J. K. Zeig & S. R. Lankton (Eds.), Developing Ericksonian therapy: State of the art (pp. 112–124). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel. de Shazer, S. (1991). Putting difference to work. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. de Shazer, S. (1994). Words were originally magic. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. de Shazer, S., Berg, I. K., Lipchik, E., Nunnally, E., Molnar, A., Gingerich, W., & Weiner-Davis, M. (1986). Brief therapy: Focused solution development. Family Process, 25(2), 207–221. de Shazer, S., Dolan, Y., Korman, H., McCollum, E., Trepper, T., & Berg, I. K. (2007). More than miracles: The state of the art of solution-focused brief therapy. New York, NY: Haworth Press. Flückiger, C., Wüsten, G., Zinbarg, R., & Wampold, B. (2009). Resource activation: Using clients’ own strengths in psychotherapy and counseling. Cambridge: Hogrefe Publishing. Iveson, C., George, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). Brief coaching: A solution focused approach. London: Routledge. Keeney, H., & Keeney, B. (2012). Circular therapeutics: Giving therapy a healing heart. Phoenix, AZ: Zeig, Tucker & Theisen. Keeney, H., Keeney, B., & Chenail, R. J. (2015). Recursive frame analysis: A qualitative research method for mapping change-oriented discourse. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova Southeastern University Works & TQR Books. Korman, H. (2017). The common project. SIKT. Retrieved January 4, 2019 from, www.sikt.nu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-common-project-small-revisions2017.pdf Lipchik, E. (2002). Beyond technique in solution-focused therapy: Working with emotions and the therapeutic relationship. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Peräkylä, A., Antaki, C., Vehviläinen, S., & Leudar, I. (Eds.). (2008). Conversation analysis and psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ratner, H., George, E., & Iveson, C. (2012). Solution focused brief therapy: 100 key points and techniques. London: Routledge. Shennan, G. (2014). Solution-focused practice: Effective communication to facilitate change. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Wampold, B. E., & Imel, Z. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: The evidence for what makes psychotherapy work (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Chapter 11

Solution Focused markers in programmes for youths Joe Chan

Youth work and youth programmes today Today there are many individuals and organisations working with young people in all kinds of settings. Often, we do not question our role and positioning in doing this work enough. Our view of our work becomes muddled with the dominant theories and perspectives. Therefore, a reflection of our practice, position and Solution Focused philosophy base is called for those of us who are doing youth work in whichever setting. Youth work is defined by the Commonwealth Secretariat (2017) as: All forms of rights-based youth engagement approaches that build personal awareness and support the social, political and economic empowerment of young people, delivered through non-formal learning within a matrix of care. This broad definition of youth work already positions it as working with the assets and potential of young people rather than their deficits. This does not mean that resolving issues (that you might name deficits) is ignored in certain youth work settings. Here a focus on addressing and meeting certain specific needs exhibited by the young person may be needed. Youth work today can happen in all kinds of settings from governmental, voluntary welfare organizations, grassroots, educational, community and even religious organizations. Many youth organizations today attempt to achieve various outcomes through their programmes and services provided. And in these various programmes and platforms, we often find the challenge of balancing the needs and wishes of the various stakeholders involved. According to a 2014 study done by the European Commission “Working with young people: The value of youth work in the European Union” on the typology of youth work categories, the four ends of these two axes are: (see Figure 11.1) 1. Universal youth work with broad goal 2. Targeted youth work with broad goal

92

Joe Chan

Issue based focus

Not specified Universal provision

Objectives of the activities

Target group

Specific groups

Personal development in general

Figure 11.1 Typology of youth work categories

3. Universal youth work addressing specific issue 4. Targeted youth work addressing specific issue Youth organizations and workers today are faced with the challenges and pressures of making decisions to balance between the extremes. In the context of the social service and welfare sector, the pressure and demand to provide successful and meaningful outcomes with the limited resources is truly a challenge. And often this decision is made by weighing more on the interests and needs of the organization and funders rather than the youths themselves. As we approach this topic of what could be the Solution Focused cues and markers in our programmes offered, we need to revisit the foundations of our care and approach as an individual and organization. As Ocean in A Drop (2013) puts it, there are various lenses with which people view young people. Some view through the “economistic” lens, where the emphasis is for young people to successfully enter the job market. Others view it through the “problem solver” lens, where we need to eliminate and solve issues of skills, health and education, etc. Others view it through the “youth as instrument of change” lens, where we tap in on their time, energy and skills to create social change and action. And some others view it through the “youth-centric development” lens, where we focus on self-

SF markers in programmes for youths

93

development and transformation of the individual. There is no one right or wrong lens, but the point is about being fully aware of how these perspectives affect us today.

Solution Focused ideas and approach I would like to share a few useful Solution Focused ideas, the essence of the approach and how it can nicely compliment and contribute to the success and positive outcomes of youth programmes. It is truly important and essential to embrace the “spirit and core” of the approach in order to talk about the “doings and markers” in the programmes later. 1. The idea of exceptions “Exceptions are those behaviors, perceptions, thoughts and feelings that contrast with the compliant and have the potential of leading to a solution if amplified by the therapist and/or increased by the client” (Lipchik, 1998, p. 4). Exceptions provide a powerful and meaningful database for youths to draw on to build towards alternative behaviours and outcomes. All too often, youths aren’t convinced that they can do differently. Providing them with the basis of an alternative view of their competent self is truly a challenge. 2. Externalizing problems A concept suggested by White (1989) involves framing and seeing the problematic behaviour as an external entity rather than assuming the behaviour is linked to or conflated with the identity of the young person. The distancing of oneself from the behaviour allows the young person to make a decision on what they would like to do about it. For example, when a young person is caught stealing and subsequently sent for a mandatory programme. During the programme, as youth practitioners it’s helpful to view the stealing behaviour separately rather than reinforcing the idea that the young person is or was a thief. Creating this space during the programme to allow the young person to choose what alternative actions and behaviours he/she would like to exhibit in future will be helpful. 3. Positive, respectful and hopeful stance of the helper Solution Focused practitioners espouse a general view and belief that most people have the resources and know-how to effect change. This belief and stance often cause us as workers to be collaborative, curious and tend to work in a partnership style rather than in a hierarchical one. 4. An “Interactional View” of people and their issues Just as the early Mental Research Institute Group in Palo Alto states in terms of an Interactional View, every young person is always revealing tiny details about themselves in the moment. The focus is the “here and now” rather than depending on the assessment done yesterday or a long time ago. It is our challenge, therefore, to not drift into theorising about their experiences and behaviours, but to work constructively with them on what would they like

94

Joe Chan

instead for the future and build on what is working currently, through the vehicle of language that’s appropriate. When we apply this idea, we will be giving lesser weight to prior assessment or verbal reports of these young people, but rather we will pay attention to concerns that they bring up during the programme. With this view, we will then also be attentive to every opportunity to affirm and compliment them as well. 5. If it’s working, keep doing it Everyone will succeed and do well in something at some point in their lives. And what we do more is to listen in on their resources and expertise there where we could explore and be aware of what the young person has to begin with to be able to do that. Such expertise and skills are often transferable to other settings, however the young person needs someone to help them draw that linkage and facilitate a discussion with them in most cases. 6. If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it As a people in the helping profession, we sometimes tend to tread into areas that we haven’t initially been invited to. We tend to impose our views and perspectives on what we think youths want and need. Or we might become over-eager try to work on everything the young person may be lacking and try to resolve all issues that we – not necessarily the young person – see. Now that we have highlighted some of Solution Focused concepts and ideas, the challenge is how to apply these tenets into our youth programmes in the design and execution of it. As simple as this sounds to most people, it really isn’t that easy and straightforward. Applying and mastering the Solution Focused approach requires lots of patience, reviewing and coaching. And as I have pointed out in the beginning, youth work and programmes can happen in a variety of settings where many competing factors might exist which you need to consider depending on your context and profile of the youths. But one thing that I have come to believe is that, regardless of the profile of clients we serve, fundamentally what we believe and do will be consistent if we truly practice and embrace a set of principles and philosophy. Therefore, I would like to highlight eight of these behavioural and attitudinal markers in the remaining portion of this chapter. I am avoiding the need of having a manual or even best practices of running a youth programme because no one youth and programme is similar. It is therefore impossible to standardise the intervention and programming on the ground. Instead, I would encourage you to take these markers and start reviewing your practice.

Eight Solution Focused markers in youth programmes 1. Curious and not – knowing As a youth worker, no matter how many years of experience or amount of professional training we have, we are still not experts of youth issues

SF markers in programmes for youths

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

95

and challenges. This stance of curiosity and not – knowing frees us from the burden of having an answer to every single issue young people face. This stance can be liberating for both the youths and the practitioners. Present and future focused There will always be more emphasis and focus on what’s possible and what the youth is currently working on. Even though the youth programme participant is in a programme due to past behaviour, it is important to focus on what the youth wants going forward. It should never be about “fixing” the past. Building on past successes and continuous small steps forward towards their best hopes The framing of the programme would be about what has worked for the youth in the past, where he/she could draw on personal resources and experiences to build on small progressive steps forward, toward an outcome and behaviour that is mutually agreed with them. Often in a youth programme setting, depending on what the activity is, using sports and games are very easy to incorporate and transmit these ideas. Within the understanding of sports and games, progress and working towards continuous improvement is something that is familiar to youths already. Conscious of negative language and definitive labelling From the naming of the programme, to the publicity and collaterals of the programme, to the facilitation of the sessions, to the debriefing of the sessions, we should be very mindful of the spoken and unspoken language used. Especially when we are dealing with youths with specific needs and issues, we should be mindful of not reinforcing the negative labels that’s already been overused, for example, at-risk youths. But instead where possible, we will be looking at creating a different experience and perspective for them, through the intentional use of language. For example, we could just refer to youths with challenging situations, which places the focus on the individuals and their context. Even though it’s more convenient to think and refer to the youths we work with as a homogenous group, we know that they are never the same in every sense. An ongoing open and co-constructing climate Over the course of time, we will always be checking in with the youths to find out how we are doing and whether we are on track and what they want. We will have to relinquish the need to command and control and invite the youth’s voice more frequently. Sensitive to youth participation and buy in No matter what setting we operate in, our end goal should always be aiming at voluntary youth participation and ownership in our programmes. There might be instances where they are mandated to be in the programme; however, with a consistent stance of respect and partnership, we hope to win them over in the end.

96

Joe Chan

7. Intentional and conscious use of questions rather than telling Questions can be used intently throughout the programme, during and after the session. Questions open up the space for creativity and responses from the youths. Questions also reflect the curious stance of the worker in the programme who is not-knowing. So powerful questions, coupled with a curious stance, could be: • • • • •

How did you manage to do that? What skills/values do you depend on to do that? What is something good of everyone and that you observed in today’s session? How can you do more of that? What can be done differently?

8. Build in opportunities to celebrate small successes Having a few small steps leading toward a small success can be designed carefully. Having that small success initially can be really important for some youths, because it creates an element of hope that might have been missing in their lives for a long while already. An example is when we have youths who are failing in their school subjects for a long time, and we come together to celebrate with them when they finally manage to pass their subjects. A celebration of them passing is an important milestone for those who have lost all hope and confidence in themselves. In laying out these eight markers, the intent is not to ask you to follow them in all aspects. These are just ways that I have applied the Solution Focused ideas in my practice. The challenge is really for you to use these markers to think about your own practice and understanding of the approach. You can develop useful markers that are contextualised to your setting and organization, but still drawing from the same set of Solution Focused ideas and philosophy. Have a discussion with your colleagues and team, draw on each other’s perspectives and understanding to arrive at a common language and lingo, especially if you are working within an organization. Take time to pause, reflect and review, which could be something that is lacking for many!

References Commonwealth Secretariat. (2017). Youth work in the Commonwealth. Retrieved from http://thecommonwealth.org/sites/default/files/events/documents/YouthWor kintheCW_9781849291736.pdf European Commission. (2014). Working with young people: The value of youth work in the European Union. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/youth/library/study/youthwork-report_en.pdf

SF markers in programmes for youths

97

Lipchik, E. (1998). Interviewing with a constructive ear. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, Winter, 3–7. Patel, A., Venkateswaran, M., Prakash, P., & Shekhar, A. (2013). The ocean in a drop – Inside out youth leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Pty. Ltd. White, M. (1989). The externalizing of the problem and the re-authoring of lives and relationships. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, Summer, 3–21.

Chapter 12

Introduction to SF in organizations Svea van der Hoorn

While the Solution Focused (SF) Brief approach emerged in the context of social work and therapy, its principles and practices have been explored and expanded in the context of usefulness in the workplace – with individuals, teams and whole organisations. This has given rise to an increase in the variety of practices – methods and tools – available to SF practitioners as they engage with the world of activity. The expansion has also provided rich soil for those interested in the world of ideas – principles, tenets, presuppositions, to explore schools of philosophy and language that provide a home for SF. A further feature of the development of SF in the context of organisations is exploration of the border territories. Examples include Organisational development (OD) practitioners exploring similarities and differences between SF and World Cafe, Open Space and Appreciative Inquiry, coaches trained in models other than SF exploring intersections with systemic constellations, HR practitioners experienced in co-constructing conversations to invite co-operation in the face of conflict looking for overlaps and extensions between SF and their established ways of working. These chapters illustrate the way in which SF moving into the world of work offers a rich everyday life laboratory for the evolution of SF, while also creating a site for potentially losing the particularism and signature of SF. In this section of the book, readers will find chapters addressing all of the above. We hope these glimpses into SF in organisations will inspire readers’ creativity and encourage experimentation that is both innovative and rigorous. Fania Pallikarakis, Klaus Schenck, Tim Newton and Sandra Collin in Clean Space and Solution Focus explore the border territory between Clean Language and SF, with a twist. Their twist is an exploration of how the use of physical movement might be added – thus going beyond the idea that SF is only about having conversations. Another border territory exploration is offered in Solution Focused work with conflicts – the know and how of Solution Focused mediation by Martina Scheinecker, Peter Röhrig and Sieds Rienks with Leo Blokland. This gives insight for those interested in conflict management and resolution into

Introduction to SF in organizations

99

how methods from classical mediation can be used alongside SF. A fourphase procedure is described and illustrated with examples taken from the authors’ practice. In Meta for Solutions – how metaphors are simply unavoidable when focusing solutions, Klaus Schenk introduces and explains seven attention-directing methods which focus clients on the metaphorical level as they work towards their preferred futures. This chapter draws on the author’s variety of experience and interests in cognitive theory, systemic practice, as well as SF. Interested in organisational work and SF in organisations aiming for largescale change? In Being and Doing Solution Focus as an Organizational Coach, Susanne Burgstaller explores assumptions and a mindset that are useful when facing demanding situations where flexibility and improvisation are called for. She offers ten SF practices, which enable coping in situations of rapid and complex organisational transformation. Julia Kalenberg in How a Solution Focused Approach Helps a CEO moves away from the large scale to a small-scale, family-owned business. She illuminates how a leader can be supported to let go and trust in and mobilise the potential of his management team. Her chapter illuminates an apparent paradox – how creating valued results may have more to do with leaders getting out of the way of their people and teams, rather than doing more by getting involved and taking increasing control. In Room the Bloom: Let’s Have the Right Meetings! Meeting Culture Development in Brief, Enikő Tegyi and Áron Levendel offer inspiration for all who sigh when called to yet another meeting, and regard meetings as getting in the way of doing work and being productive. Their chapter showcases a minimalist approach of using micro-interventions – a valuable approach for those faced with time, money and energy restrictions. They also dive into the dilemma of Return on Investment (RoI)/measures of success/progress signs that are meaningful to third parties who fund coaching but are not the recipients of the coaching.

Chapter 13

Clean Space and Solution Focus Fania Pallikarakis, Klaus Schenck, Tim Newton and Sandra Collin

Introduction This chapter explores the connection between the practices of Solution Focus (SF) and Clean Space (CS), as experienced and explored by its authors who all have a background in SF that they apply in various fields of activity: namely, leadership, organizational development, social care, physical movement, working with children, coaching and more. They share a keen interest in exploring the possibilities of the interconnection between SF and CS. Solution Focus is a future-oriented approach that puts emphasis on building solutions, instead of analysing problems, when it comes to human relationships. Initiated in the late 1980s by Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg, SF has gained a large and constantly expanding number of dedicated professionals. A busy calendar of worldwide events, conferences and workshops keeps this vibrant community well connected and on the lookout for potential developments, improvisations and improvements. The thoughts, insights and experiments presented in this chapter derive from an open-space activity (Owen, 2008) during the SF World Conference held in Bad Soden, Germany in September 2017. The Clean Space Explored open-space workshop was facilitated by one of the authors, Klaus Schenck. This incited the set-up of what was later called the Clean Space Labs by the facilitator and participants – the authors of this chapter. The Clean Space Labs provide a space for growing a framework of experimenting with what the common ground between CS and SF might be, and how physical movement might be added as well. Clean Space is a question-based approach, using different locations in physical space as vantage points in cognitive perspective, where the facilitator can take a non-expert role without theorising, interpreting or hypothesising about the client’s experience. The client-explorer knows best and has all the resources within them to make a change. In this sense, as SF practitioners, CS is familiar and very appealing.

Clean Space and Solution Focus

101

The Clean Space experience – what happened? – Fania’s perspective Walking into the room, I had no idea what to expect. To start with, Klaus shared with us a lovely story about how he controls his bookworm anticipation of reading books by following a specific ritual in his bookcase; not buying a new book until he has read all those placed on a specific shelf first. Insights in Space (Lawley & Way, 2017), the book that was the basis for this workshop, escaped the usual sequence of doing things for this ritual, and fell into Klaus’ hands before its due time. Our facilitator also explained briefly the CS concept and how it had captured his attention. Still, there was nothing that yet offered me a hint about what would follow and how this session would become for me a moment in time to remember. During the experiential part of the workshop, Klaus took us through a Clean Space process, as he asked us to draw a topic, namely, a challenge of importance to us, place it on the floor and position ourselves in relation to it by moving in the room to stand wherever it felt right to each one of us. Every now and then, he would respectfully ask us participants to change places in the room, using simple phrases such as “And find another space”, or invite us to think by saying “And what do you know here?” From a metaphorical perspective, it seemed that he was inviting us to perceive the same topic from various viewpoints. This turned out to be the most powerful experience I have had for quite some time, despite the simplicity and minimalism of the process – or maybe because of it. By the end of this short experiential exercise, my thoughts were clear, and I was given a whole new meaning to situations that had seemed complex up to then. I say was given because it seemed that I was not doing anything more than standing still and watching my thoughts passing by, as in a movie. Yet, despite the so little apparent doing on my part and so little talking of Klaus, the effects were dramatic and instantaneous. What before had seemed negative and dark, now felt positive and bright, while I was also downloading ideas for clear, precise and realistic actions that made sense to me. Looking back onto this experience, I am not sure if I could fully grasp at the time the value that it would bring to my life. Despite a strong sense of uplift and my gratitude for having been part of it, I also wondered about the longevity of its results. Would this feeling of excitement just be temporary? I was crossing fingers that this would not be the case. I set a mental deadline for three months later, to check whether it would then be only a vague memory of a pleasant but short-lived boost, or something more. One month later, I was already fully convinced of its continuing impact. The influence of the CS exercise was still as powerful as it was on the day of the workshop and has gone even further, making itself manifest in various ways and at different levels of my life. This includes an altered perception of

102

Fania Pallikarakis et al.

life events, a different approach to decision-making, a readjustment of priorities and a difference in the way I am doing things. All these changes are happening day to day, in the smoothest way imaginable. There were several aspects of the CS approach that seemed to me to fit well with SF practice. These included its simplicity and minimalism, the respect shown towards the participants’ expertise, the absence of any kind of directive guidance, with the facilitator’s explicit input being restricted to two or three brief open questions. It seemed that the most important part of the facilitator’s role was simply to be present, as much as anything else. A connection between the approaches seemed to work the other way around, too. I believe that being steeped in the SF way of thinking also helped me to fully absorb the value of this experience. It is difficult to determine all the ways in which my immersion in SF practice will have influenced me in this respect, but there are two of whose importance I am most confident. The first is my ability to notice change happening in everyday life, as small or as quiet as it might be. The signs of the growing change happening after the workshop might well have slipped my attention otherwise. Second is that I started the process automatically from a “What do I want instead?” stance. I believe that this enabled a shorter and more direct route to reaching this clear and clean perspective of things. One of the most well-known questions used in SF practice is the miracle question that invites us to think about what would be different if obstacles preventing us from moving in the direction we would wish to, suddenly disappeared. The morning after the miracle refers to the moment when the first signs of change start appearing and invites us to reflect on how we would notice them. I was eager to share my CS workshop experience with others and to create an opportunity to explore whether setting the morning after the miracle (or a variation of it) as the starting point of the CS process would have an impact. Fortunately, both these possibilities – sharing and exploring – were to quickly materialise., The CS Lab was formed, providing an online community of enthusiasts willing to explore more, in a relaxed yet serious way, and to understand what the connections between CS and SF might be(come). I was pleased to discover that the sessions we had since – even if held over Skype with all the constraints that this entails – were just as influential and a sign that what happened in the workshop at Bad Soden was only the beginning.

The CS experience – and where did that come from? – Klaus’ perspective CS has been developed from Clean Language, a method that is used especially in psychotherapy and coaching, and more recently as a research interview technique. It helps clients to discover and develop symbols and

Clean Space and Solution Focus

103

metaphors without any content introduced by the therapist/coach/interviewer (Wikipedia, 2019). Back in 2002, I came across Clean Language. Two British NLP practitioners, James Lawley and Penny Thompkins, had modelled the approach of a therapist from New Zealand named David Grove. Modelling here means: they observed him at work, and then thoroughly described his approach step by step in some articles and a book, such that any skilled therapist might try and apply the described steps in his own work and reach similar results. After reading a Clean Language book Metaphors in Mind (Lawley & Tompkins, 2000) in 2004, it took me a full ten years to return to the topic with the next two books (Cooper & Castellino, 2012: Grove & Panzer, 1989). In spring 2017, a new book arrived titled Clean Space (Lawley & Way, 2017) and I read it just before the SF World Conference. I was fascinated by this new combination of selected Clean Language questions and stepping into different places around a room, as if to embody different perspectives and learn from each one, as well as from their interconnections. The approach reminded me of constellation work (Whittington, 2012). I could see links to embodied experience. So, it happened that I had the description of a brief starter exercise in CS with me when the SF conference invited workshop offerings for their afternoon in open space format. CS seemed like a good extension to SF – so I offered an ad hoc one-hour workshop, based on the exercise description below, and around ten people joined in. The original sequence of steps (Lawley & Way, 2017, p. 229) was: Find an Inner Space … • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Before you begin, take a minute or two to write, draw or simply think of a topic When you have done that, place your topic where it needs to be and yourself where you would like to do this activity Close your eyes and bring your topic to mind What do you know here about that topic? Is there anything else you know here? This is Place 1 In your mind, go to a place that knows something else about that topic What do you know in this place about that topic? What do you know in this place about Place 1? Is there anything else you know in this place? This is Place 2 In your mind, go to a place that knows something else about that topic What do you know in this place about that topic? What do you know in this place about Place 1? What do you know in this place about Place 2? Is there anything else you know in this place?

104

• • • • • • •

Fania Pallikarakis et al.

This is Place 3 Now, come back to Place 1 in this room Consider all you now know about the topic and Place 1 and Place 2 and Place 3 Take a deep breath and open your eyes What difference does knowing all this make? What difference does knowing that make? What difference does knowing that make?

I took the liberty to vary the questions/suggestions slightly to make them fit more seamlessly to what SF people are familiar with already, and I invited people to really go to different places in the room, not only in their minds, to make it more of an embodied experience. I framed the exercise with a little intro about how Clean Space had crossed my path in the beginning, and some time for sharing what people thought about it after the exercise itself. And that was that. Two hours later, somebody who had not been part of the exercise approached me asking what I had done in my workshop, as he had seen Fania leave the room smiling from one ear to the other! As we had not shared any content, I had no clue what she had been smiling about, but I was happy to meet her the next morning, still smiling broadly. It is very exciting to see lovely immediate effects of solutions that curious people create from such a simple invitation – to focus their situation from a few (literally) different viewpoints and to notice differences that then may change their understanding of their options.

The CS experience – and where will that go to? – Tim’s perspective Attending Klaus’ CS workshop, I too felt the potential of the approach and noted the impact on other participants. The simplicity of the process suggested that it would be straightforward to experiment and gain further experience and insight in using CS. Fania was keen to arrange a regular series of CS sessions via Skype with Sandra and myself. Weekly Skype sessions took place over a period of six months with each of us taking a turn as a facilitator. In this way we each could explore and experiment with how to facilitate effectively and with experiencing working with our own topics using CS. Some notes with details of how sessions were arranged, who facilitated which sessions, and some of our experiences were collated on an Excel spreadsheet so that we may track learning and changes. These sessions were based on the text by Lawley and Way (2017), though of course Skype provided some limitations not discussed in their book. The facilitator can often not see the explorers via the laptop camera as they move about in their own space. Lawley and Way refer to facilitators watching

Clean Space and Solution Focus

105

explorers’ non-verbal behaviours in order to match their pace and know when it might be appropriate to move to the next question. They comment “the difference between a formulaic technique and CS relates to how the facilitator responds when the explorer does something out of the ordinary” (2017, p. 54), and to facilitators making non-verbal gestures, for example directing an explorer’s attention towards a space or the main topic. Working in a virtual space was a challenge for the facilitator to judge how long to allow for a response. We took Lawley and Way (2017) comment that when setting up the network it is important that the client remains only for a short time in each space. Initially, CS is about working with span rather than depth (p. 3) to indicate that time should be relatively brief, allowing explorers to go with their first response rather than to start a process of reflection in each space. The importance was to build the network of spaces and the interrelationships between them. Earlier sessions took over an hour, but later sessions have been taking approximately 40 minutes to set up six spaces and explore relationships between them. My experiences throughout these sessions were varied. For example, from one session where I chose to clarify my thinking about the future direction of my current work, my notes read: In setting up the fifth space I had a strong kinesthetic reaction and the sense that the issues were much broader than my original topic, that my topic was only a part of a much wider perspective. This was in contrast to some of the responses to “what do you know here?” when setting up earlier spaces; earlier responses had been more cognitive. We debated the choice of topic and how that might be influential. Lawley and Way simply mention “the desired outcome or topic of interest” (2017, p. 60). Their case studies indicate that topics were selected where explorers had an issue with some emotional content for them. On occasions, we chose the same topic as before for another CS session. One area of exploration for us has been to begin with a couple of SF opening questions such as “what are your best hopes from this session?” and “what difference will that make?” then inviting the explorer to choose something from that conversation to use as the CS issue. This appears to help avoid moving into the CS exercise with any uncertainty about the focus.

Further adventures in CS – Sandra’s perspective Word had reached the Netherlands about Fania’s big smile, so I was thrilled when asked to join the CS Lab. It turned out to be an amazing experience for me as well, through a Skype connection between the Netherlands, the UK and Greece.

106

Fania Pallikarakis et al.

It was during stressful times when we did our first session. My topic was: “How to be my most relaxed me?” I will describe this session as I am still enjoying the positive change it made for me. From question 1: “Where am I now regarding that issue?”, I found out there was too much sitting in my life, low energy in my living area and I felt stuck at my working desk/ dining table. I noticed a big sigh coming out of my body while making these notes. Moving around in my living room brought me to the second space, my lovely purple chair in front of the television, which I did not use. My need for relaxation came up right there, so did the need for candles, the chair to be placed in front of the window, and it being meant for study, being part of a future library. From that moment I called it my “relaxchair”. Every new space I checked into gave me clear helpful information. Strong feelings did come up about my needs and positive reactions and solutions followed, making me feel more in charge and powerful. Finding other spaces gave me a totally refreshed sense of the furniture in my living/working space. An action list came into existence, just like that. The “knowing all that” prompt made a huge difference. I wondered if I should move the table, should create a new working spot. And so, I made it happen right after the session! The whole living area changed. I have since created my little library, which is my favourite spot to relax, read and study – the purple chair is indeed in front of the window. The whole energy in my living/ working space changed for the better! Amazing change and amazing how these simple, clean questions can make such a big difference. More interesting sessions followed, and I found out that using CS on my own is very helpful too! In July, 2018, I travelled to London to attend the three day CS workshop facilitated by Marianne Way and James Lawley. Since then I continue experimenting, for example integrating yoga movements into the process and introducing CS to my yoga clients in individual and group sessions. There is much more to explore, it is a fascinating journey: I am a huge fan of this simple, efficient and effective method.

Conclusion The online sessions were based on the assumption that exploring the CS method further could prove to have a level of usefulness as an additional tool of SF practice. Even though this assumption was initially instinct based, some interesting findings popped up throughout this experimental process. In total, seven online sessions were held. In each session there was one host facilitating and two participants. Every time, it was the host’s initiative to decide on which instructions to give, what pace to follow, where to put the focus and what length of the session to allow. Consequently, seven variations derived from this collective work, with some interesting findings that could be summed-up as follows:

Clean Space and Solution Focus

•

•

107

The more clearly defined the topic on which the participants were working on, the more impact the work had on them. This illuminated the contribution that SF questions about best hopes and preferred future can offer The process demanded levels of energy high enough so as to be mutually agreed upon to not host sessions more frequently than once every two weeks

In addition to that, just like in SF practice: • • •

Some pre-session change was noticed beforehand, as participants were getting familiar with CS and were anticipating the questions Participants picked-up easily and quickly the questions asked and could benefit from them in a self-interrogation manner The host was offered a framework within which to facilitate while still having the freedom to shape the session in response to the participants’ reactions

References Cooper, L., & Castellino, M. (2012). The five-minute coach: Improve performance – Rapidly. Camarthen, Wales, UK: Crown House. de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Grove, D. J., & Panzer, B. I. (1989). Resolving traumatic memories: Metaphors and symbols in psychotherapy. New York, NY: Irvington. Lawley, J., & Tompkins, P. (2000). Metaphors in mind: Transformation through symbolic modelling. London: The Developing Company Press. Lawley, J., & Tompkins, P. (2003). Clean Space: Modeling human perception through emergence. Anchor Point, 17, 8. Retrieved from www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/CleanS pace.html Lawley, J., & Tompkins, P. (2009). Clean Space revisited. Notes were first presented at The Developing Group August 1, 2009. Retrieved from www.cleanlanguage.co. uk/articles/articles/255/1/Clean-Space-Revisited/Page1.html Lawley, J., & Way, M. (2017). Insights in space. How to use Clean Space to solve problems, generate ideas and spark creativity. Porchester: Clean Publishing. Owen, H. (2008). Open space technology: A user’s guide. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler Publishers. Whittington, J. (2012). Systemic coaching & constellations: An introduction to the principles, practices and application. London: Kogan Page. Wikipedia. (2019). Clean Language. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Clean_Language, January 20, 2019.

Chapter 14

Meta for solutions How metaphors are simply unavoidable when focusing solutions Klaus Schenck

Introduction Whenever you focus something – like a solution – without using an optical lens, solve something without using any chemical solvent, scale without using a ladder or stairs, or consider small steps without moving your feet, you are already using metaphors. Metaphors are inevitable. Research (Pollio, Barlow, Fine, & Pollio, 1977, p. 8) claims an average of six metaphors per minute occur in any average conversation. In conversations, metaphors carry meanings over from one usually more concrete domain of experience to another usually more abstract domain. They surf on the edge of similarity and difference and help to understand the as yet unknown – like ways towards solutions – by creative application of the known. Metaphors can build bridges between the implicit and explicit, between feelings, thoughts and behaviours, between images and words and between problems and solutions. They are paths as well as maps, and have been systematically researched and applied widely – from neurology to epistemology, from therapy to marketing. This chapter invites you, in a playful way, to more consciously use metaphors in co-creating solutions with clients. It offers seven direct ways of accessing metaphors as deliberate detours, as well as shortcuts, on the way to solutions. It invites you to explore your own, as well as your clients’ metaphors.

Metaphors in SF and in cognitive theory The structure and function of metaphors have been researched and described by many authors since ancient times. Coach and researcher Heather CairnsLee (2017) quotes Aristotle’s Rhetorica – he thought of metaphor as “a sign of genius and of linguistic mastery”. Whilst he proposed that “it is from metaphor that we can best get hold of something fresh”, he considered metaphor too ornamental for serious discourse, such as philosophy or science (p. 66). A major shift of focus towards their ubiquity and usefulness came

Meta for solutions

109

about with the advent of cognitive metaphor theory in the ground-breaking book by linguist George Lakoff and philosopher Mark Johnson (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). A wide range of applications followed, namely, marketing (Zaltman & Zaltman, 2008), therapy (Kopp, 1996; Lawley & Tompkins, 2000), mythology (Campbell, 1988) and coaching (Atkinson, 2013), to name but a few. Solution Focused (SF) practitioners engage with two metaphors – state and journey – in many of our conversations, without automatically noticing their metaphorical character. We ask clients, what state they would like to be in – their future perfect, what works already – resources they can use, the state they are currently in – rating on scale, and what small steps they could take from where they are that might move them a little bit closer to where they want to be. States are differentiated from others and from their surroundings by some border, just like a container separates some inside from some outside or context. Multiple steps create a path or journey from one state to another – from their imperfect present to their future perfect. Adding the dimension of time – from past to future – to that of value – from undesirable to desirable – creates my proposed SF Matrix consisting of four quadrants/fields, namely glorious or rotten past and dreaded or desired future (Schenck, 2006, 2013). Without the distinction between the states of as-is and future perfect, there would be no reason to change, and without a path between the two, there would be no way to change. Psychologist Charles Feldman (2006) addresses these two most fundamental metaphors in cognition as containers and source-path-goal. He describes how they are hard-wired in our brains, with neurons laying paths for signals to travel from one area to another. The most familiar container for all of us is our body, with the skin as a border separating me from the rest of the world, both physically and socially. The language we learned to describe and handle our concrete environment is all we have to cope with the many less tangible experiences and more implicit concepts relevant for our lives, like love and justice, or solution and focus.

Accessing the metaphor level In previous articles I have described further conceptual aspects of metaphors (Schenck, 2010, 2013). Here I would like to focus on the practical application of metaphor in coaching, therapy and consulting, more particularly on the question of “How can I, in a coach role, support my client to notice and access their metaphorical level or mode of conversation?” Once I manage to help a client access this metaphorical level, making progress tends to develop easily. Therefore, I’d like to offer and explain seven practical ways of accessing the metaphorical level in coaching. I’d like to full heartedly invite you to experiment with them in order to find out for

110

Klaus Schenck

yourself which one(s) might become a welcome extension of your ways to meet and support your own clients. The seven ways are outlined below together with practice illustrations: 1. A directive, even authoritative invitation into a source domain: “If your X (problem) were a U (insert domain), then what kind of U would it be?” A more open-ended invitation to choose any source domain for themselves: “If X happens, that’s LIKE WHAT?”. Directly inviting a search for a source domain without actively specifying any (“… that’s LIKE WHAT?”) is a typical early question in “clean language” (Lawley & Tompkins, 2000). This way a client has more freedom to choose from their own familiar domains. Specific questions might be: “If your issue were a film, what would be a good, attractive title? What genre would that be: mystery thriller, comedy, daily soap? Which actor would be a good hero, who should playact the villain?” Or: “What kind of animal would best represent your problem? Which aspects of that animal could be put to new uses? And what kind of animal would best represent your solution?” (A more elaborate protocol for this was described in Schenck, 2010) 2. Utilising and exploring metaphors from the client’s own descriptions of their situation, often using their bodily organs or functions, or constellations in their (social) environment: “When that ‘went under your skin’, did it leave a scar?” “When your boss ‘stood fully behind you’, did she have a knife in her hand?” Training your ear and mind to become fluent in detecting clients’ own metaphors is a valuable art. The metaphors in everyday language are used in surprisingly specific, idiosyncratic ways to express experience and often offer almost direct access to the clients’ world – even for clients themselves. As one additional advantage, this offers an unlimited metaphor reservoir without you as a coach having to memorise any pre-known metaphors or stories – you only have to listen carefully, with your metaphor-ear wide open. I supplement SF questions with Clean Language questions (Lawley & Tompkins, 2000), which were specifically developed to support clients in exploring the implicit via the symbols they use in their own language and keep the coach’s maps and assumptions maximally out of the way. Options 3 to 5 are more specific variants of utilising clients’ language. 3. Deliberately utilising semantic or phonetic ambiguities: “Were you apart or a part of the group?” Phonetic ambiguities are words that sound similar but are written differently, like the above apart vs. a part, raining or reigning. Semantic ambiguities are different, often literal vs. metaphorical meanings of the same word, like arm as part of the body vs. weapon, the head of a coin, or the nose of a ship. The special quality of

Meta for solutions

111

ambiguities is that they connect two quite different worlds – domains of life, such that you may enter a whole new territory, full of creative potential, with just a very small step, by deliberately listening and reacting to the other meaning/s of words clients use. For example, a client once modelled a tree with some leaves around it to illustrate a situation that was troubling her. Deliberately utilising the ambiguous meaning of “leave”, I asked her what she would have to leave behind – and she pondered that for a moment, then smiled, and in short time found a number of creative ways to move forward, based on this fresh perspective. 4. Giving a voice and words, to clients’ gestures, mimics and para-verbal sounds: “Suppose your repeated coughing had a message to deliver, what could that be?” “And try to say the same text in a deeper voice or, conversely, with very high pitch and notice what changes”. Just as verbal metaphors are surprisingly specific for the implicit in a client’s experience, so are the non-verbal aspects of their language – sounds, speed and pitch, gestures, posture and mimics. Any of these qualities can be addressed by questions and explored to surface useful information. There is no fixed meaning in any of those qualities, like high pitch always means X. But often some important aspect can be identified by the client that s/he would have overlooked. 5. Playfully changing words of direction or location into their opposites, like up for down, in for out and noticing how this creates new nuances of meaning. Often words that indicate opposite qualities, like black and white, up and down, in and out have less polar, more nuanced differences of meaning when used in conjunction with other words. For example, showdown is not the opposite of show up, nor is feeling left the opposite of feeling right – as in the saying: “When there’s nothing left, it must be all right”. Or invoking opposites creates nonsense, make no sense at all – and yet invites into playfulness, which in itself may be a helpful quality and resource. What happens when your client changes their black-out into a blue-out, red-out, or white-out? As with ambiguities, this may help clients to open up undetermined, creative spaces. In other languages, like in German, meanings of words may be modulated by prefixes, e.g. stehen (to stand) may be combined into “aufstehen, einstehen, unterstehen, ueberstehen” and many more. So random permutations of prefixes may again help entering semantic neighbourhoods and vary meanings in a playful way until the client opens to new solutions. 6. Utilising nature, for example during an outdoor conversation: “When we move off the road and onto this path, how does that resemble the ‘threshold’ in the decision making process you were talking about?” We are deeply familiar with nature through our bodies, hence I use nature frequently as a source domain for our descriptions. Our lives go

112

Klaus Schenck

downhill, our ideas come out of the blue, our thoughts may be foggy or we may beat around the bush. This can be used the other way around, too: Take a walk in nature and ask for all kinds of associations that may be triggered by observations. “What if your life path took a turn like the path in front of us?” “What do you see in that cloud that is meaningful in relation to your situation?” “What if you added some ant qualities to your impatience?” 7. Material ways by which clients can externalise and make explicit the implicit, for example through painting, sculpting with modelling clay, constellation work with objects or with people, including SF scaling walks, or Clean Space’s changing positions (Lawley & Way, 2017). Different materials can be used to express personal experience – by painting, sculpting, or metaphorically representing in other ways, as for example in systemic constellation work. The latter, for me, is a way of externalising experiences and taking a look at them from a different, e.g. an explicit perspective. Real people, toy figures or everyday objects just happening to come handy like glasses or pens, are placed on a surface (floor, table) in meaningful relation to each other. This constellation acts like a metaphor in 3D and can then be explored, like any other metaphor and developed in a dialogue with the client. Similarly, SF scaling, when done not only mentally, but literally by moving along a scale indicated on the floor, may make a huge difference in experience and in stimulating creative ideas towards solutions. I have described in detail the combination of modelling clay and SF questions (Schenck, 2011). Creative experiences with walking through the different perspectives of Clean Space are described in a different chapter of this book.

Practical application You may wish to experiment with each and any of these approaches alone, or with a partner. In the workshop at the SF world conference underlying this book we did exercises in pairs to explore some of these. We co-invented problem animals and solution animals. We identified previously unnoticed metaphors in clients’ first descriptions of their current issues. We noticed from which quadrant in the SF matrix a client started to speak and gently invited him or her to speak from the desired future quadrant. Once you have tried all of these approaches, which one(s) do you prefer? Which one do you find most easy to access? Which one creates the most resonance with your next client? Which one puts a smile on their face? Whichever you and your clients prefer, remember the SF rules: if it works, do more of it. If it doesn’t work (anymore), do something else: change your access to metaphor.

Meta for solutions

113

And what do I do once I have accessed the metaphorical level with clients? We explore the elements and connections, rearrange some of the elements, change connections between them and/or otherwise develop a new constellation that, according to the client, sounds and feels like a solution. Then we check how this constellation can be re-translated to the literal, real, previously problematic level and see how the solution ideas apply there. This has been described in more detail elsewhere (Schenck, 2013) This is similar to what many SF coaches do routinely. Scaling is based on the metaphor of a scale, from the Latin word scala for stairs or ladder. So asking a client who reports being at a 3, “What would be different if you were at 4?”, already includes, metaphorically, steps on a ladder, and then translating the position one rung higher up back to the client’s real life experience. A final alert – once you start training your metaphor ear in some or all of the above ways, you may become temporarily unable to NOT hear metaphors all over the place and you may have a hard time refraining from commenting on each of them to everybody. Don’t worry, relax, you’ll get over it. This phenomenon is frequent, but it fades over time, almost back to those pre-metaphorical times. Almost …

References Atkinson, M. (2013). Creating transformational metaphors. Vancouver: Exalon. Cairns-Lee, H. (2017). An exploration of leadership and its development through the inner worlds of leaders using metaphor (Ph.D. thesis), University of Surrey, Surrey. Campbell, J. (1988). The inner reaches of outer space. Metaphor as myth and as religion. New York, NY: Perennial/Harper & Row. Feldman, J. A. (2006). From molecule to metaphor. A neural theory of language. Cambridge: Bradford Books/The MIT Press. Kopp, R. R. (1996). Metaphor therapy. Using client-generated metaphors in psychotherapy. New York, NY: Bruner/Mazel. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lawley, J., & Tompkins, P. (2000). Metaphors in mind. London: The Developing Company Press. Lawley, J., & Way, M. (2017). Insights in space: How to use Clean Space to solve problems, generate ideas and spark creativity. Porchester: Clean Publishing. Pollio, H. R., Barlow, J. M., Fine, H. J., & Pollio, M. R. (1977). Psychology and the poetics of growth: Figurative language in psychology, psychotherapy, and education. Hillsdale, NJ: L Erlbaum. Schenck, K. (2006). Solution focused topology: Mapping manageable solution components & contexts. In G. Lueger & H.-P. Korn (Eds.), Solution focused management (pp. 27–39). Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag. Schenck, K. (2010). Sprach-Salto aus der Sackgasse. Metaphern als Werkzeuge für Supervision und Beratung. OSC; Organisationsberatung, Supervision, Coaching, 17(3), 255–268.

114

Klaus Schenck

Schenck, K. (2011). Jede Menge Knete: Lösungen mit Leiter, Herz und Hand. In H. Reisch (Ed.), Solution focus praxisbeispiele (pp. 21–28). Norderstedt: Books on Demand GmbH. Schenck, K. (2013). So what’s a meta for? InterAction – the Journal of Solution Focus in Organizations, 5(2), 35–53. Zaltman, G., & Zaltman, L. (2008). Marketing metaphoria: What deep metaphors reveal about the minds of consumers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Chapter 15

Being and doing SF as an organisational coach Susanne Burgstaller

This chapter enquires into the differences in practices and skills required by an expanding scope of the setting where Solution Focus is applied. It describes what being Solution Focused can mean for an organisational coach, listing a set of useful assumptions, and how this mindset helps coaches to improvise competently in demanding situations. It specifies what doing SF can mean when aiming to foster transformative change. Ten central practices are highlighted, namely, encouraging generativity, seeking inspiring metaphors, coaxing self-organising and adaptive capacities, conversations with organisations as roadmaps, making progress visible, creating communities of learners, valuing play and embodied experiences, encouraging experiments, constructing pathways for Solution Focused conversations and facilitating from the inbetween. Solution Focused (SF) work in and between organisations has expanded in scope and diversified way beyond the initial applications of individual coaching and team building. Solution Focus (SF) is “a powerful, practical and proven approach to positive change with people, teams and organisations” (Jackson & McKergow, 2007, p. xv) and therefore ideally suited to address the exponentially increasing demand for simple and effective ways to cope with complex and rapid transformations in many industries. SF coaching has become a trusted companion to organisational change journeys and multi-stakeholder processes in large-scale settings. It has also infiltrated problem-focused settings such as risk management (Kreil, 2015) and conflict negotiations (Bannink, 2010). It is being practiced by many, including external and internal coaches, managers, HR officers, municipal workers, film directors and team members. SF does not stand isolated in a landscape of ideas, but is co-evolving along with approaches such as chaos and complexity theory, pragmatism and minimalism, systems thinking, the theory of autopoiesis, the positive revolution in social sciences, philosophy of language (Burgstaller, 2015, pp. 32–40) and embodied or enactive approaches (Shennan, 2016). In enterprise coaching, the parallels and useful complementarity between Solution Focus and agile or lean thinking and

116

Susanne Burgstaller

methods (Ries, 2017) have become noticeable for coaches familiar with both domains (Kotrba & Miarka, 2015; Shaked, 2013). The fact that SF applications are multiplying fast raises some of the following questions: • • •

What differences in practice and required skills can we observe when we enlarge the scope of the setting where SF is applied? What stays the same regardless of the setting? What are effective SF practices in large-scale organisational settings?

Different settings require different SF skills and practices

Demands on the Solution Focused coach

As the size and diversity of the setting increases, so do the demands on the skills and practices of the SF practitioner, each setting requiring additional or more nuanced skills and a shift in the focus of the work. With setting I refer specifically to the scope of the activity of the organisational coach, while context denotes the particularities of a customer’s environment, such as the industry, the size and purpose of the organisation or its current situation. For the purpose of this chapter, I am using the term organisational coach to refer to a variety of roles. While clearly internal roles carry more clout

Coaching "inbetween" organisations Coaching organisations Coaching large teams or groups Coaching individuals or small teams/groups

Size and diversity of the setting

Figure 15.1

Being and Doing SF as organisational coach

117

regarding decision-making implementation power and a better fit with the system, the external coach is sometimes regarded as more impartial, freer and better able to generate a difference that helps foster the changes the organisation wants to bring about. Coaching individuals, teams or small groups

The distinguishing factor of this setting is that SF coaches directly and personally lead the conversations they hold. This is usually done with either a single person or a small group of people. The focus of the work is similar to that of the therapist: responding spontaneously and in the moment to how the conversation unfolds while bearing the SF model in mind. Even though there may be some variations, coaching and therapy sessions usually follow the same process and there is “no marked difference other than content” (Iveson, George, & Ratner, 2012, p. 7). Examples include business coaching of individual managers, or coaching a board team towards effective cooperation or a new strategy.

Coaching large teams and groups In this setting the work is usually done through conducting workshops, team building – or even large group events. The distinguishing factor here is that when working with a larger group, SF practitioners usually cannot hold conversations with everyone present directly and in person. They need to split up the group into subgroups and rely on the groups themselves to make the best possible use of the questions offered to them. The focus of work is therefore to prepare an event design that proposes powerful questions to the groups involved, allows them to actively engage with their topics and hold lively and productive conversations. The SF practitioner needs to attentively guide these conversations and respond in the moment to changing needs. Preparing such an event requires being able to carefully think through a group process, imagining the conversational flow and polishing the questions like gems. Facilitating such a workshop requires excellent improvisation skills focused on dealing with groups and a “balance between a range of groupwork techniques” (Sharry, 2007, p. 49). Coaching organizations

Work in this setting involves facilitating change journeys or other organisational development missions, such as designing and implementing a new strategy, optimising business processes, effecting changes in company structures, cultural change or all of the above combined. It requires designing an SF process of cooperation with an organization, which may stretch over a longer period of time – sometimes a few months, sometimes a few years – depending on the scope of the

118

Susanne Burgstaller

transformation required. Initially it involves engaging the sponsors and relevant stakeholders with an image of their preferred future, and thereafter co-creating the process iteratively in a series of stages or sprints, re-visiting their ideas of the preferred future and re-contracting continuously. The focus of the work is on co-creating with the sponsor an SF roadmap for the transformation journey, planning and facilitating a series of events and meetings, as well holding many structured or unstructured conversations during and around the events. The work may also involve laying down SF pathways for conversations in the organisation by infecting internal facilitators, creating or adapting organisational tools or defining new meeting protocols. When working in this setting it is becoming increasingly necessary to have some understanding of the business domain the organisation is part of, or about process or organisational design options for complex organisations. Coaching in-between organisations

Work in this setting may involve aligning a common strategy between several organisations or communities, cluster building, community-citizen work or coordinating policies or strategies in a socio-political or macroeconomic context. It requires holding the thread in a multi-stakeholder process often involving a timespan of several years and more players than the worker can ever meet, as well as planning and facilitating many structured and unstructured interventions. The focus of the work is on network building, establishing good will and cooperation with different groups, forging alliances, as well as accepting differences that cannot be bridged. It requires regular stakeholder monitoring, drawing up constantly shifting stakeholder maps and engaging with them actively. It also calls for solid SF negotiation and conflict management skills, coping with many and often competing demands and being able to sometimes work without a clear contract or identifiable sponsor. With so many variations of skills demanded by different settings, what remains the same in Solution Focused practice?

Being SF as a constant The SF mindset – a set of assumptions or presuppositions influencing our actions – basically stays the same in different settings or roles. In fact, the more complex, unpredictable and challenging the work environment becomes, the more essential it is to fully stay in the SF frame of mind. This enables SF coaches to have powerful SF questions at the tip of their tongues in order to make good use of a chance meeting with a key decision maker, or to be fully present with positive expectations when supporting a customer in making a key pivot in a change process. The SF organisational coach routinely holds a number of assumptions about organisations and people, which in turn lead to certain actions or

Being and Doing SF as organisational coach

119

non-actions. Sustaining a positive bias about the organisation is an essential mental discipline: if we lose faith in our customers, we have no right to work with them. Not observing this rule leads to bad work and bad outcomes. We need to be able to appreciate and respect them with a great sense of hope and positive anticipation in order to help them realise their own possibilities. Here are some examples of SF beliefs, which stay essentially the same in all of the abovementioned settings: • •

•

• • • • • • •

We assume that it is more useful to ask questions than to give directions We are less neutral about what is being talked about, but instead clearly suggest a direction: towards the future and what the client wants, as well as towards “the positive” – what has worked, is working – and towards resources We believe that small-scale interactions have an impact on large-scale processes. We therefore encourage organisational members at all levels to make small local adaptations in their areas of influence to fit with the organization’s preferred future We believe that the organization is made up of a web of conversations. With this idea in mind, we influence the people present towards agency – every conversation carries the potential to effect change We assume good intentions and take people at their word when they describe their preferred future. This leads to treating our counterparts as if they were already in their preferred future We believe that everyone has a voice. This leads to inclusive process designs and to listening and responding to people as a resource We take a fluid and empowering view of change. We believe along with Gregory Bateson that “change happens all the time. It is our task to identify positive change and amplify it” (2000) We consider every case to be different and are prepared to have a fresh look at each customer situation with a beginner’s mind We have a bias towards self-organization, emergence, participation and democracy with regard to organisational and process designs. We prefer simplicity, experimentation and constant learning loops We believe that small and large-scale transformations in organizations require a vision of a preferred future and a sequence of small adaptive steps. Therefore, we encourage customers to conduct experiments, to learn from them and quickly adapt as they proceed.

Doing SF in organisational coaching for large-scale change The practices described here build on the general ground practices of SF work with the difference being that much larger groups of people are

120

Susanne Burgstaller

involved. Ground practices include contracting for outcomes, creating a joint image of a preferred future, moving into action with small steps, being on the look-out for what works, dropping what does not and going through this process in iterations. Encouraging generative images and questions

Generative images have the capacity to “challenge the guiding assumptions of the culture, to raise fundamental questions (…), to foster reconsideration of that which is ‘taken for granted’ and thereby to furnish new alternatives for social action” (Gergen, 1978, p. 1346). A generative image may be transported by a visual cue, a word or phrase, an artefact, a story or in fact anything else. Customers have reported a wide variety of things that have somehow captured the imagination of people in their organization, generated new ways of seeing things, stimulated creative thinking, supported shifts in assumptions or action patterns and helped them address the gap between their preferred future and their current situation. Among them have been, for example, a drawing of the community in which the enterprise is a vital part, a particular style of address displayed by a new CEO, a corporate video that went viral or a chance sketch made in a workshop which served as a transformation roadmap for the following years. The magic of a generative question lies in it never quite being closed by an answer, but in continuing to generate answers over months and years. According to Bushe (2007), the four qualities of generative questions are: They are surprising, touch people’s heart and spirit, build relationships and invite people to look at reality a little differently. Additionally, they also encourage concrete details, context, metaphors and stories, and do not accept bland and abstract concepts as an answer – exactly what SF practitioners want from descriptions (Iveson & McKergow, 2016). Seasoned SF coaches know to find and hold open such questions in the organization, and harvest all the answers and ideas they generate. Seeking inspiring metaphors for organisational change

“Mechanistic approaches create organisational forms that have difficulty in adapting to change” (Morgan, 1998, p. 32). Mechanistic metaphors make change seem hard work – requiring brute force – and episodic, as suggested by Kurt Lewin’s (1947) three-stage model “unfreeze–transition–refreeze”, which still underpins many traditional approaches to organisational change. SF practitioners aim for different “logics of change” (Morgan, 1998, p. 214) and position organisational change as a continuous, natural and attractive activity. They support the idea of continuous change posited by Weick and Quinn’s “freeze-rebalance-unfreeze” model (1999) and offer metaphors that emphasise organic, improvisational or experimental qualities.

Being and Doing SF as organisational coach

121

They invite their customers to a “solution tango” (Bartels, 2018; Cauffman & Dierolf, 2007), introduce them to “jazz improvisation” (Weick, 1998) or encourage them to nurture change like tending a garden (Roehrig, Schwendenwein, & Bushe, 2015, p. 327). Patiently coaxing existing self-organising and adaptive capacities

SF coaches need to be patient when helping organisations transition from a strictly hierarchical, command-and-control model to a more autonomous and self-organising model. During decades of being rigidly managed, staff members have often lost touch with their innate sense of autonomy and responsibility. The SF coach needs to hold the door open with an offer of participation and the firm belief that with time and opportunity it will come back. Trying to force change too quickly can cause setbacks or reverting to the old ways. It takes time to integrate new habits into organisational communication and action patterns. Therefore, SF coaches celebrate small wins and movement in the right direction wherever they can. Making progress visible

In the midst of a sea of change, organizations can sometimes lose faith that their efforts will bear fruit. They cannot perceive whether they have made any progress or not, and it all seems a hopeless and futile endeavour. Tracking progress so that it provides hard and soft facts feeds the organisation’s learning cycle and serves the purpose of knowing when to persevere or pivot in the pursuit of any course or direction. It also serves the purpose of acknowledging achievements, which builds a sense of self-esteem, reinforces change actions and thus fuels the next stage of the change journey. SF coaches emphasise exploring the details of success, discovering “positive deviances” (Pascale, Sternin & Sternin, 2010) and positioning failures as useful learning opportunities. They employ creative means to visualise progress and encourage team members to share the outcomes of their work experiments or “culture hacks” (Moore, 2018) with their colleagues. Conversations with organisations as roadmaps for change

In VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) environments it is usually not possible to have a precisely defined destination. This can be quite disconcerting for hierarchically trained managers and can lead to not making any attempt to set a direction, to fake over-planning or to crying out for expert advice on both destination and roadmaps. SF coaches respond by constructing a roadmap for change like an SF conversation with a whole organisation:

122

• •

• • • • •

Susanne Burgstaller

Pursuing a direction which is contracted at the beginning with as many stakeholders as needed Investing time and energy to elicit as many details as possible about the organisation’s own unique future. Ideally this involves a holistic image of the organisation with a focus on its purpose, a view of its preferred interactions with its stakeholders, how it wishes to excel in the business domain and what kind of autonomy it wishes to grant to its members in pursuing this vision Re-visiting this vision regularly in order to excite and motivate everyone to lean into their preferred future together Co-creating this conversation with the organization together with the sponsors, following a certain route for a while, evaluating and departing from it when need be, and making frequent turns and alterations possible Structuring the conversation by taking turns in asking questions and being asked – giving space to staff members or customers Processing the answers and learning from them before asking the next set of questions Knowing when to withhold ideas so as to generate space for the customer’s own, and when to blow fresh ideas into it to act as oxygen for growth.

The idea of an SF roadmap for change as a dialogue with the whole organization fits well with principles of dialogic (versus diagnostic) organisational development, which SF is considered to be a part of (Bushe, 2013).

Constructing pathways for SF conversations The seeds for change are often generated in a kind of transformational space in which new interactions can be learnt and tried out safely and then transferred into the organisation. Clients often implicitly or explicitly learn new routines from interacting with the SF coach. However, the coach cannot always interact with every member of the organisation. Therefore, clients also need to learn from one another or be provided with tools that engage them in SF communications. Constructing such different conversational pathways can be facilitated, for example, by: • • •

Bringing the whole system together in one room and utilising largegroup methods to help participants make new experiences, reinterpret their past and envisage a different future together Designing SF conversational scripts that others can follow, for example, by providing facilitation scripts or written communications Introducing management or project teams, internal facilitators or change agents to SF conversational microstructures, such as ways of contracting

Being and Doing SF as organisational coach

•

123

for outcomes or describing the preferred future, etc., thus enabling them to build better conversational pathways for themselves Integrating SF principles into organisational tools such as staff appraisals, management tools, metrics, meeting routines, or corporate policies.

Creating communities of learners We are not what we know but what we are willing to learn. (Bateson, 2004, p. 8)

Learning enables change and change drives learning. Sadly, not everyone is a natural learner and many find it hard to give up cherished beliefs or comfortable habits. SF coaches therefore need to help their customers develop “a curious mind and an eye toward possibilities” (Southern, 2015, p. 270), position learning as an inspiring and fun activity and construct settings in which “transformative learning” (Taylor & Cranton, 2012) can take place. Establishing communities of learners in change journeys helps to foster a shared purpose and a common understanding of the current situation. When people learn as a group, they can support each other both by affirming new behaviours, as well as by learning from mistakes. SF coaches will therefore aim to work with large groups and with as large a segment of the organisation as they can handle. They will also aim to establish communities of practice who continue their learning and change initiatives long after the coach has left the organisation. Valuing play and embodied experiences

Research shows that “engaging in fun or novel activities not only breaks up routine and boredom but also fosters and enables positive energy, especially when the fun is connected with interpersonal relationships” (Cameron, 2013, p. 64). Playing with each other forges connections between people, elevates the mood and ultimately increases readiness for collaboration. This creates a safe environment where it is easier to experiment and learn. Playing allows an “embodied experience that goes with trying something different and succeeding” (Storch, 2015, p. 214), which precipitates learning faster than persuasive arguments or intellectual insights. One experience can literally replace a thousand words. Encouraging experiments and learning loops

SF coaches are aware that organisational life requires “fumbling around, experimenting and patching together an understanding of problems from bits and pieces of experience, improvising with materials at hand” (Barrett, 2012, p. 27). They therefore encourage learners to tinker with issues and make small,

124

Susanne Burgstaller

adaptive experiments, which may sometimes only be “15% solutions” (Lipmanowicz & McCandless, 2013, p. 191), but which nevertheless exploit all the freedom to act that they have. Along with agilists, they consider that “the only real failure is the failure to learn from failure” (Kniberg & Skarin, 2010, p. 101), that it is useful to consciously apply improvisational skills (Jackson, 2015) and to “exploit the opportunities offered by the unexpected” (Steele, 2018). Facilitating from the inbetween

SF coaches are not neutral process managers in the traditional sense (Schwarz, 1994), even though they often perform all the motions of facilitation, such as capturing agreements, encouraging turn taking or making sure everyone gets to speak. They are aware that what matters is the Inbetween (Jackson & McKergow, 2007, p. 36; McKergow & Korman, 2008) – whatever is co-constructed through the interactions between the members of the organisation at an individual and group level, between the different hierarchical levels and functions, as well as between the organisation and the coach. Goppelt and Ray describe the coaches’ intention aptly: “We want to engage as much as we can in the day-to-day complexity. It is about influencing in everyday conversations that allow them to become unstuck” (2015, p. 385). SF coaches therefore interact in varied ways, always taking care to establish and maintain collaborative relations and adopting a partnership approach to the people they work with. Their major priority is “avoiding the siren song of the abstract” (Goppelt & Ray, 2015, p. 379). Instead, they invite people to connect with their actual experiences, describe examples, tell concrete stories and envisage their future in detail. They ask questions with their customers, not about them (Goppelt & Ray, 2015, p. 388) and take an attitude of joint curiosity and exploration. Most of all, they acknowledge the fact that both parties learn and change in the interaction. This reciprocal learning with and from customers is a key part of SF practice in all settings.

In conclusion This chapter has given a brief overview of the work that SF coaches do in and around organisations. There are any number of additional practices and every coaching is a new exploration of how to use the principles, mindset, methods and elegance of SF as simply and effectively as possible. Let us continue to reflect on and learn from what works for our customers, thereby expanding SF practice.

References Bannink, F. (2010). Handbook of solution-focused conflict management. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe Publishing. Barrett, F. (2012). Yes to the mess. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press Books.

Being and Doing SF as organisational coach

125

Bartels, B. (2018, April). Tango as a metaphor for solution focus. Workshop for solution focused practitioners. Chateau Cortils, Belgium. Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Bateson, M. C. (2004). Willing to learn. Hanover, NH: Steerforth Press. Burgstaller, S. (Ed.). (2015). Lösungsfokus in organisationen. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer. Bushe, G. R. (2007). Appreciative inquiry is not (just) about the positive. Organization Development Practitioner, 39(4), 30–35. Bushe, G. R. (2013). Dialogic OD: A theory of practice. OD Practitioner, 45(1), 11–17. Cameron, K. (2013). Practicing positive leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler Publishers. Cauffman, L., & Dierolf, K. (2007). Lösungstango. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer. Gergen, K. J. (1978). Toward generative theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1344–1360. Goppelt, J., & Ray, K. W. (2015). Dialogic process consultation: Working live. In G. R. Bushe & R. J. Marshak (Eds.), Dialogic organization development (pp. 371–390). Oakland, CA: Berret-Koehler Publishers. Iveson, C., George, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). Brief coaching. Hove and New York, NY: Routledge. Iveson, C., & McKergow, M. (2016). Brief therapy: Focused description development. Journal of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy, 2(1), 1–17. Jackson, P. Z. (2015). Improvisation als Inspiration für die lösungsfokussierte Praktikerin. In S. Burgstaller (Ed.), Lösungsfokus in Organisationen (pp. 43–51). Heidelberg: Carl-Auer. Jackson, P. Z., & McKergow, M. (2007). The solutions focus. London: Nicholas Brealey International. Kniberg, H., & Skarin, M. (2010). Kanban and scrum. Making the most of both. USA: C4Media Inc. Kotrba, V., & Miarka, R. (2015). Agile teams lösungsfokussiert coachen. Heidelberg: dpunkt.verlag. Kreil, S. (2015). In the Lion’s Den: Introducing SF into risk management – A practitioner’s report. InterAction, 7(2), 70–87. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers of group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 5–41. Lipmanowicz, H., & McCandless, K. (2013). The surprising power of liberating structures. Amazon/Create Space: Liberating Structures Press. McKergow, M., & Korman, H. (2008). Inbetween – Not inside or outside. The radical simplicity of solution-focused brief therapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 28(2), 34–49. Moore, S. (2018, May). Learn the art of culture hacking. Gartner. Retrieved from www. gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/learn-the-art-of-culture-hacking-for-culture-change/ Morgan, G. (1998). Images of organization. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler. Pascale, R., Sternin, J., & Sternin, M. (2010). The power of positive deviance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. Ries, E. (2017). The lean start-up. New York, NY: Crown Publishing Group. Roehrig, M. J., Schwendenwein, J., & Bushe, G. R. (2015). Amplifying change. A three-phase approach to model, nurture, and embed ideas for change. In

126

Susanne Burgstaller

G. R. Bushe & R. J. Marshak (Eds.), Dialogic organization development (pp. 325–348). Oakland, CA: Berret-Koehler Publishers. Schwarz, R. M. (1994). The skilled facilitator. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Shaked, D. (2013). Combining solution focus with lean thinking – What works well about it? Interaction, 5(2), 10–19. Sharry, J. (2007). Solution-focused groupwork. London: SAGE. Shennan, G. (2016). Extended mind, extended person, extended therapy? InterAction, 8(1), 7–30. Southern, N. (2015). Framing inquiry. The art of engaging great questions. In G. R. Bushe & R. J. Marshak (Eds.), Dialogic organization development (pp. 269–289). Oakland, CA: Berret-Koehler Publishers. Steele, A. (2018, November 27). Experiments in the art of positive leadership and transformational change. Lessons from the world of jazz and improvisation, Workshop for the R-IT Leadership Journey, Raiffeisenhaus, Vienna, Austria. Storch, J. (2015). Enabling change. The skills of dialogic OD. In G. R. Bushe & R. J. Marshak (Eds.), Dialogic organization development (pp. 197–218). Oakland, CA: Berret-Koehler Publishers. Taylor, E. W., & Cranton, P. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of transformative learning. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Weick, K. E. (1998). Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9(5), 543–555. Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386.

Chapter 16

How a Solution Focused approach helps a CEO Julia Kalenberg

Introduction Manuela Herz, HR manager at Herz Company, met SF practitioner Julia Kalenberg when Julia facilitated a short workshop about mental strength called, “My Mind makes the Difference”. Manuela got a taste of Solution Focus and tried out the following scaling questions to evaluate her mental strength: • • • •

On a scale from 1–10 (10 being the best you could ever imagine, 1 the opposite), where would you rate yourself now? What are you doing well that you are already on a X? What brought you there? Imagine, you had moved up just a little bit on your scale … what would you be doing differently or more of? What would be a first small sign?

Manuela was enthusiastic about the approach and the mind shift it can lead to. She imagined how a change in her husband’s mind would enhance motivation in the management team. Up to this point, he was convinced that he was the only person in the company able to take decisions – and appreciation was not his thing. He used to say, “If I don’t say anything, that’s enough appreciation”. Manuela was convinced that the management team would benefit greatly if they learned to talk more about solutions instead of talking about problems. Six months later, Manuela and Julia met again to talk about possible next steps. Julia brought a set of “i-o stones” as a present to Manuela, who is proud to have used them daily ever since. Manuela says these two small pebble stones make a big difference in her life. Julia created this easy-to-use tool inspired by Luc Isebaert’s three questions for a good life (Isebaert, 2017). Two small stones prompt two questions which help to focus on what’s already working and create a culture of appreciation. The two questions are:

128

• •

Julia Kalenberg

What have I done today that I’m really happy with? (I-stone) What has an other person done that I’m happy with … and have I told them? (O-stone)

The journey The following description of the journey is offered to inspire and encourage SF practitioners to explore and experiment with their clients – trust the people, trust yourself, trust the process. A first encouraging glimpse into SF

The topic for the first workshop in 2014 was to improve teamwork. Julia introduced the Solution Circle as an underlying model (Meier & Szabo, 2008). The team learns to talk about their preferred future, look at what already works and appreciate small steps on their way. The process started straight away with a resource gossip introduction round – one person turns their back and all the others offer resource gossip about this person, talking about their strengths, what they are good at and what they bring to the team. As the managers also felt the need to address problems, they are given the opportunity to do a constructive rant (Brooker, 2012). They take a short walk in pairs and rant about things that don’t work. When they return, they are invited to discuss first with their partner, then collect and cluster what they want instead in plenary. The managers took a closer look at their teamwork with a scaling walk (Jackson & McKergow, 2007). They ranked their view of present teamwork on a scale from one to ten. And they were surprised to be asked, “What is already working?” instead of looking at what is missing, as they would normally have done, no matter how low or high they are on the scale. They were even more surprised to imagine what they would do differently or do more of if they moved up the scale, instead of talking about the deficits in their teamwork. They realised that improvement and development does not have to be hard work but can be playful and light. The management team decided to keep track of their achievements by writing a short successemail to Julia every week noting the small steps that they were taking. Highlighting and reinforcing useful change

In summer 2015, the next workshop entitled “SF as a turbo” took place at Herz Company. Improvements and useful changes since the first workshop were highlighted. The participants told each other success stories and listened carefully to detect and provide feedback regarding the strengths that helped to make the success stories possible. They realised how important looking at what works is and also introduce it into their company management meetings, always beginning with a “what’s better?” round. In the course of the workshop, they

How a Solution Focus approach helps a CEO

129

experienced the difference between problem talk and solution talk via a short exercise in pairs. They experienced the difference between mentoring and coaching. Coaching questions were introduced, and they coached each other in groups of three – coach, coachee and resource-detective. The participants were relieved when they realised that they didn’t have to know everything themselves, and that their employees ask for help and advice less if they took time for a short coaching conversation instead of just telling the employee what to do. This discovery also changed the relation between Manuela, head of HR, and her managers. Previously, the managers constantly came to ask her for help on specific questions and problems. She used to give them a quick answer – her solution – and often the manager came back because it didn’t work. So, she would give another hint for what to do next. Manuela saw herself more as an expert and felt the need to give advice. During the workshop, she experienced the potential of asking SF questions, which help others to find their solutions and assume more responsibility. This practice enabled her to transition from fire extinguisher to someone who holds a safe, creative space for development. Imagining a preferred future that people want to be part of

Another important topic during the workshop was a preferred future exercise (Korn, 2008). The participants imagine their preferred future at the end of the following year. They envisioned themselves among the top 100 most innovative SMEs (small- and medium-sized enterprises) in Germany. In an exercise conducted at tables and with flipchart paper to capture their creative discussion, they entered a time machine and beamed themselves to the end of the following year. They imagined what they would be doing at that time, which important resources and strengths would have brought them there, what their customers, staff and other stakeholders would be saying. Following the exercise there was a fictitious press conference with Julia as the journalist. She wrote a press article using what they said and fed it back to the team. This article served as a guideline and visualised goal over the next months. Important change happening in between the workshops

The most important change between the two workshops was that people talked less about problems and asked for possible solutions instead. For example, when two of the sales manager’s employees come to his office and complained about their teamwork, he invited them to what he later called the smallest workshop in the world. He simply asked them, “So, what do you want instead?”. Wish it, dream it, do it

As the company was growing at a remarkable pace, the topic of the third workshop was titled “successful opening of the next two plants”. In order to create

130

Julia Kalenberg

a positive atmosphere right from the start of the workshop, Julia interviewed Manuela during the car journey to the workshop. She asked her about the managers’ qualities and their contributions to useful changes in the company since the last workshop. Julia took notes on cards which Manuela displayed on a flipchart designed as a flower at the beginning of the workshop. This acted as a figurative handing over a bouquet of flowers to the team. A big part of the workshop was the preferred future exercise – successful opening of Plants 2 and 3. Firstly the participants just talked about it, imagining they have already achieved it. Later they went into more detail and identified the key success factors for the successful openings. They did a scaling question for each success factor and finished with small next steps (Shariff & Abington, 2018). SF rippling out across the company and creating measurable results

Constantly striving to improve teamwork had an effect on the atmosphere in the whole company and in the various departments. People were prouder to work for Herz Company than before. They loved to present their company during job interviews and Herz was a very popular employer. The improvement was also measurable in higher productivity. They were better able to meet the customers’ needs and grew significantly while other companies in the industry were stagnating. Herz Company figures were among the top 100 most innovative SMEs in two consecutive years. By autumn 2017, the company had grown significantly again and needed to hire new managers. The aims of the 2017 workshop were to introduce SF to the new managers, celebrate successes and merge the existing team with new members. Manuela was fascinated by Julia’s suggestion of a completely different workshop setting to enhance teamwork, namely, a self-catered log cabin in the Black Forest. The management team took care of all the preparations – they were responsible for provisioning and cooking for the two days. Steffen, who would normally feel responsible for preparing everything, was allowed to cook only one meal. Again, future focused questioning was used, this time in the form of “What are your best hopes?” Then the participants were invited to identify small signs of progress. Most of the managers were used to the questions and were using them in their teams: • •

What changes in your daily work at Herz Company do you expect from this workshop? What are you already doing, or what have you observed, that could help make your best hopes come true?

Julia invited the participants to a bean experiment, which helped to count the number of sparkling moments of the workshop. Everybody got five beans which they put into their left pocket. They were invited to put one

How a Solution Focus approach helps a CEO

131

bean from the left pocket into the right pocket each time they observed something as an answer to the following questions: • • •

What strengthened you? What impressed you? What do you appreciate about somebody else?

For this last question’s observations, they gave a bean to the person they had appreciated. The participants wanted to make their meetings more effective and decided to tackle the topic with a scaling question. Another important topic was the IATF (International Automotive Task Force) certification that they wanted to attain. It was not just Steffen and Manuela who wanted this certification, but the whole team. In the beginning this seemed a huge step and the team was overwhelmed by all the things that still would have to be done. Using the scaling question, they looked closely at what was already working, what they had already achieved and what the next small steps might be. The big project became doable and everybody was re-motivated to tackle the certification. Giving open and frank feedback to each other was another topic for the team. Instead of talking about the problematic behaviour, they learned to express in a feed-forward-style what they wanted instead, and what benefits that would have (Furman & Ahola, 2011).

Conclusion: keys to developing potential are trust, empower and then let go Many small steps have contributed to changing Herz’s teamwork over the last few years. Sometimes the steps were so small that it was easy to overlook them. Talking about what they wanted, appreciating what is already there and seeing small steps have become consistent aims in their day-to-day routine. Steffen, the owner, has been, and still is, a crucial person. He realises that he can trust his management team and let them think and make valuable suggestions, e.g. about optimising the process flow. The managers are involved in continuous improvement. They feel more responsible for the outcomes because they are asked to make decisions – or in the case of big decisions, at least prepare. Letting his managers take over roles and responsibilities step-by-step has made it possible for them to grow and develop their potential. They are no longer only executors of his ideas, but can also contribute to their success. Steffen has learned to take better care of himself. Instead of sticking his nose into every single small decision, he takes time for thinking about strategic company development. He also takes more time for himself, his family and things that are important to him.

132

Julia Kalenberg

Manuela’s biggest change has been in believing more in people’s abilities to solve problems, by finding solutions to challenges. She sees the managers more as the experts, gives less advice and asks questions to let them find their own solutions. Manuela supports them and facilitates conversations around process planning. The managers appreciate her support and her valuable questions. Being proud, feeling better and getting better results

Manuela, Steffen and their management team are proud of their company’s evolution. Two new plants opened at the same time. They have achieved the important IATF certification. The managers themselves designed the organization chart together with their staff. They continuously strive for optimisation. The managers are talking to each other much more – in the corridors too – and they always find ways to comply with the norms and regulations. Inter-departmental thinking has grown. They see the needs of other departments and use each other’s strengths to the benefit of the whole company. They have improved their meetings by talking more about solutions than about problems. Meetings have become shorter and more effective. They like to use scaling questions to visualise small steps and improvements. The whole staff is more involved because they are asked to suggest improvements to the process flow. The more positive feedback and appreciation leads to more motivated staff, who bring ideas for reorganization, new time models and other improvements to their daily routines and processes. They are proud to be faster, more focused and with clear responsibilities. All activities have become more flexible and focused. If asked to identify the success factors, which could be relevant in a similar improvement process in other companies, Julia would say: • • •

Openness and commitment from the top management At least one person (in this case the HR manager) who constantly drives the process and keeps the attention on small steps Adopting a facilitator’s mindset – the client is the expert. Trust in the client’s ideas about their preferred future, the right means to achieve it, their own pace and the number of workshops and interventions

References Brooker, J. (2012, May 19). Elicit issues safely. [Web blog post]. Yes! And. Retrieved from www.yesand.eu/129-elicit-issues-safely/ Furman, B., & Ahola, T. (2011). “Cooperation” – Ein lösungsfokussiertes Trainingsprogramm für Führungskräfte und Teams, Teilnehmerhandbuch. Helsinki: Helsinki Brief Therapy Institute.

How a Solution Focus approach helps a CEO

133

Isebaert, L. (2017). Three questions for a good life. [YouTube video]. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH6HltdE2sw Jackson, P. Z., & McKergow, M. (2007). The solutions focus – Making coaching and change SIMPLE. London/Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey International. Korn, H.-P. (2008). Blick zurück in die Zukunft. In P. Röhrig (Ed.), Solution tools (pp. 145–151). Bonn: ManagerSeminare Verlags GmbH. Meier, D., & Szabo, P. (2008). Coaching erfrischend einfach. Luzern: Solutionsurfers GmbH. Shariff, A., & Abington, A. (2018). Solution focused strategy canvassing. The Journal InterAction, 9(2), 5.

Chapter 17

Solution Focused work with conflicts The know and how of Solution Focused mediation Martina Scheinecker, Peter Röhrig, and Sieds Rienks with Leo Blokland Introduction In this chapter, we describe principles and practices of our Solution Focused (SF) mediation work. Martina, Sieds and Leo work primarily as mediators. Peter works as mediator and as leadership trainer. We offer our most inspiring and successful experiences in the fields of mediation and conflict management training as illustrations.

Basic assumptions – our common ground SF mediation is a particular approach to conflict management. Principles and tools originally developed in Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) by Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg are applied to conflict situations in organizations. (Bannink, 2009; Ferrari, 2015; Kolodej, 2016; Ronzani, 2015; Wüstehube, 2010). The SF approach is attractive because of its speed and efficiency. Bannink describes results from therapy outcome studies that show that SF therapy is much faster and more inclined to meet the client’s needs for autonomy (Bannink, 2009, p. 57). Our experience is similar: we can reach results faster and with more satisfaction for the conflicting participants. Bannink has described the difference between Solution Focused and problemfocused conflict management on the basis of 18 criteria (Bannink, 2009, p. 65). She proposes that the two approaches differ in what is considered a successful outcome: • •

In problem-focused conflict management, the solution of the initial conflict is considered to be the achieved success In Solution Focused conflict management, it is much more about reaching the clients’ goals. As a result, this can be different or better than just solving the initial conflict.

Solution Focused work with conflicts

135

This points to one of the main differences of the two approaches. Problemfocused conflict management deals mainly with the causes of the initial conflict, its consequences and the emotions involved, while Solution Focused conflict management is mainly directed to the preferred future. It explores what the parties involved want, instead of the conflict, and how can they reach that better future. Another crucial difference we have noted is the extent of the focus on problems in a conflict. Are they mentioned at all – and if yes, in which way, with which ambitions and with which interventions? In our experience, the participants need space to tell the reasons, history or causes, but to enter the solution process itself, it is not necessary for the SF mediator to know all about the problem. So, we mostly spend less time in the history and spend more of our energy in finding the solution space and exploring desires for a better future. SF mediation characteristically: • • •

Follows the basic assumptions of the SF approach and rigorously demonstrates this in practice Works with SF methods oriented towards achieving desired futures Supports the parties involved to find constructive ways out of the conflict, effectively and with as much lightness as possible. In our experience, the conflicting partners have built up an atmosphere of being heavy, dark and stuck. Here our interventional attitude of setting an atmosphere of lightness is of the utmost importance.

There are some suggestions from classical mediation that we have found turn out to be quite helpful, for instance: • •

To estimate the degree of escalation (Glasl, 2013) To invite the parties’ self-responsibility by letting them define the necessary amount of working with the conflict-issues and problems of the past.

The degree of escalation often gives solid guidance around how much preparation and problem work is necessary. Each conflict situation is unique. The deeper a conflict is escalated, the more preparation and problem work is necessary to clear the way for a constructive transformation of the tension in a conflict. Some tools in de-escalating the conflict are indeed traditional SF tools, like scaling, holding space, the miracle question, the preferred future and – above all- the listening for resourcefulness experience. For most clients the experience, that in this specific conflict you are listened to and appreciated in your own competencies, is one that makes the atmosphere fluid, lighter and ready for progress.

136

Martina Scheinecker and Peter Röhrig et al.

The essence of SF mediation

When working with the SF approach, the mediator mobilises the positive resources, emotions and attitudes as much as possible. These are some core elements of good SF mediation in organisations: • • • • •

To understand conflicts as a phenomenon of both personal and organisational contradictions To appreciate conflicts as a sign that change is necessary and use their energy as a powerful source of change To appreciate what works well in the present (personal relationships, working processes which function well) and trust in the parties’ ability to improve their cooperation To support the parties in creating images of a better future To trust in the ability of the parties to decide which of the problems of the past – which have caused hurt and emotional damage – they want to solve and to support them to do this in a very professional way.

Illustrations from our SF mediation in action Here we describe our most inspiring and successful experiences in the fields of mediation and conflict management training. We hope our descriptions will inspire other mediators to explore and experiment. Martina Scheinecker – Trigon (A)

Over many years of practicing SF mediation in organizations, Martina has developed a procedure in four phases (Scheinecker, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2014): 1. 2. 3. 4.

Orientation phase Construction of solutions Testing phase Evaluation

The orientation phase consists of individual interviews with all parties aimed at: • • • • •

Information about what will happen in the meeting with both parties Clarifying the contract and strengthening the emotional contract between the mediator and the parties Providing a solution-oriented analysis of the conflict system Evoking a change of perspectives to enhance empathy Activating the power of self-healing by registering small steps of improvement, giving recognition and illuminating options to de-escalate the conflict.

Solution Focused work with conflicts

137

7. Evaluation

6. Design solutions and solve problems 5. Selection of conflict issues and problems 4. Preferred future 3. Statements of appreciation 2. Hopes, goals 1. Awareness of resources Past

Presence

Future

Figure 17.1 The solution dialogue

The SF analysis of the conflict system is necessary to find the best steps towards an improvement. It provides deep understanding – for the mediator and for the parties – concerning the goals of the parties, their hopes, the issues, the points of disagreement, the resources and skills of the parties, what do they appreciate about each other, the process of conflict, the level of escalation, the conflicting parties and their nature, the relations between the conflicting parties and the basic attitudes of the disputants. The construction of solutions phase covers several meetings and workshops in which the mediator supports the parties to find solutions for their further cooperation or for a peaceful separation. A very important method for an SF approach to facilitating the dialogues between conflicting parties is the solution dialogue. It covers seven steps. 1. Awareness of resources Which – even small – changes have you noticed since our first interview? 2. Expressing hopes and goals What are your biggest hopes? Suppose our efforts for solving the conflict are successful: how could you tell/how could you measure this after our first meeting?

138

Martina Scheinecker and Peter Röhrig et al.

3. Statements of appreciation We will try to find out if there is a way to a better future cooperation for both of you. We will talk about the conflict and about what still works in your cooperation. Let us begin with the things that connect you. (Name), which of (name’s) qualities do you appreciate? – and vice versa. Or, if the interview had shown that there is no appreciation left: which future chances should the other party get? 4. Preferred future Encourage the parties to describe: imagine a time, a year from now, for example, when the conflict no longer exists and you have reached a really good cooperation/a really good life. What might it feel like? How might you tell that things are alright? What might you be doing then? Miracle question, scaling questions. 5. Selection of conflict issues and problems of the past If you consider all the things which you appreciate about each other and if you think about the future you want to reach – which problems, conflict issues, episodes and wounding incidents of the past do you have to resolve before you can get access to your preferred future? Which can you let go? 6. Design solutions and solve problems Support the parties with the whole range of methods of conflict solving, such as non-violent communication, SF questions, problem solving techniques, U-Process of Mediation, Systemic Structural Constellations 7. Evaluation of progress Evaluation takes place at the end of each meeting and about six months after the end of the mediation process. The testing phase starts after the parties have found an agreement for their future cooperation. In the last mediation session, when this agreement is finished, the parties fix a date in the future – in six weeks up to four months – where they will evaluate together with the mediator how successful their agreement proves to be. They test their cooperation, which means there are some months in which they do their ordinary work and observe their cooperation. Sieds Rienks with Leo Blokland – Masters in Conflict (NL)

The working method of Masters in Conflict in the Netherlands is above all very similar to the descriptions of Martina’s and Peter’s practice. The tools, the methods, the vision are all embedded in SF and they work in the same atmosphere. However, there are three major differences in the way Masters in Conflict (NL) works: 1. They take a short and limited time to solve the conflict – two to three weeks. They work intensively, they bring in a lot of our energy, and

Solution Focused work with conflicts

139

the dialogues are full of listening but also sharp and sometimes confronting, without losing the appreciative approach 2. Leo and Sieds work together. Leo is a very experienced lawyer and formerly CEO of Hospitals and Residential Care. Sieds is psychologist and formerly director and manager of Institutes and Hospitals in Care and Commerce. They mostly operate as a duo, and they use all the disciplines in which they were educated – law, psychology, economics, and business 3. They take the lead in the conflict. They frame it, they build up the agenda, they conduct the dialogues. They evaluate with the partners about the progress regularly, often even daily. This helps the conflicting parties to concentrate on the feelings and space they are giving to each other. The pressure cooker model as alternative approach

Leo and Sieds have developed an approach which they call the pressure cooker. From the beginning they use a time scheme, a planning of the short period (mostly two to three weeks) in which they want to resolve the conflict. They have the agreement that everyone wants to reach a final solution. They say, that if there is no good future for the cooperation, that they will advise the team and leadership to find another and legal solution. Peter Röhrig – ConsultContor (D)

Peter does not have adopt a standard procedure because he follows the SF principle that every case is different. In some cases, he will start with an exploration phase, interviewing the parties involved, in others he starts with all involved parties at the same time. Criteria for a single interview approach are: the more escalated, the better it seems to do some preliminary work to open the perspectives of the clients and slowly start to think about the future and development in that direction. Some of Peter’s principles for doing good work

• •

• •

As a mediator, do not expect the conflicting parties to change – and assume explicitly that they know about the consequences of no-change Slow the process sensibly down – by leaving a lot of space for different perspectives (from your point of view/and from their point of view) – enjoy lulls in the conversation when clients are thinking about good answers to very good questions Acknowledge the different points of view – with a special appreciation for all kinds of approaches to the problem – even if they turn out to be not very helpful Explore joint interests and desired futures

140

• • •

Martina Scheinecker and Peter Röhrig et al.

Support the parties in finding resources in past, present and future that could help to find a way out of the problem Sometimes it is much easier for clients to find a small step towards the common goal than towards each other Conduct the work with a lot of attention and calmness.

One of Peter’s passions is to support leaders in challenging situations. As conflicts in an organization are one of the most frequent challenges, Peter does a lot of leadership training, and calls it conflict empowerment. This means training on real cases from participant’s everyday lives, showing them how to use SF tools and principles in conflicts in a professional way. What all participants find very useful for their future is to handle conflict situations in a Solution-Focused, and not so much problem-focused, way anymore.

Table 17.1 Important differences for leaders In traditional (problem focused) conflict resolution as a leader I …

In SF conflict resolution as a leader I…

… focus on the causes of the conflict, on the effects … focus on the desired futures and emotions related to the conflict and resources to get there … try to solve the conflict … support parties to find steps towards the desired futures

The benefits that leaders find in their experience from the new way of working with conflicts include: • • •

Not to dive into problem analysis and stir up all the negative emotions again Refrain from providing solutions for the parties involved Keeping in mind that responsibility for sustainable solutions is shared between the conflict parties.

The SF approach gives trainers and consultants a chance to support a lot of people in their everyday life and make this world a better place to live in.

Evaluation of our work as mediators and trainers In the authors discussions they noticed some differences in relation to evaluation. In conflicts with two single persons, Martina and Peter usually evaluate their work as mediators together with the parties:

Solution Focused work with conflicts

141

1. At the beginning of each mediation session they ask about what has improved, what changes did you notice since our last meeting? 2. At the end of each mediation session they ask about how well did you reach your goals for this session? What did you learn about your communication and your way and competence of dealing with differences/ contradictions/antagonisms in this session? 3. At the end of the whole process they hold an evaluation meeting after the testing phase. which is often three to six months after the last mediation meeting. Long-term evaluation often brings up interesting results and shows us a lot about how people start to develop their future autonomously after a successful mediation: Peter usually asks the clients six to twelve months after finishing the mediation to give him a short feedback on the impact of the mediation for themselves and for the organisation. Usually this turns out to be an interesting learning opportunity for both the clients and the mediator. In some cases, he hears sentences like “Thank you for asking! You know, the advice you gave us at the last session, that was very good for us, it helped a lot”. And when he asks about this advice, he gets some ideas of what the clients connect with their joint work – even if he is completely sure, that he never gave this advice in the session. That makes him humble about long term evaluation. It seems that some clients construct explanations about the success of our mediation that are quite different from our own views. In team conflicts, continuous evaluation and progress monitoring are part of the process. When Peter does workshops with teams in conflict, he does the first monitoring four to six weeks after the workshop and per e-mail. He usually uses questions from Susanne Keck’s article (2008). Progress monitoring as transfer assistance, for example: 1. On a scale from 1–10 where 1 means there has been no progress and 10 means your desired future has been reached, where on the scale do you see yourself, the team, subject xy, the organization etc today? • •

How do you realise there has been a progress on the scale? How would you be noticing – at work, in the team, concerning subject xy. that you were one step higher on the scale?

2. What do you do concretely to make this possible? • •

What would your [colleagues, team members, line manager, person xy …] say you contribute? How would they have notice that? What will you do more of in the future to encourage this positive development? How would relevant people notice you want to encourage the process?

142

Martina Scheinecker and Peter Röhrig et al.

•

Which contributions of [your colleagues, line manager, the team, person xy …] do you appreciate most? How do these people notice you appreciate their contributions?

3. What should happen more [at work, in the team, concerning subject xy]? •

When did this already happen, even to a small amount? What did you notice?

Sieds and Leo do not often measure their results in terms of scaling and results. They do not use evaluation forms but do use a good dialogue afterwards and they are often asked to stay some time (low-frequent, without framing).

How different (organizational) cultures influence our SF mediation work Martina’s perspective

SF mediation in organizations must always consider the organizational framework: Culture, structure, roles, processes, financial resources, market conditions and so on. It is an essential part of my approach that any action and feeling of a person in an organization can only be understood when you consider the role of this person in the organization. It is characteristic for organizations that systemic contradictions or fields of tension show up within organizational roles or in the cooperation between members of organizations, who hold different roles. Examples include systemic contradictions between production and marketing, and sales and central services. In many cases conflicts occur between two or more persons or teams which are not primarily personal conflicts, but which are an expression of systemic contradictions. In all these cases the conflict between the persons is a signal for the need of further change – organizational development, change of roles, resources, processes, business models or other factors of that kind. Peter’s perspective

Mediation work is always dependant on the context, for instance the culture of the organization. In many cases mediation is also a starting point for changing the culture in organizations. Changing interactions in a complex world is a great chance for leaders in any organization. SF offers a lot of helpful ideas in those challenging change projects (McKergow & Bailey, 2014). Sied’s and Leo’s perspective

In terms of management you always want to know more about the results and the threats of the company or organisation. If you do not do that, your

Solution Focused work with conflicts

143

intervention is empty in organisational terms. Then it is only a conflict between people. Furthermore, if the culture and atmosphere of the company are bad, the conflict will have too much potential to rise again. So, you always should deal with culture, values and atmosphere, or leadership.

Which aspects of SF mediation deserve further research? • •

How findings of positive psychology and neurobiology support the practice of SF mediation? How new developments of communications theory, like embodied communication and emergence support the practice of SF mediation?

References Bannink, F. (2009). Praxis der Lösungs-fokussierten Mediation. Stuttgart: Auflage. Ferrari, E. (2015). Konflikte lösen mit SyST. Aachen: FerrariMedia. Glasl, F. (2013). Konfliktmanagement (p. 11). Bern and Stuttgart: Auflage. Keck, S. (2008). Progress monitoring as transfer assistance. In P. Röhrig & J. Clarke (Eds.), 57 SF activities for facilitators and consultants (pp. 288–292). Cheltenham: Solutions Books. Kolodej, C. H. (2016). Strukturaufstellungen für Konflikte, Mobbing und Mediation. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag. McKergow, M., & Bailey, H. (2014). Host – Six new roles of engagement. London: Solutions Books. Ronzani, M. (2015). Charakteristika lösungsfokussierter Konfliktberatung und Mediation. In S. Burgstaller (Ed.), Lösungsfokus in Organisationen (pp. 212–216). Heidelberg: Carl Auer Verlag. Scheinecker, M. (2006). Solution focused conflict management and conflict consulting in organizations. In G. Lueger & H.-P. Korn (Eds.), Solution-focused management. München/Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag. Scheinecker, M. (2007). Lösungsfokussierte Beratung bei Konflikten in Unternehmen. In R. Ballreich (Ed.), Konfliktmanagement. Innovative Konzepte und Methoden (pp. 317–324). Bern: Haupt Verlag. Scheinecker, M. (2012). Lösungsfokussiertes Konfliktmanagement in Organisationen. In St. Laske, A. Orthey, & M. J. Schmid (Eds.), PersonalEntwickeln, 157. Erg.-Lfg. Februar 2012. Scheinecker, M. (2014). Die Kraft der Zukunftsbilder. In E. Huber (Ed.), Mut zur Konfliktlösung (pp. 53–72). Stuttgart: Concadora Verlag. Wüstehube, L. (2010). “Einmal angenommen …” – Das Sprungbrett. Systemischlösungsfokussierter Einstieg in die Mediation. Perspektive Mediation, 2, 56–62.

Chapter 18

Room the bloom Let’s have the right meetings! Meeting culture development in brief Enikő Tegyi and Áron Levendel

Introduction Our work around meeting culture development has shown that meetings are a crucial form of company interaction (Barker, 2002; Krattenmaker, 2003; Streibel, 2002). Meetings can boost or drain the creativity, the motivation and the momentum of the whole company depending on what happens before, during and after these meetings. How meetings are called and prepared for, how focused, purposeful, success-oriented or enjoyable they are, and how follow-up is conducted, matters (Craumer, 2001; Krattenmaker, 2000). Every organisation has meetings. They are a logical and pragmatic intervention point to trigger useful change across the whole organisation, a practical context in which to change interactions, communication, mindset and culture, with immediate impact on business efficiency, productivity and impetus. This chapter concerns an innovative Solution Focus (SF) meeting culture development programme run in 2016 at Fundamenta Housing Savings Fund, a Hungarian financial institution, where a minimalistic set of creative micro-interventions produced comprehensive and measurable results.

What we set out to do: the challenge A financial institution with 150 people was urgently looking for coaches to improve their meeting culture. There were “far too many, far too bad” meetings in the organization, as they put it, using the telling metaphor that the building was “pulsing with meetings” throughout the day. On the hour, people were pouring into the corridors from meeting rooms, filling these corridors for five minutes until the next meeting began, and flocking back into the conference rooms in new combinations with new things to discuss. The staff felt overwhelmed, exhausted and demoralized by this hop-on hopoff mode of operation and were spending 60–70% of their working hours sitting in meetings. What was more, they were suffering from a discouraging lack of productivity. Meetings were called and then cancelled due to a lack of organisation at the invitation stage. Meetings were called and then

Room the bloom

145

recalled several times because no decision had been made, or due to a lack of minutes being taken or follow-up provided. The result? As they themselves described, virtually no time was left for actual work. During this time, the company was also in the middle of a massive and complex change affecting all aspects of life in the organisation. The whole staff was implementing a new integrated IT system, which meant severe time pressure as they had a fixed deadline of one year for the implementation. It also meant extra workload – the staff were expected to run the business as usual, in parallel with the migration-related projects and sub-projects. They were aware of the problems with their meeting culture, and in fact training to deal with this had been organized by HR the year before, but had proved ineffective. Additionally, an in-house Best Meeting Practice handbook had been produced collectively in workshops, but this technology of better meetings had not been translated into action. Since the regular training had had no success, and due to the limited time available – they were sitting in meetings all day, more old-school development programmes were out of the question. In the beginning, the client was out for trouble-shooters. They wanted to hire a coach who would join in with meetings as a trainer-observer, and fix errors or wrong interactions on the spot by stopping the meeting when unwelcome behaviour was noticed, in order to quickly repair it in situ. Out of the fifteen coaches invited to interview, only the two of us said a firm no to this approach, instead offering quite Solution Focused (SF) approaches that would trigger the desired change. We intended using a combination of noticing and appreciating signs of useful behaviour that would support the desired changes, rather than spotting and fixing mistakes. At first astonished, but also pushed for time, the client decided to go for the new approach, and asked us to team up and try something different.

What we did: structure and process Under the circumstances, clarifying the contract with representatives of HR was not only the usual SF consultant’s first intervention, it was also a crucial business task. We spent hours, on several occasions, getting the success criteria of the project right and clarifying the tangible signs of the desired outcomes, which the programme could then be measured by. After all, in a fast-moving and volatile situation, change was liable to go unnoticed. In addition to the standard SF platform-building questions (what the client wanted instead of the many bad meetings, what a good meeting looked like, how they would know that the desired change had happened and who else would notice, etc.), we went for very concrete questions concerning how to measure results – and what exactly to measure. At first, HR managers wanted to count how many meetings started on time, how many agendas and minutes were produced, how many meetings were attended by

146

Enikő Tegyi and Áron Levendel

all invitees, in other words, to measure the things we consider to be just tools, not goals. In the end, questions such as “what result are you prepared to pay for?” and “when are we finished with the job?” were the ones that proved to be the most useful. After several long preparatory talks with HR and management, they agreed that what they wanted to measure were: • • •

Effectiveness: addressing and completing the pre-set agenda items within the planned time limit Productivity: delivering the “products” of the meeting, such as making the required decisions and achieving the goals that had been set Conducive atmosphere

We also agreed on the basic principles of measurement in the form of an SF survey, which would be conducted before and after the project. Our final agreed target was an average of 15% improvement in all three categories above by the conclusion of the programme, to be measured two months after the end of the six weeks. Part of our consultancy fee was contracted as a success fee, dependent upon whether the 15% improvement in all three categories had been reached. Our programme, in line with our systemic approach, was based on consistent mini-interventions at three levels of the company – organisation level, group level (meeting teams) and individual. All interventions were targeted at making a wealth of people enthusiastic about noticing useful changes at meetings, in other words, creating a joyful mass movement around improving meeting culture. Organisation level: all-staff

Prior to kicking off the programme, we did a very brief online SF survey. All staff members were invited to: • •

Give at least three indicators that would mean “we are done, mission accomplished” – that is, to define the signs of the desired future, in a narrative field Count how many meetings they had had during the previous week and indicate how many of these had been effective, how many had been productive, and how many had been held in what they considered a good atmosphere

HR allowed us two hours for an interactive kick-off and another two for an interactive closing workshop, to which all staff were invited. We used the kick-off to reach, activate and mobilise individuals, who had already been interviewed via the survey about what their desired meetings looked like. At the workshop, they were now facing their own descriptions of these

Room the bloom

147

excellent future meetings on huge posters, examples of SF platform building and describing their Future Perfect. During the kick-off, staff members, meeting chairs and meeting participants were all invited to gather and share their own personal views and experience of best practice at meetings. Then to clarify and fine-tune their personal aspirations within this shared programme aimed at improving meetings, and finally, to define the small steps that they as individuals could take towards having great meetings. The closing event took place two months after finishing the programme and was dedicated to celebrating the success of the six-weeks’ shared work. The results of the follow-up survey were officially announced, and representatives of meeting chairs, meeting participants and management all acknowledged the results and the value of the shared process. Group level: meeting teams

In between these all-staff bookend events, our solution for minimalistic group level interventions was centred around the observed and scaled meetings. These proved to be the real driving force of the programme. To create space and a framework for the huge scope of the all-staff good signs observations, we initially created with HR a very pragmatic guide – The 12 Points of Excellent Fundamental Meetings. It was based on the manual developed in the previous year’s training sessions. The 12 points comprised a concise collection of great meeting know-how, consisting of rules, standards and best practice for excellent meetings, which were all relevant to, and agreed by, the given organization. The big, colourful, rewriteable and wipeable posters displaying the 12 points were hung in all meeting rooms, with a scale of 1 to 10 for each point, and markers. HR allowed us five minutes at the beginning and another five at the end of the meetings. With this time at all observed and scaled meetings, a brief framework was created for the meeting team to assess their own results. In the first five minutes, the meeting chair and participants each selected one of the 12 points to focus on, which they would use to observe and scale at the end. Over the course of the meeting, everyone was therefore watching out for what the team, facilitator and participants were doing well, with regards to the point they had chosen, based on the guide on the wall. At the end, the second five minutes was used to quickly grade the meeting, with each participant stepping up to mark the team’s performance on their selected scale. This allowed them quickly to gather the signs of progress they had noticed. Meetings were closed with a brief collective summary of useful actions, behaviors and interventions that had been noticed, as well as the opportunity to voice suggestions for further improvements at the next meeting. At first, we, the coaches facilitated these five-minute rounds. Soon people started liking it and meeting chairs were implementing their own scaling

148

Enikő Tegyi and Áron Levendel

rounds. A cheerful mass movement around collectively noticing signs of progress was taking shape. In total, 35 meetings were attended and observed by the two of us during the six weeks. The five-minute scaling rounds had to be focused due to time constraints, so participants had to be brief and to the point in their reflections. However, the much-enjoyed final round could be considerably longer if the meeting was effective and therefore ended earlier than expected. The maximum amount of time saved on any single occasion was 45 minutes, at a two-hour meeting! Individual level: one-on-one

At the request of HR, we also included traditional coaching sessions in the original programme scheme. Fifteen meeting chairs were given the opportunity to take part in a short coaching process of 1 plus 3 sessions. Kicking off the coaching conversations, and underlying the process, was a 360 degree assessment of each manager’s meeting skills, a discussion which relied on SF feedback from team members, peers and supervisors, based on the 12-Point scales. After this kick-off session of resource exploration, goal setting for the programme took place. They selected three points from the 12 with platform building and defining the first steps. Coaches were supported in preparing for one selected meeting, and then given a follow-up session, which served as a reflection of the observed facilitation skills demonstrated by the coachee at that meeting. It is fair to say that reality sometimes bites, and in this case, it was the traditional parts of the programme scheme, requested by HR, that seemed to work the least. This was due to the fact that after the 360° surveys were filled in, most of the selected manager-coachees simply could not come to coaching, or stay until the end of the session, because of the constant demands on their time, and the continual changes to their schedules. HR therefore moved to offering the opportunity of a coaching session to anyone in the staff with an ad-hoc time slot available. Only two out of the originally selected fifteen managers were able to follow the full series of 1 plus 3 coaching sessions, but a total of 37 staff members ended up being involved in the brief coaching, resulting in a total number of 93 short sessions in the program.

Results The initial survey setting the benchmark for the project produced the following results which reflect the status of meetings at the beginning of the programme, as perceived in the organization: • • •

Effectiveness: 67% Productivity: 66% Good atmosphere: 68%

Room the bloom

149

The announcement of the survey results had a positive impact. The percentages were well above expectations and served as affirmation for both HR and the staff as a whole. The 360° personal surveys of managers had the same affirmative, motivating effect – feedback from team members, peers and supervisors tended to be better than the meeting chairs’ self-ratings. The two all-staff interventions – our SF survey and the all-staff workshops – must have hit the right cord and activated the whole organization, as 90.5 % of the staff got in contact with or joined in with the programme in one way or another. For example, 147 out of 150 staff members filled in the survey, which is promising in itself, given the sense of despair we noticed at the beginning. The observed and scaled meetings started a happy, creative buzz in the whole organisation. People were chatting about the programme, not only in the meeting rooms, but also in the building’s café. The ratings marked on the 12-Point posters were tangible evidence of scaling happening without us coaches being present. Meeting participants were waiting for the start of the meetings with excitement, looking forward to scaling and enumerating the good signs, and happy to watch out for what worked and what had improved. Employees of the company had been part of several failed attempts at reforming meetings prior to the programme. They had lost faith in their ability to improve anything concerning their meetings. Their enthusiasm, motivation and happy commitment were therefore considered a remarkable result, and also a pleasant surprise for the client. The results of the follow-up measurement, taken two months after the last day of the six-week programme, were: • • •

The rate of effectiveness increased from 67% to 79% (12% growth) The rate of productivity increased from 66% to 79% (13% growth) The rate of good atmosphere increased from 68% to 73% (5% growth)

The figures show that the pre-set target of 15% measured average improvement in each focus was not reached in any of the categories, which may be due to the fact that the initial survey yielded far higher values than expected, leaving less room for measurable improvement than had been initially thought. However, the programme was considered outstanding in its success by the client, and yes, they paid the contracted success fee to prove it. The staff went on using the 12 Points and with the scaling exercise at meetings long after the programme had ended – in fact the 12-Point boards are still hanging in the meeting rooms and have been redesigned and reprinted to allow further use. Our SF insistence on and appreciation of resources and positive change, reinforced by every aspect of the programme, became part of the mindset and the culture. Indeed, the change managers later on asked for SF training, in order to become equipped to lead similarly motivating conversations and interviews.

150

Enikő Tegyi and Áron Levendel

Conclusions and learnings In the midst of the work we did not spend time considering which SF principles we insisted on and why, instead going for pragmatic results. In retrospect, however, we have concluded that the success of the programme was due to our consistent reliance on a few basic principles. Think systemic and keep it simple

Our mini-interventions, which sometimes emerged on an ad hoc basis, were consistently targeted at one single, simple and clear message, in various forms, at all three levels of the organisation: namely, the importance of noticing positive change throughout the organization, which we refer to as noticing what works well, with the underlying SF presumption of the inevitability of positive change. It triggered an immediate positive response and activated the staff. Distinguish between goals and tools when designing measurement

In the contracting phase we struggled a bit to focus our client’s attention on what they wanted the outcomes to be, instead of what they wanted to see in the programme. Our clarity about building the survey on desired output and impact (goals), instead of measuring how well the organisation was doing at the 12 Points was well worth the effort. The client gained very high awareness about their real priorities. The best solutions are customer-made

Pressed for time and in these specific circumstances, we were pushed to implement mini-interventions such as the five-minute scaling, the ad hoc brief coaching sessions and the online coaching of the whole organisation through the surveys, which resulted in something new, something unusual and moreover, something that fitted this scenario. Consequently, it worked. Participants are the experts of their own meetings

When clients want change, it is not due to a lack of knowledge, so it is no use trying to teach them using theory. This company had been thoroughly trained to have good meetings – and yet they still failed. Something else was needed to create the desired change. Measure the difference

The tangible, reliable measurement of change, if you get the focus right, builds confidence – self-confidence in the client, confidence in the

Room the bloom

151

possibility of change, and of course confidence in the consultant, since a contracted success fee depends on the client’s gain. SF measurement is a form of coaching for the whole organisation

Surveys are, by nature, selective and direct attention. If people are invited to fill in a survey about solutions that are already working, to answer questions about their desired meetings, then to rate their own progress, a space is created in which a community of people are able to shift their focus from deficiencies and begin constructing their new story of positive change. Everyone in the room contributes to the result

Instead of providing coaching to an elite circle of meeting chairs, we directed the focus on each and every party’s contribution, which conveyed the message underlying the programme and started the mass movement. Take good care of yourself in the role of consultant

Our marathon contracting sessions with the client resulted in firmly cocreated clarification of their real priorities, the generation of trust and last but not least, a success fee, that was based on and ultimately awarded in spite of the figures.

References Barker, A. (2002). How to manage meetings. London: Kogan Page. Craumer, M. (2001). The effective meeting: The checklist for success. Harvard Management Communication Letter, 4(3), 1–3. Krattenmaker, T. (2000). Before and after the meeting. Harvard Management Communication Letter, 3(10), 1–3. Krattenmaker, T. (2003). How to make every meeting matter. Harvard Management Communication Letter, May. Streibel, B. J. (2002). The manager’s guide to effective meetings. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Chapter 19

Solution Focused therapy Sukanya Wignaraja

Introduction It was a rare event, a first of its kind, that took place in Bad Soden near Frankfurt in September 2017: the gathering of some 300 Solution Focused (SF) practitioners from the worlds of therapy, coaching, education and social work. This volume brings together a selection of the papers presented at the first ever SF World Conference and it invites the reader to delve into the rich and diverse world of Solution Focused Practice. This section of the volume is devoted to SF Therapy across the four chapters, we see how SF is used in a variety of settings, from individual to group work, and across different demographics (adults, children, families, refugees and torture survivors). The authors come from the fields of psychiatry, psychology and play therapy. The creativity and innovativeness of SF Therapy is showcased and highlighted across these four chapters. It is essential reading for those already in practice as well as for anyone who is interested in discovering more about this unique and exciting way of working with clients.

The chapters The Miracle Question (MQ) is one of the key tools in SF and in the chapter entitled “On Metamorphoses: Three Different Questions, or Variations on a Theme”, Boyan Strahilov and Plamen Panayotov compare and contrast the MQ with two other tools, the Best Hopes Question (BHQ) and the MindActivating Question (MAQ). The BHQ (“What are your best hopes from this session?”) used by the BRIEF group of therapists in London, is followed up with questions (e.g. “What else?”) eliciting detailed descriptions of the clients’ preferred futures. Panayotov formulated the Mind-Activating Question in the early 2000s, in which the therapist enquires of the client what might be the most useful question for them to be asked. Strahilov and Panayotov developed the MAQ further and today it is used both at the start and the end of a session. The authors discuss how, despite apparent differences, the MQ, the BHQ and the MAQ share significant similarities in that all three are focused on one central issue: what the client wishes to see happen in his/her life.

Solution Focused therapy

153

In “The Thesaurus of Useful Explanations”, Plamen Panayotov explores the many different and unique ways in which clients arrive at solutions and he challenges the way SF therapists think about causal assumptions. He shows how the Mind-Activating Question (MAQ) can be used to help clients to come up with both questions and answers, which lead them to describe a “solution picture” that they can act upon. Through a variety of case examples, Panayotov demonstrates how clients have come up with simple and often brilliant answers to their issues, which are of help not only to themselves but sometimes to others also (and not necessarily for the same situations). Hence, the thesaurus: a collection of client-created explanations that can be of use to both therapists and clients. The third chapter in this section is about how SF is used in group work: “Short Term Solution Focused Group Intervention for Refugee Torture Survivors”. Stephen Langer and Dragana Knezicˊ designed and developed a foursession intervention using Solution Focused methods to help refugees from Syrian and other Middle-Eastern and African countries deal with trauma experienced both in their home countries and during their migration to Europe. Three rehabilitation centres were involved and the staff were given training in SF and specifically in SF Trauma Treatment. The intervention focused on utilising the participants’ experiences and enabling them to move forward and settle in their new lives in Europe. The authors conclude that short term SF interventions offer ways of helping clients that are far less painful for them and less daunting for the therapists. They also believe that this particular model may be used to help clients who have survived other kinds of traumatic events. The fourth and final chapter looks at how SF combined with play therapy is used to work with children. In “Solution Building with Children”, Pamela King illustrates the methods and techniques used in SF Play Therapy, which emphasize the preferred future rather than attempting to interpret a child’s behaviour. Through case transcripts, King demonstrates how different playful and future-focused tools can be used for talking and listening to children. She also provides examples of specific play activities which facilitate solution building with children. King provides guidance and practical examples on how to use Future Play, the SF play therapy she developed for working with children and families. These four chapters illustrate the breadth and depth of SF Therapy. Its strength-based, competency-centred, future-focused approach works equally well whether it is used with individuals, families and children, or in group work. There are unique insights to be gained: variations on the Miracle Question; how clients arrive at their own explanations to problems; how emphasizing inherent strengths and resources helps individuals on the path to recovery from trauma; and how SF play therapy engages children and helps them to visualise their preferred futures.

Chapter 20

On Metamorphoses Three different questions, or variations on a theme Boyan Strahilov and Plamen Panayotov

Introduction Sometimes we look for differences, and then … we see them, of course. Sometimes we look for similarities, and see them, too. Whatever we look for, we see. Isn’t it a miracle? (Quote from client session) The most significant change in psychotherapy in recent decades is the radical shift from conversations held primarily in the past tenses to future-oriented language games. The Miracle Question (MQ) was introduced to therapeutic practice in the 1980s by the Brief Family Therapy Centre team in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, following a suggestion from a client who mentioned something like “It will take a miracle for my problem to be solved” (Steve de Shazer, personal communication, de Shazer, 1994). In its classic form, it goes somewhat like this: Suppose that one night, while you are asleep, there is a miracle and the problem that brought you here is solved. However, because you are asleep you don’t know that the miracle has already happened. When you wake up in the morning, what will be different that will tell you that the miracle has taken place? What else? (de Shazer, 1988, p. 5) Or: I am going to ask you a rather strange question [pause]. The strange question is this: [pause] After we talk, you will go back to your work (home, school) and you will do whatever you need to do the rest of today, such as taking care of the children, cooking dinner, watching TV, giving the

On Metamorphoses

155

children a bath, and so on. It will be time to go to bed. Everybody in your household is quiet, and you are sleeping in peace. In the middle of the night, a miracle happens and the problem that prompted you to talk to me today is solved! But because this happens while you are sleeping, you have no way of knowing that there was an overnight miracle that solved the problem. [pause] So, when you wake up tomorrow morning, what might be the small change that will make you say to yourself, ‘Wow, something must have happened – the problem is gone!’? (Berg & Dolan, 2001, p. 7) This question soon became a trademark of Solution Focused Brief Therapy and has been widely used ever since in diverse settings with the great majority of clients responding in useful and meaningful ways, thus making steps towards constructing solutions to their problems. One of the less noticed, but quite important moves this question makes, is that clients are not asked what they have to do to solve their problems, but what they want see happen in their lives. This helps clients imagine their preferred futures in a relaxed and easy way, opening ways to creativity and improvisation, as “seeing what happens” is far less burdensome than “having to do”. The rationale behind this therapeutic construction is very simple: by saying what they want to see happen in their lives, clients start making it happen! As Solution Focused practice developed in diverse settings around the world, it took new forms and directions: “Our unending dialogues are efforts to construct useful orientations to shifting situations. This brings us to the possibility of linguistic transformations in SF consultations” (Miller, 2014, p. 14). The BRIEF group therapists in London prefer starting their sessions with the “Best Hopes” Question (BHQ) instead of the MQ (Franklin et al., 2011): “What are your best hopes from what will come out of this session today?”, followed by repetitive questions about “What else?”. And then: “How will you know that these hopes have been realised?” (searching for as detailed descriptions as possible from clients). They also ask: “What have you already done that might help bring them about?” (again description, description, description). Then, scaling enhances the details of the answers to these questions. The BRIEF therapists no longer take a break near the end of the session although they may pause briefly for reflection. They have modified their end of session feedback to omit compliments, giving only a summary of the client’s preferred future. The BHQ takes a step towards demystifying the therapeutic process. The picture the client is invited to imagine does not result from a miracle, but from our conversation today. The BHQ, even though only a single element of their practice, became a trademark of the therapeutic practice at BRIEF. Both the MQ and the BHQ elicit what clients want to see happen as a result of the therapeutic intervention, be it a miracle, or the conversation at hand.

156

Boyan Strahilov and Plamen Panayotov

In the 2000s, following demands from several clients, Plamen Panayotov at the Solutions Brief Therapy and Counseling Centre Rousse, Bulgaria started using, as early as possible in the first session, the so-called MindActivating Question (MAQ) of Simple Therapy: “You know, my job is to ask questions, and they need to be as useful as possible, on this case for you … so, what do you think is the most useful question you can hear from me now?” (Panayotov, 2012, p. 18). If and when clients mention “hope” in their replies to the Opening Question (OQ), the BHQ will be a very likely next step, and if they mention “miracle”, the MQ will be asked. Then following as closely as possible the clients’ own questions and their answers to them, solution-enhancing behaviours are identified usually very early in the therapeutic encounter. Then these behaviours, stated by clients as potentially useful for them, are presented back to them, usually in writing, inviting clients to experiment with them in their everyday lives, and the results of these experiments are negotiated. Specific ways of dealing with the “why?” questions (only if asked) are used to help clients go beyond causality, and become Solution Focused themselves. In the early 2010s Boyan Strahilov at PIK Centre Sofia improvised with diverse ways of using the MAQ, and quite soon he and his clients discovered that the overture and the reprise of a session or therapy can be similar in shape; that the MAQ can be used as an Opening Question, and can be also a valuable Closing Tool. At the end of a session, the therapist asks: “We’ll meet in a week, and when you come next time, please tell me what will be the most useful question for you at that time?”; and at the end of therapy: “So, what will be the most useful question(s) for you in the future, that will keep you away from any therapy?”. In this way the closing of therapy becomes the beginning of self-help, and clients are supplied with a useful solutions-discovering tool to deal with future difficult situations in their lives. According to Gale Miller: …asking clients about questions that will keep them away from therapy is very important. It harkens back to the normal practice of inviting clients back for a final session during the early years of the clinic (BFTC). The ending session dealt with what clients had learned from dealing with their problems, and how they might use that knowledge in the future to deal with other potential problems. People tell me that such sessions are not necessary – I don’t buy it. (Gale Miller, 2014, personal communication) This Opening/Closing Question of Simple Therapy, the Mind-Activating Question (MAQ), though only a single element of the therapeutic practices at Solutions Centre Rousse and PIK Centre Sofia, became a trademark of Simple Therapy. These three questions, the MQ, the BHQ and the MAQ, look quite different from one another at first glance, but … are they?

On Metamorphoses

157

The differences The MQ tries to elicit the results from “a miracle that will happen while you are sleeping tonight”, so the mechanics of change remain somewhat hidden for the client. The BHQ is similar in this, as it searches for descriptions of what will happen “as a result of our session today”, but the session itself remains a “black box” for the client. The MAQ demystifies the session, overtly stating to the client that it is just a conversation, made up primarily of questions and answers (though not limited to these), all meant to be of best use for the client. To quote Gale Miller (2014, personal communication by email): The MQ is a version of the ‘instead of’ question, it posits a problem that may not be identified but will be eliminated when the miracle happens. That is different from the BHQ which does not orient to a problem, although it assigns great significance to the therapy interaction and might be seen as stressing the role of the therapist in that interaction. The MAQ also stresses the interaction, but clearly puts the client at the centre of it. In formulating a question, the client may or may not choose to include a problem.

The similarities All three questions share several qualities. They: • • • •

Are focused on the client’s preferred future Require significant effort and thinking on the client’s part Invite creativity and imagination from clients Help clients construct their solutions – as language pictures first, and then in practice. “Such questions invite clients to construct themselves as agents of change” (Miller, 2014, p. 16).

Discussion SF therapists are interested in what clients want to see happen in their lives. So: What is the very next thing that is going to happen to the client? It is the therapist’s next question, of course. Now, it should be obvious, if we want to know what the client wants to see happen to him next, we need to ask what question he would like to hear from us now. Broadly speaking, the future includes everything that is going to happen from the present moment on, so it includes any period of time – from seconds to years. By definition, the miracle picture, described by the client in response to the MQ, describes events, feelings, thoughts, behaviours, reactions and other happenings from “tomorrow morning on”, after the miracle has happened

158

Boyan Strahilov and Plamen Panayotov

during the previous night. So, the MQ reveals what clients want to see happen in their lives in the following day(s) or so. The BHQ also investigates the client’s preferred future, but implies mainly “today”, that is, the next hour(s) or so. The MAQ is focused at the nearest possible future. The very next thing that is going to happen to the client is … the therapist’s next question. So, the MAQ reveals what the client wants to see happen in her life right now, in the next seconds and minute(s) or so. One of the problems with the “black box” description of therapeutic sessions is that it keeps the door open to all kinds of speculations about the presence/absence of imaginary and controversial elements like empathy, establishing rapport, building co-operation, speaking the client’s own language, accepting a not-knowing stance and so on. All these elements seem to be present in the conversation, very much like the constellations we clearly see in the night sky; they, however, are mere illusions of our point of view. The MAQ eliminates all these elements, and leads the client (and the therapist) to the understanding that the only thing she needs to construct solutions is: asking useful questions and giving useful answers to these. In time-restricted contexts the therapist can use a combined BH-MAQ: “You know, we have only a few minutes to talk now, and they need to be as useful for you as possible … so, what do you hope that my next question to you will be?”

Conclusion The MQ, the BHQ and the MAQ, though seemingly quite different, in fact explore one and the same theme: What do clients want to see happen in their lives? Seen literally, the only thing they differ in, is their time scope:

Main theme

Time frame

Revealed by

What does the client … in the next seconds and minutes? want to see happen … in the next hours today?

The Mind-Activating Question

in her life…

The Miracle Question

… in the next days?

The Best Hopes Question

Graphically the use of these tools can look like this: Now

Figure 20.1

Seconds & Minutes – MAQ

Hours - BHQ

Days - MQ

On Metamorphoses

159

These questions are more complementary than alternative to one another. Their combined use in therapeutic practice can be expected to enhance clients’ useful responses and to increase therapeutic effectiveness. When a client reveals to the therapist her readiness to engage in a future tense language game, any of these questions can be used, depending on the time scope the client prefers to explore at any given moment. Then the therapist can use the other questions in this triad to obtain a detailed picture of the client’s preferred future in all of its time segments. After therapy is over, these three questions can be used as self-help tools (maybe written down for/by clients upon leaving). In any tough situation, the client can choose between the following: • • •

What is the most useful question I can ask myself now? What are my best hopes in this situation? If a miracle happened now, what would I see differently?

References Berg, I. K., & Dolan, Y. (2001). Tales of solutions: A collection of hope-inspiring stories. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. de Shazer, S. (1984). The death of resistance. Family Process, 23(1), 11–17. de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Franklin, C., Trepper, T. S., McCollum, E. E., & Gingerich, W. J. (2011). Solutionfocused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence-based practice. Oxford Scholarship Online. Miller, G. (2014). Burkean dialectics and solution-focused consultation. InterAction, 6(1), 8–22. Panayotov, P. (2012). Simple therapy. Sofia: PIK-BS.

Websites www.sfbta.org/bftc/steve_de_shazer_insoo_kim_burg.html www.brief.org.uk/ http://en.solutions-centre-rousse-bulgaria.org/ www.pikcenter.eu/

Chapter 21

The Thesaurus of useful explanations Plamen Panayotov

Introduction In an interview John H. Weakland replied to a question from Steve de Shazer’s trainees about therapists’ education and training: … In the first place, I certainly do not have any complete program, or a curriculum, or a syllabus for every course, but only a couple of rather general ideas. It seems to me to be of two parts: One part would be not training for therapists, but essentially sort of background and history – people are to do some reading of various names in the field not to know how to do therapy, but to see who has been concerned with what, and how did they think about that what. And that’s all, that’s all. Areas that they considered of interest and importance that have something to do with this field, and how did they think about it. And then the second part would be training, and as far as I can see, it would mean as much observation of a variety of therapists either live or on tape as possible, and talk about what was seen and heard, and then a lot of supervised practice with a therapist whose style and approach makes sense to the individual student. I don’t think I would go much beyond that. (Hoyt, 1994) Across millennia and cultures, people have been concerned with the ways we can use this extremely powerful tool – language – for the benefit of our fellow beings. Many felt that language contains unnecessary, useless and even harmful elements, and have wondered respectively what these might be, in order to “shave them away”, thus trying to simplify and improve the use of language.

The heritage of language Razors Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. William of Ockham

The Thesaurus of useful explanations

161

This Razor shaves away unnecessary assumptions and is very valuable in therapy. Simpler explanations are usually better than more complex ones. One of the pioneers of Solution Focused Brief Therapy, Steve de Shazer, however, was dissatisfied with the use of the Ockham’s Razor in therapy. He took a couple of steps forward, the first one being Ludwig Wittgenstein’s idea that we should free language of any explanations at all (including the simplest), leaving only descriptions that lead us towards meaningful and useful language games. The second step that Steve de Shazer made was getting rid not only of all explanations, but also of some descriptions – those of problems. Following De Shazer’s Razor, most Solution Focused therapists have acquired the habit of avoiding clients’ concerns about the possible causes to their conditions and complaints. Traditionally whenever the “why” question appears in a therapeutic conversation, it is ignored in ways similar to Insoo Kim Berg’s approach to such instances: “We are going to come back to this later…” with this “later” never happening. Some therapists may even experience negative reactions to these situations, that we may jokingly call causo-phobia or why-allergy. In most instances, the orthodox Solution Focused way today is to follow Wittgenstein and De Shazer, instead of the client. That is how any therapist’s direct dealing with the “why” can be seen as a kind of heresy to this approach. Only one other Razor cuts even deeper into language – the Diamond That Cuts Through Illusion, i.e. the Buddhist idea that all signs share an ultimate sign-less nature, and going beyond illusion requires getting rid of not only all explanations as well as descriptions, but also of any verbal language at all. In Figure 21.1, all complex explanations appear to the left of Ockham’s Razor: Grand Theories, perceived by this tool as language tumours, and this Razor “shaves them away” while keeping the simple explanations to the right valid, and the same applies to the descriptions further right of this tool. Both complex and simple explanations appear to the left of Wittgenstein’s Razor, as Wittgenstein believed that we should get rid of all explanations, and only descriptions (shown to the right of this Razor) should remain. As a step further, Steve de Shazer believed that we should get rid of not only all explanations, but also of problem descriptions – and as shown to the left of his Razor, while the descriptions of solutions remain to the right. Steve wanted to retain only these descriptions while talking with clients. And the last Razor, in fact a very “radical scalpel”, suggests that all verbal language, including all explanations and all descriptions, as shown on the left, should be abandoned as they are a part of Maya, or illusion, and to this Razor’s right remains all non-verbal life. Besides the above, many other razors have been designed in human history, like Darwin’s Evolutionary “cut off” of divine interference in life development; or Freud’s “shave away” of the illusion we are as reasonable as we think we are, etc., but they are used outside the usual content of therapeutic conversations, and so shall not be dealt with here.

162

Plamen Panayotov

The Barber of Ockham

The Barber of Vienna

The Barber of Milwaukee

The Barber of Shakya

The Ockham's Razor:

The Ludo's Razor:

The de Shazer's Razor:

The Buddha's Razor:

No Complex Explanations

No Explanations at all

No Problem Descriptions

No signs at all

Grand Theories (Language Tumors)

The Thesaurus of Useful Explanations

Problems Descriptions

Solutions Descriptions

Figure 21.1 William of Ockham, Ludwig Wittgenstein of Vienna, Steve de Shazer of Milwaukee, and Siddhartha of Shakya and their Razors

Where does the client want to go now?

One of the basic tools used in Conversations Led by Clients (CoLeC) is the Mind-Activating Question (MAQ): “You know, my job is to ask questions, and they need to be as useful as possible, in this case for you, so … what do you think is the most useful question you can possibly hear from me right now?” After the usual initial moment of confusion, and quite often laughing or smiling after that, roughly one third of clients start formulating questions for themselves and giving answers to these. This forms the Highway to Solutions: usually in several rounds of the Client’s Question-Client’s Answer Therapeutic Wheel, a solution picture is described and then acted upon. About another third reply with “I don’t know”, and this is an implicit invitation for therapists to do their job, i.e. to use their therapeutic tools. The remaining third of clients state some variation of a “why” question, trying to understand (before doing anything else) what the causes to their problems/complaints are. Then the usual Conversation Conductor’s (ConCon) reaction is to guide the client in his/her search for explanations by asking a variation of “So, what do you think is the simplest possible and mostly useful explanation to your problem?” The rationale behind this question is that Solution Focused therapists assume they are not experts on the content of clients’ lives, but they

The Thesaurus of useful explanations

163

need to be experts on the process of constructing useful conversations. So, they have to be aware of how to use the Ockham’s Razor. That is why clients are asked neither about any explanation coming to their minds, nor about others’ (including Freud’s, Jung’s, Pavlov’s, Selye’s, Maslow’s, etc.) explanations, but about their own, simple and useful explanations. Over the years, many clients have come up with amazing, brilliant and creative answers, and some of them turned out to be useful not only for themselves, but for other clients in similar (and sometimes not similar) situations. This is how a collection of client-created, simple and useful explanations was formed and gradually grew. The Thesaurus, discussed here, is designed to assist both therapists and clients in this third kind of conversational situation, when clients want to discover why their problems exist, but are unable to find useful answers themselves.

Case 1: The vomiting girl and the final cut of Ockham’s Razor A father brought for consultation his seven year-old daughter, complaining of her vomiting every day for the last week during the second school lesson. When the Conversations Conductor (formerly called therapist) tried to orient the conversation towards possible exceptions from the problem, girl’s strengths, etc., the father became very upset and refused to answer his questions. He declared he has some kind of analytical approach, so he refused to talk about anything else but “the cause for her condition, as we can only handle the situation if we know why this happens”. At his point in the session, the ConCon had no idea what to do, so he decided to follow the client, and asked the usually avoided question in SFBT – “why”. CONCON:

Okay, what do you think is the cause of this problem? I think that her writing teacher is to blame. My daughter has never been physically punished, and this teacher hit her on the head with her massive golden ring when she was not doing some task, so the child reacts to this aggression by vomiting, i.e. refusing to accept such a crude attitude. Maybe we need to change the school she goes to. CONCON: Okay, and what does the teacher think about this? FATHER: Well, she says my wife gives the child too many antibiotics on necessary and unnecessary occasions, so she vomits as a side reaction to the drugs … CONCON: And what does your wife say? FATHER: She is sure my parents are to blame, as we were out of town for a couple of weeks, they looked after the child at that time, and the problem started right after we came back … CONCON: And what do your parents say? FATHER:

164

Plamen Panayotov

FATHER:

They think my wife is feeding the child with unsuitable and inappropriate food for her age, and her stomach doesn’t accept it. THE CONCON ASKED THE GIRL: Your father thinks it is important to know the cause of this. Do you have any idea about it? THE FATHER LOOKED SHOCKED BY THE IDEA THAT THE LITTLE GIRL MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ON THE ISSUE, SO QUITE INTRIGUED HE ALSO ASKED:

Yes, what do you think? GIRL: (after thinking for some time): Well, I think the first time it happened by chance … FATHER: By chance?! And what about the other times after? GIRL: Maybe it became a habit of mine. FATHER: So, what are we going to do about it? GIRL: Well, if my mother doesn’t give me breakfast for a week, I shall have nothing to vomit, so the habit will go away. CONCON TO FATHER: I promise to you that absolutely nothing bad will happen to your daughter if she has no breakfast for a week, eating all her other daily meals. Do you think your wife will agree to this? FATHER: Yes, if you say so. CONCON: Okay, I say so. After this session they never showed up again. The ConCon happened to meet the father in the street a couple of months later, and he said they didn’t call again, as “after three no-breakfast days” on the following Thursday, the girl wanted to have her morning meal again. The problem was gone.

The confirmation Upon hearing the above story, another father said: Yes, it is exactly what happened to us, too. When our daughter was three, she didn’t sleep one night, and then this became a habit of the whole family for the next four years. We tried many different therapies, but they all failed. She continued screaming and walking around nightly, and we gave up trying to do anything about it. Then, at the age of seven, she just fell asleep one night, and this became a new habit of us all. We sleep quite well for the last couple of years now. This gave rise to a very simple explanation to both problems and solutions, that was called the Final Cut of the Ockham’s Razor: Everything Happens First, and then Becomes a Habit. This simple and non-judgmental explanation can usefully explain many human problems as well as solutions: wet/ dry beds; drinking/abstinence; hearing voices/not hearing voices; vomiting/ not vomiting; insomnia/sleeping well; running away from school/attending

The Thesaurus of useful explanations

165

school; depression/well-being; obsessions/no obsessions. It accuses no one of anything and opens the road to solutions by pointing out that all these problems are mere habits, that can be replaced by other habits, or at least can be modified, and eventually overcome.

Case 2: The carpenter and his energy CONCON:

You know, my job is to ask questions, and they have to be as useful as possible for the people I meet, in this case for you. So, what do you think is the most useful question I can ask you right now? THE CLIENT LAUGHED A LOT, AND THEN AFTER A SILENCE OF THINKING HE REPLIED: I have to know why this happens to me. CONCON: Okay, what do you think about it? CLIENT: Well, maybe it is accumulated stress, I guess. From my parents, the clients, the bank, the crisis, I have no girlfriend … CONCON: Accumulated … CLIENT: Yes, you know, when you are at a funeral, for example, the energy there piles up in you … CONCON: Accumulated energy? CLIENT: Yes, energy! CLIENT: … Maybe I just have to organise my energy differently. You know, for years I’ve been thinking about jogging and walking along a twokilometres-long path that runs right by my home, but I never found the time and energy to do that after work. And now I realised that I have to do this walking early in the morning, before anything else I do that day! Some clients may benefit from explaining their symptoms/complaints as manifestations of misdirected energy. Then the solution obviously involves redirecting their energy in some other, more benevolent and useful way.

Case 3: Because I am alive! CLIENT:

I want to know why I get these panic attacks. So, what do you think? Why do you get these panic attacks? CLIENT: Well … maybe because I am alive! When I die, I’ll have no panic, no aches, no short breaths, nor anything else, will I? CONCON: Yes, you’ll have none of these. Dead people don’t complain of panic, aches, short breaths, anything, I agree. Only living people have all these complaints. CONCON:

Therapists need to be very careful in using this explanation, as it carries a possible misunderstanding – it may be perceived by some clients as disrespectful or unserious.

166

Plamen Panayotov

Case 4: Because he loves me A Roma woman in her mid-40s was attacked by her jealous husband who stabbed her with a knife seventeen times on many parts of her body. The incident took place in a taxicab, and she survived it due to the lack of space there (so he was unable to swing his knife better), and the thick winter clothes she wore. In court, the forensic surgeon stated that the victim escaped death by pure chance, with one of the cuts penetrating her pericardium, but only touching the myocardium of her heart. When the judge asked the victim to speak, she said: Your Honour, I know you will sentence my husband to jail for attempted murder, which is a serious crime by your law. I will not bring civil charges against him. The only thing I beg you for, is give him the shortest sentence permitted by the law, and I know he will behave as best as possible in jail, so he gets out even sooner, as I need him to help me with our four kids, and the two kids of my sister, who left the country a couple of years ago. JUDGE:

What are you saying? Did his brothers frighten you, or did they force you to say this? ROMA WOMAN: No, his brothers have nothing to do here; this is what I want, and I stand by my word. JUDGE: Did they pay to you? How much money did they give you? ROMA WOMAN: No, no money is involved here! I’m telling you what I want! JUDGE: But he almost killed you?! ROMA WOMAN: Yes, Your Honour, because he loves me. No solutions whatsoever were talked about in this case (and there could hardly be any), yet this lady managed to keep her family together using a simple explanation. Hopefully no one in the world should be loved in this way, but anytime a couple/family is engaged in conflict, we can use this explanation: It is obvious that you love each other, and sometimes the fire of love can get out of control … so this is all you need – keeping your love under control! The lesson this woman taught us is that the opposite of love is not anger or hatred, but indifference. She was able to find a useful explanation for a devastating situation, an explanation involving no guilt (as so many explanations do) even in a case of attempted murder! This explanation can be used whenever families disagree, quarrel and fight, as all these behaviours can be explained simply as unfavourable expressions of love that can be replaced with others, which are nicer and more appropriate.

The Thesaurus of useful explanations

167

Case 5: Because I say so (As retold by Georgeta Tudor in a personal communication, Bucharest 2015.) Bogdan Ion, a Romanian therapist, worked with a male client, who was redecorating his house for a long time and as he finished one thing, he noticed that something else needed mending, then again some repairs needed to be done, and this went on and on. The task became an endless one. One day, some friends came to visit him and they noticed how much work was still needed. In that instant, the man understood something and he told them: “No, it is done!” They insisted by showing him what he still had to do, and that the house still needed a lot of repairs. The man said: “It is done! I am telling you, it is done because I say it is done!” Why are we happy/unhappy? Because we say so! Why do we have/do not have problems? Because of exactly the same reason! Whenever clients are language-conscious and sensitive, this explanation can help them reframe (sometimes quite radically) their situation.

Repetitorium For the time being, the Thesaurus of Useful Explanations contains five simple, client-suggested, non-accusing, and (most importantly) useful explanations for a wide range of human problems: • • • • •

It happened first, and then became a habit It is one’s energy Because one is alive Because two people love each other Because one says so

Discussion Steve de Shazer used to define SFBT as “just a toolbox”. This definition is particularly useful for the search of new tools that can be added to the toolbox. The Thesaurus is one such set of tools. Just as we can rely on a bunch of questions, found to be useful in diverse contexts, now we can also bravely face the clients who are interested in the causes to their difficulties. Wittgenstein’s idea that we need to do away with all explanations and only descriptions should take their place, is widely accepted by many SF practitioners around the world, but it may increase many clients’ uncertainties. As Masserman pointed out: The clinical relevance of the Uncertainty Principle is that all therapy (Greek – therapeien, service) is effective only insofar as it increases the recipient’s

168

Plamen Panayotov

confidence as to his physical well-being, alleviates his concerns about his interpersonal securities and fosters comforting the philosophic beliefs. (1972, p. 186) Many clients feel interpersonal security with their therapists when the latter agree to discuss causal issues with them, and that comforts their philosophic beliefs, usually very different from Wittgenstein’s beliefs. What we need to keep in mind is that we ask about simple causes to clients’ problems not because we are interested in them, but only because this particular client has chosen to go in the “why” direction for a while. Taking them seriously (Hoyt, 1994) requires interest from the therapist about the possible causes to the problem, if and when the client is interested in that. When satisfied with a useful explanation, clients usually change the direction of the conversation, and start being interested in solutions instead. Sometimes all it takes to help clients go beyond their search for causes is to follow them for a while in Causes-Land. Just spending some time in a search for explanations, even without reaching them, may be enough. As Insoo Kim Berg put it: “it makes common sense to me that if I listen to clients, they listen to me in response; if I respect clients, they respect me back” (personal communication, 1994). So when we follow clients in their search for causes and explanations, they usually respond by following us in our search for solutions. Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. Thomas Paine

Following Paine, we can say that clients have their reasons to ask at one time or another why something happens to them, and the not-knowing or ignorant therapist submits to whatever he is dictated by them to do. This, however, is only partially so. While maintaining his not-knowing position about the content of the conversation, the simple therapist remains an expert on its process. Reminder: Being such expert requires that before using any of the explanations mentioned above, the therapist needs to ask, “Okay, you want to know why your problem exists. So, what do you think is the simplest and most useful explanation for it?” If and when clients come up with a useful explanation themselves, the therapist just forgets about this Thesaurus. The process is identical to the way the Opening Question is used: therapist’s questions are asked only if and when clients are unable or unwilling to state their own ones.

Conclusion Whenever a client is ready to follow the Conversation Conductor’s search for solutions, we can use the traditional SFBT tools, and co-create with her

The Thesaurus of useful explanations

169

the desired miracle picture, sometimes even not knowing anything about the problem. When clients want to talk about their problem/situation in detail, we rely on Wittgenstein’s Razor, and follow their problems’ descriptions in the MRI style, until a solution is found. If clients want, however, to know before and above all why their problem exists, and we want to save them from entering the useless Grand Theories Labyrinth, we can use the Thesaurus of Useful Explanations, thus helping them go beyond the “why”, and then enter Solutions-Land at a later moment. Whenever a client refuses/is unable to use verbal language, we put to work the Diamond scalpel of Siddhartha Gautama and try to help him/her in non-verbal ways – by using music, fine arts, animals, dance, sports, plants, etc. Now it is time for you, dear reader, to listen to your clients for other simple explanations they propose, that can be added to this Thesaurus. For a tool to be put here, it needs to be: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Client-proposed (in one way or another) Non-accusing of anyone for anything Simple enough to be Useful for the client who proposed it And can be used with other clients in similar situations for their own benefit

Good Luck!

P.S. You might be wondering what the ConCon’s own Razor looks like, and you are right to ask about this. The brief answer is: for over a century all therapists have been concerned with the question “What should my conversation with clients be like?” If possible, I would like to shave this question away, replacing it with “What should clients’ conversations with me be like?” This a major shift.

Bibliography Anderson, H., & Gehart, D. R. (2007). Collaborative therapy: Relationships and conversations that make a difference. New York, NY: Routledge. de Shazer, S. (1991). Putting difference to work. New York, NY: Norton. de Shazer, S. (1994). Words were originally magic. New York, NY: Norton. Hoyt, M. (Ed.). (1994). On the importance of keeping it simple and taking the patient seriously: A conversation with Steve de Shazer and John Weakland. Retrieved from http:// web.uvic.ca/psyc/bavelas/De%20Shazer_Weakland%20interview.pdf Masserman, J. (1972). Psychotherapy as the mitigation of uncertainties. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 26(2), 186–188. Masserman, J. H. (Ed.). (1972). Current psychiatric therapies. New York, NY: Grune and Straton. O’Hanlon, B., & Wilk, J. (1987). Shifting contexts. New York, NY: Guilford.

170

Plamen Panayotov

Panayotov, P. (2011). Simple therapy. Sofia: PIK-BS. Panayotov, P., & Strahilov, B. (2018). From therapy towards Conversations Led by Clients (CoLeC): The Questioning for Useful Questions (QUQu). In T. Switek, P. Panayotov, & B. Strahilov (Eds.), Making waves: Solution focused practice in Europe (pp. 267–280). Sofia: PIK-BS. Wampold, B., & Imel, Z. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: The evidence for what makes psychotherapy work (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Chapter 22

Short-term Solution Focused group intervention for refugee torture survivors Stephen M. Langer and Dragana Knezic ́

Introduction Armed conflicts and forced migrations leave pervasive effects on the lives and psychological wellbeing of survivors. As therapists, counsellors and helpers in the humanitarian and human rights field, we are often overwhelmed with humaninflicted cruelty and monstrosity, and at the same time impressed with people’s strength and ability to survive, endure and move forward into a new life. The method presented here is an effort to determine how to optimally help people who experienced horrific and painful events, as a consequence of war and forced displacement, employing and enhancing qualities they already manifested. A short-term Solution Focused group intervention was developed as a part of an EU-funded project, carried out by rehabilitation centres for torture survivors in Croatia, Austria and Germany. The project was responding to the rehabilitation and integration needs of Middle Eastern refugees, in the period from 2016 to 2018. During this period and in previous years, unprecedented number of refugees from the war-torn regions of the world arrived in Europe, many of them experiencing severe traumatic experiences including torture, prior, during and even after the flight.

Why Solution Focused brief therapy (SFBT) was selected as a method The team managing this project wanted to develop a tool to help refugees overcome the consequences of traumatic experiences and to support their integration in the new societies at the same time. So, the approach needed to focus on the clients’ future at least as much as on the painful past; on what clients can do and use to help themselves in the new environment and not only focus on the difficulties they face. As the needs of refugee population were high and the capacities of helpers stretched, the method needed to be efficient: to allow helping large numbers of people in a short period of time. SFBT in a group setting ticked all the boxes.

172

Stephen M. Langer and Dragana Knezić

SFBT was developed at the Brief Family Therapy Centre by Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg and their colleagues in the early 1980s as a type of individual and family psychotherapy (De Jong & Berg, 1998; de Shazer et al., 1986; de Shazer & Dolan, 2007). It has been gaining ground as an evidence-based practice in the last few years (SFBTA.org/current SFBT research, 2019). Shortly after the inception of SFBT, Solution Focused thinking has also been applied to a number of other settings and contexts, including work with refugee populations and trauma (Langer, 2018). Utilising a Solution Focused approach for people who have had significant traumatic experiences has been shown to be helpful at the individual and/or the group level (Kim & Froerer, 2018). The Solution Focused approach empowers clients to think and act for themselves and move toward their preferred futures. It is quite pragmatic and looks for what is working for the person or group and aims for measurable change in the real world. SFBT has a present and desired future orientation, and a strong emphasis on client strengths, resources and abilities, while using the client’s frame of reference and finding ways to cooperate with the client(s) (de Shazer, 1985). As each individual and group and their circumstances are unique, a Solution Focused consultation ultimately has to allow room to tailor each intervention or session to that particular person or group, as there are no “one size fits all” answers. Although the past is considered, utilised and mined for strengths and resources (not problems and how bad they were), it is always in the service of the desired/ preferred future, rather than for its own sake (de Shazer & Dolan, 2007). The SFBT focus on the future has another benefit – it incidentally shortens the intervention, as it is not necessary to go over the past in great detail. Instead, small steps toward the desired future are seen in the context of a larger picture of movement toward goals the person or group has for themselves (Berg, 1994). This small step approach can be particularly helpful for refugees with extremely limited resources, living in a foreign country and who have relatively little power to change their situation in a large-scale way. Using a group format allows individuals to learn from each other, and see how other group members find ways to overcome hurdles and achieve successes in the new country. They can support each other as they work towards their goals (McCollum & Trepper, 2001).

How was the short-term Solution Focused group intervention developed? As the staff in three rehabilitation centres involved in this project had different psychotherapy backgrounds, the first step was to train them in SFBT and Solution Focused Trauma Treatment particularly. Stephen Langer carried out the training with 15 staff members from three organizations. The second step conceptualised the group intervention and developed a protocol, in order to secure uniform execution across the partner centres. The concept and protocol of Short-term Solution Focused group

Short-term SF groupwork with refugees

173

intervention was developed collaboratively by the Rehabilitation Centre for Stress and Trauma in Croatia and Stephen Langer.

Short-term Solution Focused group intervention protocol The intervention consists of four sessions lasting approximately three hours. The first session of the intervention has the objective of creating group cohesion, exploring client hopes and assessing motivation and confidence with regards to achieving these client hopes. After initial introductions by the team members, presenting what the group meeting is about and how long it will last, the session continues with success interviews. Clients are paired and given the task to interview each other in turn, asking the following questions: “Describe your recent success. How did you manage to do that? Who/what helped you? What else happened as a result that went well?”. Clients are then asked to introduce their partners to the group through the story of his/her success. The exercise concludes with a group debriefing about how they experienced this activity. In the second part of the session clients are asked about their best hopes for their participation in the group and how this relates to their past experiences. Clients’ best hopes are recorded on a flip chart and posted to be visible for the entire duration of the intervention. Clients are then asked to share what they want to deal with first, in order to move towards best hopes and what are they already doing that is helpful. Counsellors identify common themes from group answers and record them on a flip chart, as well as existing coping strategies and mechanisms. Clients are asked to reflect on the contribution of other group members and if they can benefit from the examples given or similar coping strategies. The session continues with scaling clients’ motivation to do whatever it takes to get to their best hopes and their confidence that they will be successful in achieving their best hopes. Questions and scales are written on large pieces of paper and clients give their marks on a sticker with their name or a symbol; the scales remain visible during all sessions. The session concludes with clients’ feedback about what they heard or did that have been helpful to them during the session. Counsellors give the assignment: Between now and the next time we meet, we would like you to observe, so you can describe it to us next time, what happens in your everyday life, around what we are working on, that you want to continue to have happen? The objective of the second session is to normalise symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, if clients experience them, and for the clients to further explore and set goals for themselves.

174

Stephen M. Langer and Dragana Knezić

Clients are asked what is better in their everyday life and, if nothing is better, how they managed to cope with any setbacks. The session continues with discussion about the trauma response and common symptoms of PTSD. Counsellors provide explanations about how people might respond to traumatic, horrific events, but take care not to “talk people into trauma”. Clients are asked to fill in a Trauma Response Check List where they are asked to indicate which elements of the trauma response they have already taken care of and how they managed to do that. They are instructed to keep the check list as a reminder of what is left to work on. In the second part of the session, clients are asked to imagine a reunion with the group two years later, during which time they have managed to overcome any difficult thoughts and feelings they have been experiencing and that the traumatic experiences they had then are now a part of an older and wiser part of themselves. What would they and others notice that was different and that they had succeeded? Clients are asked to scale where they are already in regard to their future selves and to share what would be the first signs if they were higher on the scale. What can each of them do to be a bit higher on the scale? The second session concludes with clients giving each other (counsellors are included in the exercise) feedback about what impressed them, with regards to how they cope with difficulties. This feedback is written down for each group member and the paper is signed by the member as an acknowledgement. The third session’s objective is to explore clients’ strengths and resources. The session starts with checking what is better in clients’ everyday life. Clients are then instructed to fill in a worksheet where they are guided to identify strengths they have (traits, knowledge, experience …) that help move them up the scale of improvements, and what strengths other people who know them might say they can use to move up the scale. They are also asked to identify a strength that no one else knows about, and how they became aware of it. Clients are then asked what strengths they want to develop or improve to achieve their best hopes. In the second part of the session, clients do a mapping exercise to identify resources – friends, family members, refugee organizations and other people, who help or can help them develop skills they want and achieve their goals. They are asked who helped them so far as refugees and trauma survivors and how they can widen their support network. The maps are discussed and counsellors introduce other support resources in the community, if needed. The session concludes with scaling how clients manage the difficulties that have brought them to this group and their confidence in moving up the scale when they apply their strengths fully. Clients are asked to write what they value most about each member of the group and each participant picks out their favourite item and reads it to the group. At the end of the session, clients are given an assignment to develop a personal plan of action between sessions.

Short-term SF groupwork with refugees

175

The fourth session’s objective is to explore and plan future steps, evaluate progress during the intervention and to provide feedback. The session starts with checking progress and assignments. Clients are asked how they experienced the individual planning assignment and what they noticed that was different about them as they were doing it. Clients are invited to share their personal action plan if they are willing to disclose it. They are asked what steps they have already taken and what support they might need to realise their plan. The clients’ confidence in their ability to achieve their desired outcome is scaled, and they are asked what might improve their confidence. In the second part of the session, clients are asked to develop, in a smaller group, a list of tips to other persons in similar situations that will be included in a published booklet for other torture survivors. They are invited to recall all that has been talked about during the meetings. Overall reflection and evaluation of progress follows: what they learned from the group meetings, what they learned from other participants and where they will go from here. Clients’ mastery over the problems that brought them to the group is scaled and they are asked how they might continue making improvements. Finally, each client writes an anonymous note about what they were impressed about each group member and puts the note in an envelope of each group member. They are invited to keep their envelope and review the contents when they face obstacles and setbacks.

How was the short-term Solution Focused group intervention implemented? In total 189 clients completed the four-session intervention in Croatia, Austria and Germany. They were mainly males – 65.6%; the most frequent nationality was Syrian (45%) followed by Iraqis (28.5%) and Afghans (11%). Clients were selected and invited to take part based on screening for PTSD symptoms and according to other indications from initial personal interviews that they were possibly torture survivors. The intervention was carried out in groups of five to 12. It appeared that groups sized six to eight were most effective. In the optimal group size, there were enough participants to have a variety of ideas and opinions and for all to get an equal opportunity to express them, as well as for the counsellors to pay attention to details. The sessions were implemented with interpretation, which also limited the number of participants.

Short-term outcomes Counsellors carrying out the intervention recorded the clients’ best hopes expressed in the first session and their answers to the future-oriented question in

176

Stephen M. Langer and Dragana Knezić

the second session. The most common responses to the future-oriented question were related to re-uniting with family or starting a family (many were young men) and were closely connected with integration in the community – learning the local language, finding a job, making friends and being accepted and acknowledged. Clients’ solutions for difficulties they were managing as trauma and torture survivors were strongly connected with moving on with life and adapting successfully to the new environment and circumstances. Client feedback about what was most helpful to them during the group intervention can be summarised in the following common themes: • • • • • • •

Listening to others and learning from them Recalling skills and strengths; connecting them with the current situation and future plans Focusing on successes instead of difficulties Focusing on the future, setting goals and making plans Being listened to and understood Connecting with others in the group and helpers (counsellors and interpreters) Being accepted and recognised.

During and shortly after participation in the group intervention, 58% enrolled in language courses (language of the settlement country). Twenty-five percent obtained employment (a high percentage given at the time 59% of the clients did not have their asylum status solved). The Short-term Solution Focused group intervention was a part of a number of services offered to clients, including individual psychotherapy after group participation. Only 23% of clients needed individual treatment during the lifetime of the project. It was made clear to clients from the start that the purpose of group meetings was to help them deal with the possible consequences of painful past experiences. Even though the accounts of traumatic events were sometimes shared during the sessions, their horrific nature acknowledged by counsellors and empathy for pain and suffering was shown, this kind of conversation rarely dominated the sessions. When offered to choose what they wanted to deal with first, clients who experienced painful and traumatic past events almost universally wanted improvements in their present lives and chose to get help dealing with more immediate obstacles and challenges.

Conclusion Psychotherapists and counsellors working in the field of torture survivors’ rehabilitation have been taught that the path to recovery leads through the oftentimes excruciatingly painful process of intrapsychic processing of the trauma, which usually includes the client giving a verbal account or through other means (art) of expressing the incomprehensible experience of torture

Short-term SF groupwork with refugees

177

(Basoglu, 1992). We learned from piloting the Short-term Solution Focused group intervention that there are ways to effectively help clients that are immensely less painful to the clients and far less daunting for the therapist. This pilot study provides evidence that helping survivors re-connect with strengths they showed to make it through frightening and life-threatening experiences has a transformative effect on how they are able to manage current difficulties and generally on their view of themselves. This is particularly important when working with refugees who struggle with uncertainties related to their legal status, poor living conditions, separation from and worry about their family members, on the top of traumatic events they have experienced. Planning and taking the first small steps towards their preferred future helps clients regain a sense of control, which was often thought to be destroyed by the unexpected and unpredictable nature of traumatic events. Working with traumatised refugees during the piloting of this group intervention, we have confirmed that supporting integration of refugees, in other words, helping them with first steps toward their preferred future in their current circumstances, is an effective intervention for trauma recovery. Finally, the Short-term Solution Focused group intervention developed and piloted with traumatised refugees is a possible model for helping other clients surviving traumatic events. More broadly, it may also be useful for groups that are taken from one situation to a greatly different context, such as persons moving from institutionalised settings to independent or assisted living, children and youth being placed in foster families and/or leaving foster care, or persons with disability as a consequence of an accident.

References Basoglu, M. (Ed.). (1992). Torture and its consequences: Current treatment approaches. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Berg, I. K. (1994). Family based services: A solution-focused approach. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Current Research. (2019). Retrieved from SFBTA.org/current SFBT research De Jong, P., & Berg, I. K. (1998). Interviewing for solutions. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole Publishing. de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. de Shazer, S., Berg, I. K., Lipchik, E., Nunnally, E., Molnar, A., Gingerich, W., & Weiner-Davis, M. (1986). Brief therapy: Focused solution development. Family Process, 25, 207–221. de Shazer, S., & Dolan, Y. (2007). More than miracles: The state of the art of solutionfocused brief therapy. New York, NY: Haworth Press. Dolan, Y. (2000). One small step: Moving beyond trauma and therapy to a life of joy. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.com, Inc. Kim, J. S., & Froerer, A. S. (2018). Intersection of SFBT and trauma. In A. S. Froerer, J. von Cziffra-bergs, J. S. Kim, & E. Connie (Eds.), Solution-focused brief therapy with clients managing trauma (pp. 10–23). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

178

Stephen M. Langer and Dragana Knezić

Langer, S. M. (2018). SFBT with survivors of war and international conflict. In A. S. Froerer, J. von Cziffra-bergs, J. S. Kim, & E. Connie (Eds.), Solution-focused brief therapy with clients managing trauma (pp. 96–117). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. McCollum, E. E., & Trepper, T. S. (2001). Family solutions for substance abuse: Clinical and counselling approaches. New York, NY: Haworth Press.

Chapter 23

Solution building with children Pamela K. King

Introduction Shall we play a game while we get to know each other? This playful invitation comes minutes after hello in my therapy sessions and some version of the question comes minutes after hello in my workshops on Solution Focused Play Therapy. So, shall we play? Look at the five fingers on your hand; say out loud five things you loved playing when you were ten years old. The ability to connect with our own playful selves is a helpful skill when working with children. Often times agency or workplace requirements have clinicians gathering client demographics. I do this by introducing a game. “I have a magnetic board and lots of colourful magnets; place a magnet on the board for each thing you tell me about yourself.” I ask about siblings, pets and favourite play activities. I ask what parents admire about their child and what they like to do as a family. Toy stores have numerous turn-taking games that can serve as conversational tools in this get-to-know-you game. However, if you find yourself in a park, it is just as effective to reach down for sticks, stones or leaves, or look at your hand and say something for each finger. An observational study by Amber Willis (2014) found that time spent in play-based activities was a significant predictor of child talk time in family therapy sessions. Children are likely more comfortable and therefore more talkative when they engage in play activities. Another interesting finding in Willis’ study was that child satisfaction with therapy is inversely correlated with therapist talk time. If the therapist is talk, talk, talking, the child is less happy to be in therapy (Willis, Walters, & Crane, 2014). “The Power of Play: A Pediatric Role in Enhancing Development in Young Children”, provides further support for play as a necessary element of child development (Yogman, Garner, Hutchinson, Hirsh-Pasek, & Michnick Golinkoff, 2018). Too often when families come into therapy, the conversation is between the adults, with parents telling the therapist about their family problems and the therapist asking the parents questions. Children are either left out or nudged to corroborate this problem-saturated story. They may assume therapy is a place where everything they do wrong will be dragged out on the

180

Pamela K. King

table to discuss. Children are understandably reluctant to talk about what is wrong with their behaviour and actions. Problem talk is discouraging and leads to knowing more about the problem. The goal in Solution Focused Brief Therapy is to learn more about what the family wants instead of the problem and to highlight small indicators of that desired future already happening. Children are more likely to talk about what is going well in their lives and things they want in the future. The combination of solution talk and play proves useful in engaging children and families. Play in the therapy session is purposeful in that it facilitates therapeutic conversations. The play, the toy and the activities chosen are for the sake of solution-building and serve the ultimate goal of moving the family toward their preferred future. Play is not random or just for the sake of playing, it is purposefully constructed. Therapists can facilitate play activities where children have an in-session success related to their preferred future. The play conversation then focuses on how they were able to be successful. King (2017) describes this experiential learning as Future Play. “Future Play turns conversations towards the future in words as well as concrete actions. Future Play uses play activities and role play to illuminate details about an imagined ideal future” (King, 2017, p. 57). The following case example demonstrates an in-therapy play activity that allows the family to experience and talk about details of their preferred future.

Dollhouse family: a case example A blended family consisting of Melanie and her daughters – Tasha, age eight and Natalie, age ten – and Justin and his daughter – Ally, age ten – came to therapy for family contention and physical and verbal fights between the three girls. Problem free talk – five minutes

Therapist: Thanks to each of you for making the time to come here. Today in our time together, I want to get to know you a little bit and find out what your best hopes are from this appointment. We will probably play a game or do something while we talk. Does that sound okay to everyone? (Nods) How about if we build a tower together with these blocks and each time you add a block you can tell something about yourself. I prompt with the following topics as needed: • • • •

Tell something you admire about each child Tell something you like to do with your mom/dad/sister What is your favourite activity or hobby Tell about a recent fun time as a family.

I learned that Ally plays lacrosse and she and Justin like to watch football together. Melanie, Tasha and Natalie like to bake cookies together. Tasha loves

Solution building with children

181

dance class and Natalie does gymnastics and is an avid reader. The three girls sometimes play together with a big dollhouse and a variety of dolls and accessories each girl has in their personal collections. They had a recent outing to cut a Christmas tree that lasted for about an hour with minimal fighting. Best hopes – five minutes THERAPIST:

What are your best hopes from coming here today? What would you like different or better in your life? MOM: The girls fight all the time. It is a battleground every day. Before school, after school, they are just always fighting. I need a little peace and harmony. My girls think Ally gets special treatment and Justin tends to do things with only Ally. I just need them to get along once in a while and have some peace. There is a lot of content to choose from in formulating the next question. The therapist here is using a collaborative process described by De Jong and Berg (2013) as “listen, select and build”: 1. Listen carefully for what the family wants, listen for hints of their preferred future 2. Select words and ideas to highlight or respond to 3. Build toward solutions, inviting clients to tell more about their preferred future. The therapist selects the mom’s words “a little peace” and “getting along” as this is what she states she wants. The therapist does not ask for more information about the fighting, the content of fights, who is fighting or on the perceptions of Ally’s special treatment. The therapist presumes there are things happening already that demonstrate “getting along” and “peace”. Asking for details builds on instances of the preferred future already happening. THERAPIST:

OK, so when the girls are getting along, even a little bit, and there is a little peace what kinds of things happen? DAD: I like when we play games together. It’s rare, but we played Monopoly last week and it was fun. Don’t you think (nudging Ally)? (Ally shrugs and smiles) THERAPIST: Playing games … what else? NATALIE: Us getting along and not fighting. THERAPIST: When you’re getting along what are you doing? TASHA: Playing house. NATALIE: Ally never plays with us. She only wants to do stuff with her dad. ALLY: I like to play house; you guys just never tell me and leave me out.

182

Pamela K. King

Future play – details of preferred future – 20 minutes THERAPIST:

It sounds like you all like to play house, and you like to do it together (nods). I have a house here and a lot of people and things that go with it. Will you show me a day where this family gets along and has fun together. Maybe they even have some kind of a problem and are able to solve it really well. (Picking up doll and speaking through it) Who lives in this house? TASHA: (Picks up a girl doll) Me. I live here. THERAPIST DOLL: What do you do here? TASHA DOLL: I bake the best-est cookies. Who wants cookies? (picking up another doll, handing it to Natalie) Do you want cookies? NATALIE DOLL: Sure. THERAPIST DOLL: Where is everyone else? Who else lives here? NATALIE: Watching stupid TV. ALLY: Shut up. THERAPIST DOLL: What should we do? Do you think she wants to play with us? TASHA DOLL: You wanna play with us? ALLY: (picking up doll) yeah. The girls play with the house for about 20 minutes. They have a couple of arguments about story direction which they are able to negotiate on their own. The therapist’s doll asks questions occasionally such as: • • • •

How do they work it out? What are the parents doing? (To which they had the parents start yelling and scolding) What do the parents want to do and say? What will help the parents?

Mom picks up a doll and says she needs some help cleaning and bringing in things from the car, to which the girls say “OK” and help the mom doll. Then the girls ask mom for a snack and play on the swing set. Dad picks up a doll and asks the girls if they want to build birdhouses. Summarizing and highlighting – 10 minutes MOM:

If it could just be like that. You would like that? DAD: I am so used to doing things with just Ally that it is easier when they (Natalie and Tasha) don’t seem to want to interact. THERAPIST: How did the dad (pointing to doll) have the idea to build birdhouses? THERAPIST:

Solution building with children

183

DAD:

I saw something about a workshop for kids on Facebook. I was thinking about signing Ally up. But I’m realising I need to ask all of them. Would you like to do that girls? ALL THREE GIRLS: Yeah! That sounds fun. THERAPIST: What other things did you notice as you watched the girls play? MOM: I think I jump in too soon to try keep the peace. They worked stuff out, and I liked your question, “How will they work it out?” It kinda trusts them to do it. THERAPIST: You can trust them to work stuff out? MOM & DAD: Well at least sometimes. Yeah, we need to give them a chance. THERAPIST: I’d like to interview some of the players in this story. Is that OK? The therapist continues the listen, select, build formulation process by directly asking the dolls questions. She had listened and watched the interactions for hints of solutions and now asks about those small signs of success. She follows their responses like any solution-building conversation by asking for details and elaboration. The therapist looks at the doll she is interviewing to stay within the metaphor of the children’s play. The therapist asks the dolls questions about their time together, including: • • • • •

How did you have the idea to share your cookies? How did they decide they would help mom when she asked? What did mom/dad doll see that she/he liked? What was she/he proud of? What was most fun? You had a couple problems and came up with good solutions, how did you do that?

Interviewing dolls, puppets or figurines that have featured in a child’s play can be useful to highlight strengths, resources and good ideas. Children are usually enthusiastic about this extension of their play. Tips for interviewing include: • • • • • •

Therapist eye contact is on the toy, not on the child speaking Questions are directed to the toy, in this case, the dolls Stay in the child’s metaphor Check it out, rather than make assumptions Ask what else do you want to tell me Ask who else wants to talk or who wants to talk next

It was a child who taught me to always ask the puppet or toy if there is anything else they wanted to tell me. I had asked all the questions I thought necessary of a puppet in a child’s story and was moving on to the next character when the puppet blurted out “there’s a little good in me.” I realised I had taken control of the story and I needed to let the child (puppeteer) be the lead on what is shared in the puppet interview.

184

Pamela K. King

The family featured in the doll house family story were all invested in the same preferred future. It is often the case that family members have different ideas of what they want in the future. Eliciting details about each person’s best hopes is important in negotiating or contracting what will be useful from therapy.

Collaborative goal setting The first question or invitation in therapy is an important one. I like to start with problem-free talk because it gets children talking about their lives, on which they are the expert. I believe this sets the expectation that everyone’s ideas will be sought and considered. When a therapist asks about best hopes, or what will be helpful, or what do you want different or better, in a family session it is usually the parent that answers. Sometimes parents will look at their children and encourage them to answer first but usually the children defer to parents as it is a difficult question to answer. The following is an example of collaborative goal setting. I have a large whiteboard in my office with an array of coloured markers. Each person in the family chooses a colour and we make boxes or areas in which their best hopes will be captured. THERAPIST:

Jose Antonio, you chose green. I want to write in green all the things you want different or better in your family. What do you want different or better? JOSE ANTONIO: Mom wants me to stop breaking things when I’m mad. THERAPIST: So, Mom wants some different ideas for when you’re mad? MOM: Yeah, he has put holes in the doors and breaks his toys and hits people and scares our dog. JOSE ANTONIO: Yeah, I just get mad. THERAPIST: (Looking at mom) When he is handling his mad in a good way, what do you see him doing? MOM: Talking about it, it’s ok to be mad. He just needs to communicate and we can work it out. THERAPIST: So, I’ll write talk about mad and communicate with who? With Mom? (mom nods) and communicate with mom in mom’s purple colour. Does that go in your green box of ideas too or just Mom’s? JOSE ANTONIO: I don’t want to talk about it. THERAPIST: So, talk about it is not important to you but you knew it would be to mom. Thanks for letting me know that. What is important to you that you want different or better? JOSE ANTONIO: Really all I want to talk about is, I don’t know, Sammy, I want Sammy to like me. (Therapist: Sammy?) Sammy, that’s my dog, he runs away from me. MOM: He chases him and teases him and wonders why he won’t come to him.

Solution building with children

185

THERAPIST:

I see, so you don’t want to scare Sammy; you want Sammy to like you. (nods) What do you want to do with Sammy?

The therapist uses the formulation idea of communication to make choices about how to respond. We keep something, add something, ignore something and build in the direction of what they want. • • • •

Listen for hints of desired future Select- you want Sammy to like you Add- you don’t want to scare Sammy; which pulls in Mom’s earlier statement that he scares the dog Ignore the unwanted/undesirable behaviours- chases dog, teases, runs away

JOSE ANTONIO:

I want to teach him tricks and be my friend. Should we write that in green? (both nod) How should I write it. I want to get the right words. JOSE ANTONIO: (slowly speaking as therapist writes) Teach Sammy tricks, be friends with Sammy. THERAPIST: OK, got it. Mom you said you want some different ideas so Sammy won’t be scared of Jose Antonio. Do you like this idea too? MOM: Yes, absolutely. THERAPIST:

Mom had said in her first statement that her son scares the dog when he gets mad. Capitalising on that commonality gives us a joint goal. Then the therapist can continue with getting a detailed description about this preferred future of Sammy liking Jose Antonio. It is useful to have children act out or role-play their preferred future. What follows is a second example of Future Play (King, 2017). THERAPIST:

I have some stuffed animals and puppets here. Do you see one that we can pretend is Sammy. (They choose a brown and white dog puppet) OK, hi Sammy. SAMMY PUPPET: Woof, woof. THERAPIST: (To Mom) Do you think you could play Sammy, so Jose Antonio can practice his dog friend skills? MOM: Oh sure. THERAPIST: And you (to boy) can be yourself. (Both smile and nod) Some things in the past have been scary to Sammy (Sammy puppet whimpers and hides his eyes) and he wants to be friends with Jose Antonio, not scared of him. Can you show Sammy what he needs to see so he can start being friends with you? Jose Antonio gets on his knees and pats his legs, saying, “Here Sammy, I have a treat for you.” Sammy slowly goes to him and lets his head be pet.

186

Pamela K. King

Mom does a great job of recoiling Sammy puppet and explaining he got a little scared because of a fast movement and a loud voice. They play a little while and Sammy gives some ideas about what makes him feel safe. Sammy puppet says, “I wish I knew a trick” and Jose Antonio teaches him to sit and roll over. The therapist wraps up the session by giving mom and son coaching credit cards. Ratner and Yusuf (2015) describe coaching cards as a hands-on strategy to consolidate therapeutic gains. The business card-sized card has sentence prompts such as “Best hopes”, “Thank you”, “Well done” and “Keep doing” (Ratner & Yusuf, 2015, pp. 121–122). THERAPIST:

Jose Antonio, I made this card for you with a puppy sticker from Sammy. It says, Thank you for playing gently with me today and helping me to feel safe around you. Love Sammy. JOSE ANTONIO: That’s cool. THERAPIST: (To mom) and you get a credit card too. Your credit card says, To Sammy Puppet (mom) Well done for being patient and helpful to Jose Antonio as he learns his new dog friend skills. MOM: I like those. This mother-son dyad identified a preferred future picture they could both buy into and future play gave them an opportunity to try on the skills of pet care and being a friend to Sammy. The therapist complimented their achievements through the credit cards and then gave them extra credit cards to take home to give to each other when they wanted to give each other credit for a skill or action.

Conclusion Playful activities in Solution Focused Brief Therapy are purposefully selected to fit the unique interests and aptitudes of the children and families we work with. Family dollhouse stories, puppets, toy interviews and coaching cards are just a few ways to playfully invite children to build solutions that are uniquely designed for their lives and situations. This enjoyable work often results in laughter and serious silliness as children experience their ideal future right now. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s statement, “If people did not sometimes do silly things, nothing intelligent would ever get done” (Wittgenstein & Winch, 1980, p. 50) provides a philosophical groundwork for Solution Focused Play Therapy.

References De Jong, P., & Berg, I. K. (2013). Interviewing for solutions (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks Cole. King, P. K. (2017). Tools for effective therapy with children and families: A solution-focused approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

Solution building with children

187

Ratner, H., & Yusuf, D. (2015). Brief coaching with children and young people: A solution focused approach. New York, NY: Routledge. Willis, A. B., Walters, L. H., & Crane, D. R. (2014). Assessing play-based activities, child talk, and single session outcome in family therapy with young children. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 40(3), 287–301. Wittgenstein, L., & Winch, P. (1980). Culture and value. (B. Blackwell, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1977). Yogman, M., Garner, A., Hutchinson, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Michnick Golinkoff, R. (2018). The power of play: A pediatric role in enhancing development in young children. American Academy of Pediatrics, 42(3), [e20182058]. doi:10.1542/peds.20182058

Index

accelerated learning 2, 6 “action verbs” 16–17 affordances 52, 53–54, 55 aliveness 165, 167 ambiguities 110–111 Andersen, Tom 30–31 anxiety 29 appreciation, statements of 138 Aristotle 108 assumptions 118–119 autobiographical memories (ABMs) 18 autonomy 45, 134 Bannink, F. 134 Barrett, F. 123 Bateson, Gregory 58, 119, 123 Bavelas, Janet B. 28, 46 bean experiment 130–131 behaviour 82–84, 87, 88, 156 beliefs 119 Benjaminse, A. 74, 75 Berg, Insoo Kim 39, 51, 100, 161, 172; conflict management 134; “listen, select and build” process 181; listening and respect 168; miracle question 154–155 best hopes 15, 66; Best Hopes Question 152, 155, 156–159; Clean Space 107; games 22; play therapy 181–182, 184; trauma survivors 173, 175–176; youth work 95 Bezdicˇková, Edita 48, 57–70 Blokland, Leo 98–99, 134–143 bodies 109; see also embodiment Bogomolov, Victor 39 Bonaire 9–12 brain: embodied cognition 72; Extended Mind Thesis 73–74; impact of music on the 6

Brief Family Therapy Center 51 BRIEF therapists 36, 87, 152, 155 Buddhism 161, 162 Buehlmann, Ursula xxvii, 36–47 Burgstaller, Susanne 99, 115–126 Bushe, G. R. 120 Cade, Brian 39 Cairns-Lee, Heather 108 Cameron, K. 123 “chains of influence” 84–85 Chan, Joe 49, 91–97 change: change process research 58; clients as agents of 157; games 18; measurement of 150–151; mediation 136; monitoring 16, 18; motivation for 17, 18; noticing 102; observation of 65; organisational 115, 119, 120–122, 145; ripple effect 89; roadmaps for 121–122; small changes 27; solutions 80–81 Chenail, R. J. 58–59, 63 Cheng, J. 16 children 153, 179–187 Clark, Andy 74 Clark, H. H. 27–28, 46 Clean Language 102–103, 110 Clean Space (CS) 98, 100–107, 112 client expertise 27, 100, 163 closing of therapy 156 coaching 99, 115–126, 127–132; Clean Language 102; meetings 145, 148, 150; metaphors 109–110 coaching cards 186 cognitive psychology 18 cognitive theory 108–109 Cohen, Avishai 5 collaborative goal setting 184–186 collaborative model 27–28, 46

Index Collin, Sandra 98, 100–107 communication: collaborative model 27–28, 46; games 22; mobile-mediated 25–26, 29 communities of learners 123 conflict management 98–99, 118, 134–143 consensual level of analysis 64 constellation work 103, 112, 113 construals 16, 18, 21 container metaphor 109 conversation analysis (CA) 27, 65, 87 conversational scripts 122 Conversations Led by Clients (CoLeC) 162 cooperation 42–43, 118, 136, 138, 139 Cowell, S. 62 Cranton, P. 123 creativity 15, 96, 155, 157 Croom, A. 3 CS see Clean Space curiosity 94–95, 96, 124 cybernetics 58, 89 Czerny, Elfie 41 DAM see discursive action model Darwin, Charles 161 data analysis 60, 63–64 data collection 38, 60, 61 data processing 60, 61 de-escalation of conflict 135, 136 De Haan, Sanneke 53–54 De Jong, P. 28, 30, 181 de Shazer, Steve 45, 51, 100, 160, 172; conference style 39; conflict management 134; explanatory metaphor 50; linguistic focus 26; miracle question 154; problem descriptions 161, 162; solutions 80; toolbox metaphor 167 de Wolf, Esther 48–49, 71–79 Del, V. A. 28 Denys, D. 53 depression 26, 29 depth metaphor 53–54 Dhority, L. 6 dialogue: co-creation of 13, 28, 46; conflict management 137–138; EBTA Summer Camps 42; mobile-mediated communication 25–26; text-dialogues xxvii, 27, 29–35 Dierolf, Kirsten 48–49 differences 85, 87, 88 digital communication 25 disciplined observation 43

189

discourse analysis 60, 87 discursive action model (DAM) 67 Dolan, Y. 154–155 dolls 182, 183–184, 186 Duchamp, Marcel 52 EBTA see European Brief Therapy Association Elliott, R. 58 embodied cognition 48–49, 71, 72–75, 78 embodiment: Clean Language 103; embodied practices 75–78; listening to music 5 emotions: emotional regulation 17; expression of 31; music 3, 4–5 empowerment 85–86, 119, 131, 140, 172 enactive cognition 53 energy 165, 167 Erickson, Milton 4, 17 European Brief Therapy Association (EBTA) xxvii, 36–47, 71 European Commission 91 exceptions 18, 65, 93 experiential learning 19, 180 experimentation 123–124 explanatory metaphor 50 Extended Mind Thesis (EMT) 73–74 extended self 71, 72, 77–78 externalizing problems 93 fear 16, 18, 19, 21 feedback: conflict management 141; meetings 148, 149; movement 74–75; organisations 131, 132; trauma survivors 174, 176 Feldman, Charles 109 Finch, J. 1 Foglia, L. 72 forecasting 16, 18 formulations 27, 28, 30, 33, 34 framing 93 Frederickson, Barbara 46 Freud, Sigmund 161 Fundamenta Housing Savings Fund 144–151 future focus 95 Future Play 180, 185 games xxvii, 14, 18–23, 95, 179 Garfinkel, Harold 27 generalisation 17, 18, 19, 22 generative images 120

190

Index

George, E. 27, 117 Gergen, K. J. 120 gestures 111 Gibson, J. J. 52, 53 Giddens, A. 26 Gilbert, P. 15 goals 15, 45, 134; collaborative goal setting 184–186; conflict management 137; measurement 150; small steps 172; trauma survivors 173, 176 Goffman, Erving 26, 58 Goppelt, J. 124 “grounding circles” 46 groupwork: organisations 117, 122; trauma survivors 153, 172, 175, 176 Grove, David 103 habits 164–165, 167 happiness 17 health promoting actions 15 helping professions 57, 94 Herz, Manuela 127, 129, 130, 132 Hogan, Debbie xxvi–xxvii hopes 15, 66; Best Hopes Question 152, 155, 156–159; Clean Space 107; conflict management 137; games 22; Mind-Activating Question 156; play therapy 181–182, 184; trauma survivors 173, 175–176; youth work 95 Hopwood, N. 37 identity 26, 86, 87, 88 implicit knowledge 72, 73, 75–76, 78 improvisation 117, 120–121, 124, 155 Inner Space 103–104 inner states 82–83 interaction 82–84, 87, 88 “Interactional View” 93–94 Ion, Bogdan 167 Isebeart, Luc 3–4 iteration 37–38, 120 Iveson, Chris 27, 51, 54, 117 Jackson, Don 51 Jackson, P. Z. 115 Jefferson, G. 61 Johnson, Mark 108–109 journey metaphor 109 Kalenberg, Julia 99, 127–133 Kay, Alan 43 Keck, Susanne 141

Keeney, Bradford 48, 58, 59–60 King, Pamela 153, 179–187 Kirby, J. N. 15 Kline, Nancy 45–46 Knezicˊ, Dragana 153, 171–178 Kniberg, H. 124 knowledge, implicit 72, 73, 75–76, 78 Korman, Harry 46, 82 labelling 95 Lakoff, George 108–109 landscapes 53 Langer, Stephen 153, 171–178 language 52–53, 160; “action” and “description” 51; Clean Language 102–103, 110; EBTA Summer Camps 40; language games 159, 161; linguistic focus 26–27; metaphors 110–111; negative 95 Lawley, James 103, 104–105, 106 learning: accelerated 2, 6; communities of learners 123; EBTA Summer Camps 40, 42; games 18–19, 20; music 6–7; organisational coaching 119, 123, 124 Levendal, Áron 99, 144–151 Lewin, Kurt 120 lexical choices 28–29, 30–31, 32–34 Lipchik, E. 93 listening: Berg on 168; collaborative model 46; with a constructive ear 27; “listen, select and build” process 181, 183; music 2, 3–7; organisational coaching 119; trauma survivors 176 locus of control 17 love 46, 166, 167 MAQ see Mind-Activating Question Masserman, J. 167–168 Masters in Conflict 138–139 materials 112 McCarthy, I. 39 McGee, D. 28 McKendrick, D. 1 McKergow, Mark 47, 48, 50–56, 115 meaning 46 measurement 146, 150–151 mediation 98–99, 134–143 medical model 80 meetings 99, 132, 144–151 memory 18, 52–53 Mental Research Institute Group, Palo Alto 93

Index “mental state verbs” 16 mentorship 45–46, 129 metaphors 17, 99, 108–114; Clean Language 102–103; games 18, 19, 21; organisational change 120–121; solution-growing 81 microanalysis 27–29, 33, 65 microanalytic sequential process design 58 Miller, Gale 45, 155, 156, 157 Mind-Activating Question (MAQ) 152, 153, 156–159, 162 miracle question (MQ) 15, 54, 156–159; Clean Space 102; conflict management 135; therapy 152, 154–155 mobile-mediated communication 25–26, 29; see also text messages Morgan, G. 120 Moseley, A. 19–20 motivation 15, 16, 17, 132; games 18, 19, 22; meetings 149; trauma survivors 173 movement 74–78, 98 multi-stakeholder coaching 118 music xxvi–xxvii, 1–8, 9–13 narrowness metaphor 49, 81, 87, 89 nature 111–112 networking 118 Newton, Tim 98, 100–107 Noë, A. 72–73 non-verbal behaviours 21, 104–105, 111 objectives 65 Ockham’s Razor 86, 160–162, 163–164 O’Connell, D. C. 62 O’Hanlon, Bill 17 Opening Question (OQ) 156, 168 O’Regan, J. K. 72–73 organisational coaching 99, 115–126, 127–132, 145, 148, 150; see also coaching organisational culture 142–143 Otten, Bert 71, 72, 74–75 outcome research 57–58 Paine, Thomas 168 Pallikarakis, Fania 98, 100–107 Panayotov, Plamen 152, 153, 154–159, 160–170 panic attacks 81–82, 165 para-verbal sounds 111 parrot technique 3–4 perception 52 performing arts 58

191

perspective taking 18, 22 phonetic ambiguities 110 photographs 76–77, 78 piano playing 10–13 play 123 play therapy 153, 179–187 playfulness 111, 128, 186 Ponomarev, Mikhail 41 positive bias 119 positive psychology 17 positive stance 93 post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 29, 173–174, 175 pragmatic level of analysis 64 preferred futures 15–17, 27, 172; Clean Space 107; conflict management 135, 138, 140; EBTA Summer Camps 40; games 22; meetings 146–147; organisations 118, 119, 120, 129, 132; play therapy 153, 180, 182, 185, 186; questions 157–158; SF Matrix 109; solution-growing 81–82, 87; street music project 12–13; trauma survivors 177; video recordings 75–77 present focus 95 pressure cooker model 139 problem descriptions 161, 162, 169 problem-focused conflict management 134–135, 140 problem free talk 18, 26, 180–181, 184 problem-solving 80, 81 problem talk 128–129, 180 process research 57–58 progress monitoring 121, 138, 141–142, 175 progress questions 18 psychotherapy see therapy puppets 183, 185–186 qualitative data collection 38 quality management 60, 67 questions 4, 28, 152, 154–159, 162, 168; Clean Space 100, 102, 103–104, 105, 107; exceptions 18; games 21, 22; generative 120; metaphors 110; organisational coaching 122, 124, 129; preferred futures 15–17; scaling 15, 18, 30, 130, 131, 132; solution-growing 85, 86; text-dialogues 29–30, 31–32; trauma survivors 173; youth work 96; see also miracle question Quinn, R. E. 120

192

Index

Ratner, H. 27, 117, 186 Ray, K. W. 124 Rebolj, Biba 40, 41 Recursive Frame Analysis (RFA) 48, 58–67 refugees 153, 171–178 rehabilitation 45 relational positioning 34 relaxation 106 research 57–58, 60–61 resources 17, 27, 65, 81, 172; Clean Space 100; conflict management 137, 140; games 21, 22; phases of consultation 88; play therapy 183; solution-growing 85–86, 87; state metaphor 109; street music project 13; trauma survivors 174; youth work 93, 94, 95 rewards 19 RFA see Recursive Frame Analysis Rienks, Sieds 98–99, 134–143 Rietveld, E. 53 ripple effect 89 Röhrig, Peter 98–99, 134–143 Sacks, H. 27 scaling 15, 18, 30, 130, 131, 132: conflict management 135; meetings 147–148, 150; metaphors 112, 113; progress monitoring 141; scaling walks 112, 128; trauma survivors 173, 174 Scheinecker, Martina 98–99, 134–143 Schenck, Klaus 98, 99, 100–107, 108–114 Schwab, Matthias 41 self-development 45, 92–93 self-efficacy 17, 18, 22 self-feedback 74–75 self-help 156, 159 self-organisation 121 semantic ambiguities 110 semantic level of analysis 63 sensorimotor contingencies 73 sequential level of analysis 63 SFBT see Solution Focused Brief Therapy Shapiro, L. 72 Sharry, J. 117 Shennan, Guy xxvi, 1–8, 48–49, 51, 71–79, 86 Siddartha Gautama 162, 169 Simple Therapy 156 Skarin, M. 124 small steps 172; ambiguities 111; conflict management 136, 140; meetings 147; metaphors 108, 109; organisations 119,

120, 128, 131, 132; trauma survivors 177; youth work 95, 96 small successes: organisations 121, 130; play therapy 183; youth work 96 “small talk” 65, 87 smartphones 72, 73, 74, 76–77, 78 Smit, Frouwkje 10 Smith, A. 6 Smith, Ian xxvii, 14–24 social bonds 3 social constructionism 58 social constructivism 64 social psychology 16 Solution Circle 128 solution-development 80–81 solution dialogue 137–138 Solution Focused approach xxvi; Clean Space 100, 102, 103, 106–107; conflict management 134–143; conversations 14–15; embodied practices 75–78; games 14, 18–23; linguistic focus 26–27; meetings 144, 145–150; metaphors 108–109, 112–113; music 1–2, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13; organisational coaching 115–126, 127–132; SF Matrix 109; solutiongrowing 80–90; summer camps 36–47; theory 48–49; therapy 152–153; trauma survivors 153, 171–178; youth work 91, 93–96 Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) xxvi, 45, 51, 56, 168, 172; children 180; conflict management 134; miracle question 155; playful activities 186; solution-development 80–81; solutiongrowing 86 solution-growing 80–90 source-path-goal metaphor 109 Southern, N. 123 Spencer-Brown, G. 58 sports 95 Srivastava, P. 37 stakeholders 118, 122 state metaphor 109 Stebakov, Dimitry 39, 42 Steele, A. 124 Stokhof, M. 53 Storch, J. 123 Strahilov, Boyan 152, 154–159 strengths 172; games 21; play therapy 183; positive psychology 17; street music project 13; trauma survivors 174, 176, 177

Index stress 29 “stretching the world” 48, 50, 52, 54–55 summer camps xxvii, 36–47 Sundman, Peter xxvii, 36–47 surveys 146, 148–149, 150, 151 Swan, Billy 1 symbols 102–103, 110 tacit knowledge see implicit knowledge Tagg, Caroline 26 Taylor, E. W. 123 teams 116, 117, 128, 141, 147–148 Tegyi, Enikő 99, 144–151 text messages xxvii, 25–35 theory 48–49 therapy 15, 134, 152–153; Clean Language 102; play therapy 153, 179–187; problem-solving 80; questions 154–159, 162; refugees 171–178; therapist training and education 160; Thesaurus of Useful Explanations 163–169; uncertainty 167–168; see also Solution Focused Brief Therapy Thesaurus of Useful Explanations 162, 163–169 thick descriptions 81, 82 Thompkins, Penny 103 “three-act play” 59–60, 64, 65 Tkadlicˇková, Lenka 49, 80–90 Tosh, Peter 1 transcription 60, 61–62, 65 transformative learning 123 trauma 153, 171–178 trust 131, 132 Tudor, Georgeta 167 Umwelt 52–53 uncertainty 167–168

193

van der Hoorn, Svea 98–99 van Goor, Sander xxvi, 1–8 van Woerden, Christiaan xxvi–xxvii, 9–13 verbs 16–17 video recordings 75–77 virtuous circle 59–60 vision 72–73 Von Uexküll, Jakob 52 VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) environments 121 Wallace, Danny 45–46 Way, Marianne 104–105, 106 Weakland, John H. 51, 160 Weick, K. E. 120–121 Wells, Jonas xxvi, 1–8 Wheeler, John xxvii, 36–47 White, Michael 86, 93 Whitehead, Naomi xxvii, 36–47 Whitton, N. 19 width metaphor 49, 53–54, 81, 86, 87, 89 Wignaja, Sukanya 152–153 William of Ockham 160, 162 Willis, Amber 179 Wilson, R. 72 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 161, 162, 167, 168, 169, 186 Wolf, Ferdinand xxvii, 36–47 World Party 2 “world-stretching” 48, 50, 52, 54–55 Wulf, Anne-Marie xxvii, 25–35, 46 yoga 106 youth work 49, 91–97 Yusuf, D. 186 Zatloukal, Leosˇ 48, 49, 57–70, 80–90 zooming 88