Systemic Interventions 9783666402203, 9783525402207

Citation preview

V

Arist von Schlippe/Jochen Schweitzer

Systemic Interventions

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

With 7 figures Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-40220-7 You can find alternative editions of this book and additional material on our Website: www.v-r.de Cover image: Business team/shutterstock.com © 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen /  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Printed in Germany. Translator: Charlotte Weston-Horsmann Typesetting: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen Cover: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen Printing and binding: e Hubert & Co., Göttingen Printed on non-aging paper.

Contents

The value of systemic intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Profiling systemic intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17   1  The start: two basic premises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18   2  Involuntary contracts and triadic contracting . . . . . . . . . . 29   3  A systemic understanding of “problems” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34   4  Genograms, organigrams, system diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42   5  Systemic questioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47   6 Sculpting, constellations and other metaphorical approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74   7  Reframing: “Spinning gold from straw” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89   8  Reflecting teams and reflecting positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97   9  Interventions in coaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 10 Interventions in systemic team and organizational consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

The value of systemic intervention

The term “systemic” refers to an approach that was introduced during the 1950s in what has become known as family therapy. Later, the approach was expanded beyond the family setting to develop its own, more specific techniques of systemic therapy (cf. Ludewig, 1992). It has since then found its way into various settings of psychological psychotherapy, counseling, coaching or consultation. This book describes the systemic approach to psychosocial interventions in general. The reader will therefore find the term “systemic” variably connected to the distinct domains of professional work that are termed psychotherapy, counseling, coaching or consultation. In psychotherapy, it has been applied to settings like individual therapy (Boscolo & Bertrando, 1996; Schwartz, 1997), couples therapy (Dym, 1995; Gurman & Fraenkel, 2002; Fishbane, 2013; Fraenkel, 2009), family therapy (Campbell, Draper & Huffington, 1991; Carr, 2012; Dallos & Draper, 2010; Hoffman & Clark, 2002; Hills, 2012; Jones, 1993; Lebow, 2005; McGoldrick & Hardy, 2008; Rivett & Street, 2009), family therapy with children and adolescents (Wilson, 1998; Retzlaff, 2008; Combrinck-Graham, 1989), multi-family therapy (McFarlane, 2004; Asen & Scholz, 2009; Asen, Dawson & McHugh, 2001), multi-systemic therapy (Henggeler, Schoenwald, Borduin, Rowland & Cunningham, 2009) and family-centered hospital consultation (Wynne, Daniel & Weber, 1986). Within German-speaking countries concepts for “systemic social work” (Ritscher, 2002) and “systemic education” (Voss, 2005) have been published. Aside from clinical and social work the approach is prevalent in both profit and non-profit organizations and is applied in systemic management and leadership, as well as in coaching and in team and organizational consulting (Senge, 1994; Beer, 1995; Campbell & Huffington, 2008; Trebesch 2000, Königswieser & Hillebrand, 2004; Wimmer, 2004; Wimmer, Meissner & Wolf, 2009). A large number

8

The value of systemic intervention

of methods and types of intervention have been created for various settings (e. g. Caby & Caby, 2014; Klein & Kannicht, 2009; Königs­ wieser & Exner, 2002; Schwing & Fryszer, 2014; Winek, 2010). In short, the approach can be outlined as follows: 1. A problem – whether it arises in the form of the psychosomatic symptoms of an afflicted person, a student’s bad grades, a colleague’s poor performance or a team conflict – is perceived as an occurrence in which many different interacting individuals participate, rather than referring back to “character traits” of a single person(s). Dysfunctional behavior and problems are understood within their contexts to justify intervention. Thus the focus shifts from the question of: “Who has had the problem since when and why?” to “Who can be considered a significant member of a given social context and who describes the problem in what way?” and “Who describes the problem and the interaction surrounding it in what way?” 2. Communication and the power of stories that people tell play an important role: “reality” is perceived as the result of a process of social constructions, not as an objective entity with absolute validity (cf. Bruner, 1990; Gergen & Gergen, 2003). Thus each participant’s story is equally meaningful. A significant element of systemic coaching is to encourage a person to become the observer of his/her own authoring of his/her story: “How do you tell your story? What parts of your past do you choose in piecing it together? Which parts do you leave out?” etc. This self-referent position may open up choices as the individual develops an increasing awareness of his or her contribution to patterning the communication process, becoming able to assume more and more responsibility for his/her own involvement in the way his/ her story is told. Observations by others who are not directly involved (outside reference) offer a valuable source of feedback to the auto-observer (self-reference). 3. Living systems, be they biological, psychological or social systems are self-organizing. They can be seen in terms of dynamics and complexity. At different times during the developmental stage, systems appear more or less predictable and stable or complex and instable. A high level of complexity and instability means

The value of systemic intervention9

that change cannot be “planned” and “controlled”. Rather, acting professionally means creating a context that allows patterns to develop and change (Kruse, 2004). The task is to enhance the probability that constructive moments may arise. This can be achieved by providing a specific context (of “process management”, Schiepek, 2004) rather than by determining the outcome. In other words, a systemic session may offer a space in which the (psychological or social) system is “open to contingency, i. e. to chance” (Luhmann, 1988, p. 132) and ensures that “opportunities occur more frequently than they otherwise would.” (ibid., translation by the authors). 4. The idea is to remain open and sensitive to the opportunities that might arise. Thus rather than focusing on “problems” and “mistakes” one looks for available resources and approaches that have proven to be effective within the system itself (“When was the last time you were successful at this?”; “What was the last exception you remember when the ‘problem’ did not arise even though you would have expected it to?”) in trying to find viable solutions. The quest for new ideas and images takes precedence over conversations revolving around what doesn’t work (Conen, 2007). 5. We strive to develop a collaborative spirit among all members of the social system in question, as well as its outside observers such as clients and other collaborators and even competitors. The key question is: how can the combined input of those parties involved achieve viable results? 6. A particular challenge in systemic therapy is to use a language that offers appreciative descriptions for all those involved in the cooperative network. This includes looking for any constructive element even in obviously destructive behaviors (e. g. somebody who behaves negatively may be trying to keep up his/her self-esteem – so a joint effort might be made to look for ways of solving the self-esteem issue in a new and less negative way).

10

The value of systemic intervention

Within the context of systemic consultation1, reference is usually made to the way in which members perceive the social system’s experience (like a family) in terms of a shared belief-system, a “family paradigm” (Reiss & Olivieri, 1983), a set of commonly held basic beliefs and shared convictions about the world. To realize that members of a system who share a common social system tend to experience reality from the same premise is a key aspect of constructivism. From the perspective of a family counselor, Stierlin (1988) refers to this as a “family credo”. Schneewind (2010), a family researcher, proposes the term “family-specific internal model of experience”, a kind of “shared mental model” (Denzau & North, 1994), to which each member’s subjective knowledge of family reality contributes. This is not to say that the individuals’ experiences of reality are homogeneous. On the contrary, many conflicts within families stem from seemingly irreconcilable differences. Each member’s perspective is so closely linked to the other’s and sometimes even intertwined with it to the extent that the therapist may note with amazement the speed at which family members manage to react to each other by condemning, accusing and defending one another and “correcting” messages that seemed so apparent and yet get hopelessly entangled in their various different perceptions of reality. It seems that in families with symptom carriers, the descriptions the family members process often do not receive the necessary feedback. They become fixed in a pattern that reflects one member’s expectations of how the other one “is”. In the course of the members’ joint history, a reality has been created that is experienced as painful and emotionally draining. The communication among family members has become intertwined in inflexible patterns. It is precisely these patterns that systemic therapy is concerned with. 1 Within the context of this book we will continuously shift between the different areas of systemic practice, be it systemic consultation, systemic counselling or organizational consultation. We choose the term “consultant” and “consultation” or, more general, “systemic work”/“systemic practice” throughout the book. If a method is applied specifically within one context, we’ll use the appropriate word for that. The words “client” or “customer” refer to different traditions in systemic work. We don’t go too deeply into that discussion and use them interchangeable here. But we try to avoid the word “patient” as it is connected to associations of being passively suffering.

The value of systemic intervention11

According to the theory of self-organization, one can say that the members have settled on a particular “way of order” through which they perceive the social reality and which has become rigid over time. In this context, Kriz (1999, 2008, 2014) adopts the concept of an “attractor” (it was introduced into the theory of dynamic systems by Haken, 1983). In self organization theory, an “attractor” describes the specific kind of order that may arise in dynamic, chaotic processes. A “sense attractor” is a (relatively) stable, cognitive condition (“pattern”) that a person or social system has developed in relation to him/herself, the people around him/her and their environments. It is a particular way of perceiving the world. These sense attractors follow a dynamic of completion that Julian Jaynes defines as “narratization” (1990). By combining different elements of perception with other elements, and by bridging memory gaps, a person (or a social group) builds up cohesive narrative stories. Memory, so to speak, writes “its own life story” (see e. g. von Foerster, 2003; Kotre, 1995). Once a strong sense attractor has been built, individuals merely use their interaction partners to confirm their respective world views, leaving mutual curiosity by the wayside: “See? That was so typical! That’s the way he is!” Over time this “knowing what the other person is like” patterns and in a way “enslaves” the thinking of the individual and the communication of the social group (family, etc.). People then no longer react to what was said but to what they expect to hear based on the preceding history. Sense attractors developed by an individual evolve as a result of the tendency to structure human cognition and categorize it in an effort to reduce complexity. The creation of order is a “fundamental process for all living things” and seems to be more important for human beings than striving for happiness. Human beings fear nothing more than chaos and thus choose a form of order, even if it is detrimental. Example A rather sad example from child and adolescent psychiatry describes the situation of a 13-year old boy with extremely low self-esteem whose behavior proved very difficult to handle in the hospital inpatient ward. In a team meeting it was decided to pay particular attention to this boy and to encourage the slightest positive signs, while at the same

12

The value of systemic intervention

time letting him know that his therapists cared about him. However, the first reaction to the words: “Thomas, I really like you!” resulted in a considerable increase in tension with erratic eye movement and heightened agitation, until suddenly he threw his cup on the floor, smashing it to pieces. When his therapist cried out angrily: “For goodness sake! Why don’t you watch out!” the boy began to relax visibly: “See, I knew nobody would like a boy like me!” – The world, as unhappy as it might appear, was back in order.

Once established, sense attractors repeatedly substantiate their premises in order to maintain the established order: the world may not be good, but at least it is predictable, a person “will react in this way and no other”! Every event that corresponds to the given attractor is labeled “typical”. Events that deviate are either ignored or disqualified as “exceptions”. Simon & Rech-Simon (1999) refer to this mechanism as the “logic of substantiating the nothing-new-syndrome”: “Whatever a family member does, the intent is always clear in advance … every member perceives only certain behaviors exhibited by the other. The former impose fixed criteria by which they evaluate, judge and apply the once established patterns of explanation” (p. 219). The value of systemic therapy lies precisely in enabling transitions from one order state to another to allow individuals and social systems to abandon a chosen sense attractor that has evolved into his/ her source of suffering. In the language of self-organization theory, the sense attractor as an order-giving entity (a so called “order-parameter”), “enslaves” the processes that it presides over (Haken, 1983). Thinking, feeling and behavior are largely determined by the previously chosen sense attractor. The term “description” and its relation to language might suggest that we are referring to cognitive and mental processes only. However, language does usually not occur in abstract terms, but rather in the form of stories, (a concept that is key to discussions on “social constructivism”, e. g. Gergen & Gergen 2003, Anderson & Goolishian 1988). Life is not reflected abstractly in language. Instead it occurs in a world of commonly shared meanings through verbal exchange and the exchange of stories. Thus our reality remains stable and we are able to reconfirm our respective identities. Telling a story always

The value of systemic intervention13

requires a listener. So stories connect the level of psychological systems (the world of experiences, emotions, cognitions, and individual sense-making) and the social systems (the world of collective sense-making). Time and again during the process, the question arises as to how to weave one’s way into the web of mutually stabilizing stories from various perspectives. How can these stories be viewed in a different light in order to deconstruct the habituated descriptions? Over the years, the myriad of stories may frequently have lost their naturally flowing character, becoming rigid and eventually “imprisoning” the individual, couple, family, team or organization. The stories may have turned into a “problem”: “It’s always the same”; the other person (colleague, co-worker, partner, etc.) behaves “like that”, “typically”. Human beings are incorrigible storytellers and have the habit of “becoming” the story they tell. In the process of repeating these stories, they become reality and occasionally hold the storyteller prisoner within boundaries that they themselves helped to create (Efran et al., 1990). During the course of their social interaction with others, individuals develop a picture not only of themselves but also of their relationships with others and how they are viewed by the latter. Not only do they form their own expectations of others but also expectations of what others expect of them. Example In a classic analysis, Laing et al. (1966) interviewed 12 unhappy married couples (in therapy) and ten couples who were inconspicuous. The approach was revolutionary at the time. Each partner was interviewed alone and afterwards asked how he/she thought the partner would answer the question. Briefly outlined, the results of the complex qualitative analysis showed that the dysfunction exhibited by the couple did not become apparent as long as the questions were put directly. For example, the husbands of both groups responded positively to the question as to whether they loved their wives when they were interviewed alone, as did their wives. The dysfunction became apparent at another level, namely what each partner assumed the other might answer. So when

14

The value of systemic intervention

the husband was asked if he thought his wife loved him, he hesitated, saying that he wasn’t sure. His spouse responded likewise. Going a step further when asked if he thought his spouse felt loved by him (and vice versa), the answer was often clearly negative. Thus the dysfunction occurred at an abstract level. Each spouse had different ideas about what the other believed.

The concept of “expectations of expectations” is found in social systems theory (Luhmann, 1984, 1995): a person develops expectations about the expectations others have of him/her. And since an individual always stands in relation to others, the expectations of expectations of different members of the system intertwine to form patterns that in modern terminology are referred to as self-organizing systems. They have come about simply because they have come about and it may frequently be better to see them just this way and not as result of some particular psycho-pathological process. And they stay simply because they stay. They represent the way in which a person or a family has created a pattern that provides order. In many cases it makes little sense to try to find out particular causes for this phenomenon, but rather to support clients or coachees in changing the patterns of expectations they suffer from. “Expectations of expectations cause members to mutually assume stable orientations from each other … In this way social systems can avoid being reduced to a series of reaction chains in which one predictable event follows the next. The reflexivity of expectation allows for correction (or the fight for correction) at the very level of expectation” (Luhmann, 1984, p. 414, translated by the authors). Quote Human beings are not perceived in the same way as houses, trees or stars. They are approached in the expectation that we meet them in a certain way and, when encountered, they will contribute something to our own inner world. The power of imagination tailors the other person in such a way as to fit our own wishful thinking but also in a way that confirms personal fears and prejudices. We are hardly able to approach each other without preconception at a first encounter. We are thus strangers to our-

The value of systemic intervention15

selves in a dual sense, for between us stands not only the deceptive world surrounding us, but also the illusion of the world that is created in our mind’s eye. Is this foreignness and alienation an evil? Would an artist paint us with our arms wide-spread, desperately reaching out in a fruitless attempt to reach those around us? Or would the purpose of his art be on the contrary to capture our relief at the existence of this double barrier which at the same time offers a protective shield? (Mercier, 2004, p. 100 ff., translated by the authors). The phenomenon, referred to poetically here, is closely linked to the theory of expectation-expectations, and to the “problem of double contingency”. According to Luhmann (within the sociological tradition founded by Talcott Parsons), contingency refers to the possibility that the meaning of any kind of human behavior or communication is never predictable. Human beings can behave spontaneously and unpredictably. Double contingency in this respect means that both participants of an interaction always are equally involved, as they are not limited in their actions. Each participant experiences this as freedom on his/her own side – no-one can determine how his/her behavior will unfold – and as uncertainty in relation to the other person, knowing that the other person’s behavior is likewise never fully predictable (Luhmann, 1984, p. 148 ff., 1995; Simon et al., 1985, p. 353 f.). Individuals can never be sure about others and have to rely on uncertain premises: “You say you love me, but do you really mean what you say?” According to Luhmann, concepts such as trust and mistrust only make sense within the context of double contingency: “Trust must be granted as contingent, that is, it must be voluntary … It is rendered socially valid only in view of the possibility of mistrust” (Luhmann, 1984, p. 181) – if we could look into each other’s minds, trust would not be necessary as we would know. So we see the importance of double contingency in our everyday lives: we have to constantly invest trust and behave in a reliable way, making ourselves predictable to each other. It is amazing to imagine how natural and self-evident this works all over the world: even if you fly to a country you never have been to before, you will find people who behave according to your expectations (taking a taxi, entering a hotel,

16

The value of systemic intervention

etc.). It works at least on a functional level. On a micro-level, in close relationships, things are more difficult. Especially in systems seeking advice, one is faced with processes in which these well-established courses of action no longer function due to conflict dynamics and to mistrust that has developed (sometimes a long time ago, maybe even generations ago). In such cases, members are often preoccupied with brooding over the relationship, obsessed about whether they are valued as individuals, respected, loved or at least accepted. Or they are quite simply convinced that this is not the case. The partner in such a situation has no chance: “Yes, I really love you!” – “Ah, I know you are lying! If you really loved me you would bring me flowers!” – “But I did!” – “Yes but not voluntarily! You did it, because I wanted it! So that is not a real sign of love at all!” – these unavoidable traps are well-known as so called double-binds (Watzlawick et al., 1967). “Members of a family react not to the other person’s feelings and thoughts but to the thoughts and feelings about what the individual thinks the other person is thinking and feeling” (Simon & Rech-Simon, 1999, p. 32). In keeping with self-fulfilling prophecies, this behavior creates the tension necessary for one person to confirm the negative expected-expectations of the other. One could call this “self-organizing misfortune” between individuals. Example The story of the hammer “A man wants to hang a painting. He has the nail, but not the hammer. Therefore it occurs to him to go over to the neighbor and ask him to lend him his hammer. But at this point, doubt sets in. What if he doesn’t want to lend me the hammer? Yesterday he barely spoke to me. Maybe he was in a hurry. Or, perhaps, he holds something against me. But why? I didn’t do anything to him. If he would ask me to lend him something, I would, at once. How can he refuse to lend me his hammer? People like him make other people’s life miserable. Worst, he thinks that I need him because he has a hammer. This has got to stop! And suddenly the guy runs to the neighbor’s door, rings, and before letting him say anything, he screams: ‘you can keep your hammer, you bastard!’” (Watzlawick, 1993).

Profiling systemic intervention

1

The start: two basic premises

Two fundamental tasks in systemic consultation precede all change processes and will be outlined separately in the following discourse, although they can hardly be separated. They include process supervision and contract orientation.

1.1  Process regulation and “process co-regulation” In family therapy in the classical sense, the term “joining” described the task in which a therapist creates a cooperative alignment with the family in need of help. He/she starts by establishing easy contact with each family member. Smalltalk may be a prerequisite for joining, but process regulation takes place throughout the course of consultation. The term “regulation” could mistakenly suggest that someone (the consultant) is actively taking over the session and unilaterally directing the course of the session as well as the methods that are applied. But a strategy that aims at systematically influencing another person is not compatible with the systemic approach. Thus we suggest speaking more in terms of “co-regulation” of processes (e. g. Loth, 1998). This means that the help-seeking person is in charge of deciding on the content of what is said and what he/she sees as essential to the whole counseling project, whereas the professional, be it a consultant, a counselor or a management consultant, provides the necessary framework for the interactions to take place and for the issues to be discussed appropriately, which allows constructive handling of the content as part of a self-organizing process. Maybe it can be said that systemic work resembles a jazz constellation more than a classical orchestra. There is a framework – the pattern of the chord – that limits the possibilities; however, there are no “right” notes. It is not about adapting to a strict acoustic pattern. Similarly, Schiepek speaks of an “overall improvisation” of the process into which melodic and rhythmic components are integrated

The start: two basic premises19

as dynamic elements of a comprehensive process “Gestalt” (2004, p. 264 f.). The key lies more in knowing how to make use of the “tension” generated between composition and improvisation and drawing on it to produce a creative arena. So it is good to know which notes don’t fit. However, these too can be used if they initiate a new succession of cadences. Thus the framework of process regulation depicts the pattern of musical tones belonging to the piece as well as the rhythm that gives it its structure. The counseling session itself then follows in the “free play” of questions and hypotheses. This framework can be visualized as a tension arc of two different functions that are important for process-co-regulation (see figure 1). Creating the framework has a strong affective side, a process that is often referred to as “affective framing” (Welter-Enderlin & Hildenbrand, 1996, 1998; Levold, 1997). It is loosely based on the term “affective attunement” described by Stern (1985) or “secure base” in attachment theory (cf. Bretherton, 1992). Affective framing is essential in developing a secure relationship. The consultant signalizes his/ her friendly and assuring presence via all channels of communication rather than through language alone. The micro-signals used by the consultant to engage with the interaction partner (facial expression, gestures, etc.) have particular significance in this context and serve to establish and maintain conditions that lead to a stable emotional basis. The stability of the relationship (also called meta-stability because it refers to the stable and secure frame in which the interaction takes place) allows the person to confront the instability of painful and negative feelings that the problematic issues may involve. The term has also gained significance within the discussion of a systemic understanding of leadership: Wedekind & Georgi (2005) refer to “orientative framing”, by which they mean that leadership is geared towards creating space for creative development rather than adhering to the idea of instruction and directives.

20

Profiling systemic intervention

Joining, small talk, establishing contact, rapport

Appreciation orientation towards resources and solutions

Affective attunement (“affective framing”)

Creating a clear framework of external conditions (time, space, contract). Clear leading of the interview.

Empathy, understanding, sensitivity

Creating meta-stability: a framework that offers a friendly and stable relationship as a “secure base” for the consultation-process

Creating and maintaining a positive client-consultant/ client-consultant relationship

Encouraging instability and fluctuation: maintaining a tension between interest, curiosity and excitement within a protected framework Enactment, circular/ hypothetical questioning, solution-oriented questioning, sculpting, deconstruction and lateral thinking

Final comments, widening of context, empathic reframing, blocking dysfunctional patterns, or no-change interventions, etc.

Follow the issues, be aware of “hidden agendas”; clarify differences (“who is more, who is less …?”)

Confrontation, meta-communication, address taboos; reflecting team/reflecting processes.

ȤȤ Process-co-regulation implies: initiate meaningful interactions, have the courage to address the subjects and issues that bring “energy” into the interview – within the framework of a safe and trustful relationship. ȤȤ On the one hand this regulation takes place at the micro-level: e. g. glances, smiling, confirming or questioning. On the other hand it proceeds at a higher level: being continuously aware of the contracts and assignments, formulating offers and extending the scope of subjects broached, etc. ȤȤ Creating instability without a protective framework is considered unethical ȤȤ On the other hand, excessive and enduring reassurance (without daring to confront the issues) might paralyze the dynamics.

Figure 1: Process-regulation and co-regulation in systemic consultation. Meta-stability: provide a good relationship that provides a secure base and a stable framework for consultation

The start: two basic premises21

Creating Instability The next step involves maintaining the tension and allowing the person seeking advice to actually address their critical issues. A good consultation session requires curiosity and interest as well as a certain amount of tension and courage (Cecchin, 1987). The American family consultant Walter Kempler once noted that change “will only be forged in the fire of affect”. This means that it is important to dare to broach critical issues, provided that a stable relationship has been previously established, and, by asking provocative questions, help those involved to confront issues they would normally avoid. Change processes rarely progress calmly during matter-offact exchanges as the issues are emotionally charged. Consequently, it is all the more important to be aware that such interactions must take place within a protected framework (this is the essence of the generic principles of systemic consultation, see Schiepek, 1999; 2004). From the perspective of the theory of dynamic systems, the aim is to generate an increase in fluctuation (Schiepek, 2004). In this context, the term “deconstruction” (White, 1992) takes on a particular meaning: namely in terms of “lateral thinking”, for instance by twisting habitual description (such as the reframing technique presented later). In an attempt to realign the habituated interpretation of reality and create opportunities for novel experience, the consultant exhibits unusual behavior by breaking patterns and engaging in subtle experimentation. The underlying premise here is to have the desirable changes evolve in a series of self-organizing transitions. Schiepek (ibid.) emphasizes that it is essential to observe the “Kairos” (as the ancient Greeks said), i. e. the most opportune moment: the same intervention can produce very different effects depending on when it is brought into play. Self-organizing does not mean that the process is left to proceed, merely hoping for the best outcome. Rather, the idea is to actively realize process co-regulation and thereby increase the probability of constructive self-organizing transitions without actually having control over them (Loth, 2005, p. 31). Instead of adhering to the idea of “instructive interaction” and “direct causality”, systemic methods aim to enhance the probability of constructive outcomes.

22

Profiling systemic intervention

The tension outlined here can also be considered a diagnostic measure in supervision: does a session (consultation, counseling, team-intervention, etc.) include both aspects? Nothing is more tedious than an exchange that takes place solely within a protected setting (e. g. interventions such as “You don’t have to answer if it is too difficult for you …” or “Do you feel o. k. now …?”). On the other hand, it would be extremely dangerous to conduct the session in the absence of a protective framework (such as an intense weekend with a lot of constellation work, body work and sensitivity training, etc., after which the individuals are left alone with their emotions). Moreover, initiating instability where a supportive client-consultant relationship has not been established is unethical.

1.2  Assignment orientation – client orientation A basic premise of systemic work involves sensitivity toward the intricacy of the web of assignments that one is entering (von Schlippe & Schweitzer, 2012, p. 235 ff.). The larger and more formal the organization, the more challenging and important it is to clarify the tasks: “Who – wants what – from whom – when – in what capacity – to what end?”. With a growing number of participants and their different functions (job descriptions, hierarchies, departments, assignments, etc.), it is unlikely that the members of the organization will develop common interests and targets for an organizational consulting measure, for example. In general, it is a restricted number of members of the organization who express an interest in consulting, while others are invited/expected to join in. It is of particular interest to understand the diversity of interests of the different individuals involved in the process. Even if they are outsiders who are not present in the consultation room (e. g. the boss who pays for the coaching but doesn’t take part; a relative who recommended the family consultation, etc.), they may still have their visions of the outcome of the consultation and may even have a special interest in it taking a positive or negative course (cf. Selvini Palazzoli et al., 1980a). If expectations and assignments are clearly articulated, considerable effort and disappointment might be avoided.

The start: two basic premises23

ȤȤ Who is particularly interested in initiating this exchange? What would have to be done in order to disappoint/satisfy this initiator? ȤȤ Who recommended us as consultants? What might he/she expect of us? ȤȤ Who is more interested in change? Here a “ranking” of the participants may be indicated or a comparison between the interests of participants and of possible outsiders. In a sense, the consultant stands at the center of a kind of “carousel of expectations and assignments” (von Schlippe, 2014). Figure 2 outlines a possible entwinement within the context of team supervision. In the case of a broad and poorly elaborated assignment (such as: “We’d like to enhance the quality of our team communication”), the team may seem united. However, hidden messages may exist as in the example in figure 2: team member 1 wishes that the consultant would see the failure of team member 2. Team member 2, on the other hand, may silently wish to be protected from the attacks of team member 1, while member 3 tries to foster harmony within the team. And, as if that were not enough, there might be those “absent” stakeholders within the “carousel” (such as the supervisor mentioned above) and, also quite importantly, the “inner stakeholders” – the consultant’s own inner voices and interests that may affect his or her actions as well. A more elaborate way of working with the image of the “carousel” in consultation and training is presented in chapter 9.2. Time and again, the “logical record-keeping” of the consultation process might get mixed up. The participants of the consultation process begin working together as if they had already worked out a clear assignment. Figure 3 helps the consultant ask him or herself constantly whether the levels of an assignment have been clarified up to that point. While the structure may appear very “basic” and significant only upon initial consultation, it can be seen as an underlying “background structure” that is continually activated and repeatedly referred back to. This alleviates the pressure on the consultant of becoming involved in the issue too quickly (which would then mean initiating his/her own assignment without a clear contract).

24

Profiling systemic intervention

Team member 1: Open (e. g. “Better communication!”) and unspoken assignments (“Determine tm 2’s incompetence!”)

Team leader: Open (e. g. “Better communication!”) and unspoken assignments (“Keep me out of this!”) Previous supervisor/ person responsible: Open (e. g. “Be successful!”) and hidden contract-offers (e. g. “Don’t be successful in the areas in which I was not!”)

Team member 2: Open (e. g. “Better communication!”) and unspoken assignments (“Protect me from tm 1!”)

Team member 3: Open (e. g. “Better communication!”) and unspoken assignments (“Cover up conflict!”)

Consultant/ supervisor

The consultant’s inner voices: “It must move in this direction!” (e. g. the inner motivator)

Management of the institution: “Don’t burden us with the problem … YOU take care of it!” (“But do it in a way we can approve of …”)! Other possible external players: “Leave us alone, don’t involve us!”

Institution: Official offer through high-quality advertising. (Unofficial contract in view of cost efficiency, staff lay-offs, statistics, financial support, particular assets, etc.)

Figure 2: The consultant’s position in the network of contracts: clinical team supervision

The key questions that the consultant may ask him/herself here are: ȤȤ Do I know why the client came to me? Frequently a concrete event precedes the decision. This need not be the basis for working together even if the event seems to require immediate attention. The consultant might over-hastily and intuitively consider this as the point of departure and generate ideas about how the problem can or should be approached too rapidly. So it might be better to ask oneself the second question: ȤȤ Do I understand the concrete issue that the client (and other important people in his/her network) would like to be resolved here? Asking oneself this question allows the consultant to understand the direction in which the client’s hopes and desires as well as his/

The start: two basic premises25

her fears are moving. In this way, the client’s implicit theory about the problem can be addressed together with issues brought up by other significant individuals. ȤȤ Do I have a clear idea as to how the client specifically wants me to help him/her? Asking this question takes some courage: didn’t the client already say what he/she wanted? This question, however, is key as it includes the client’s expectation of the role the consultant is to play. Once this aspect has been clarified, the consultant is free to decide whether or not to proceed. ȤȤ Am I both in a position and prepared to accept this and meet these needs? This must be weighed up very carefully: can I deliver what the client wants from me, what do I want myself, and how far am I prepared to go? At this point it might be a good idea to work out a proposition, outlining the possibilities and limitations involved. Figure 3 below outlines a format for this “logical record-keeping”, which does not mean it must be strictly adhered to in practice, but rather can be loosely referred to as required. 1. Causes for complaint, reason for seeking help: “What brings you here?” –– What brings you here? What prompted your decision? Was there a key incident? –– Why are you seeking consultation at this point in time, why not three months ago or in six months’ time? 2. Expectations: “What do you/what do significant others hope to achieve here?” –– What would you like to have happen here today? –– What needs to happen for you to say at the end of the consultation/the session/the supervision that it was worth the effort? –– What needs to happen to satisfy important third parties? Possible additional questions to clarify the background: –– How do you/do those important others define and explain the prob­­ lem and their idea of a solution (for each person, if applicable)?

26

Profiling systemic intervention

–– Worst-case scenario: What is your greatest fear? What might happen if nothing was to change? –– Looking for resources: How do you explain that the situation isn’t worse than it is? What gives you the idea that it can be changed? –– Clarification of solution attempts and exceptions: What have you tried so far? Were there exceptions when the problem didn’t arise even though the situation would have demanded it? –– Ideas for solutions: What should happen in order to solve the problem? Is it something that is within your reach or in somebody else’s? 3. Assignment: “What are your ideas as to how I could be specifically helpful to you?” –– What exactly do you want me to do in this context? –– How would I disappoint you? –– Who among those present or not present expects something from me? What exactly? Is that what you want from me too? How should we deal with possible conflicts of interest? 4. Contract: “What am I offering?” –– Sum up: This is how I’ve understood the situation and the various parties’ expectations and ideas/hopes for a solution. –– Appreciation: each person has a valid motive for what he/she wants to achieve in the process. –– Find a basis for collaboration through clarifying the match between expectations and possibilities and by describing the conditions: a) This institution sees/I see my job in providing x and y … So I will not able to take on the assignment in this form …, but … b) What I can offer/what I suggest is the following: … c) And this could be realized within the following setting … (participants, number and frequency of sessions, location, money, etc.) 5. Interim result: “Where are we now?” –– Have we cooperated well so far? Have we found a good basis for cooperation? –– Are you satisfied/optimistic? Am I satisfied/optimistic? –– New ideas? Wishes? Ideas for modification of our contract? Figure 3: Working through from the causes of complaint through to contracting. Guidelines for initiating systemic consultation

The start: two basic premises27

The framework presented in Figure 3 may be helpful in structuring the contract situation. We therefore recommend you try out and apply the suggestions here within the context of role plays and practical projects, using this text as a reference. The sequences can be used as loose guidelines rather than following through step-by-step. “In general, shifting focus between reasons, concerns and requests is more in line with the natural flow of discourse” (Loth, 2005). In smaller and more informal systems (classic consultation for families and couples), contracting can be clarified during the initial session, while in our experience it is more beneficial in organizational consulting to clarify the situation in advance in a separate step. At the beginning of the initial session, participants should be informed about the assignment and given a rough outline of the follow-through. This gives those involved the chance to object or refuse to participate if they feel uncomfortable with it. As the attending consultant, one should not rely on arrangements made by employer: it is important to find out for oneself what factors impinge on the actual situation. Nor is it wise to assume that a request for consultation has been well thought through in advance, appearing to promise a mutually satisfying outcome. Moreover, once the client-consultant assignment has been clearly established, the consultation contract does not need to be laid out step-by-step. The following measures for clarifying the assignments in organizational consultation have proven effective: 1. Draw up a draft proposal of expectations including general conditions (time frame, location and compensation). 2. An in-depth, face-to-face meeting with the person or group seeking consultation to clarify the assignment (the stakeholders). Topics for discussion will include: a) Goals (desired outcomes) and the methodology to be used (desired approach) preferred by the stakeholders. b) Participants: Who has a role to play in achieving the stated goals? Who should not be invited to attend (and why not)? Should participation be obligatory or voluntary (and why)? c) A policy relating to euphoria, skepticism and attendance: assumptions made about prospective participants as well as

28

Profiling systemic intervention

those not invited to attend the session; make sure that the proposed attendee list seems reasonable. d) Previous experience: Has there been any previous experience of consultation? How successful or otherwise was it? What approaches could be used again? Which should be avoided? e) Process: Which issues should be broached? In what order and by what means? Which methods would be “too tedious”, “too experimental” or “inspiring” and “exactly right”? f) Sum up: Based on the outcome of the meeting and the assignment as established, can the projected consultation be considered beneficial? Should the approach be maintained or have other more promising methods developed? What form do these methods take? 3. It is possible that the planned process is put on hold at this point before it has even got underway. If the plan seems realistic, then we as consultants will develop a schedule including the goals, subjects to be discussed, modus operandi, time frame and location of the sessions. The more participants there are and the less experience of consultation they have, the more detailed our scheduling must be. Our experience suggests that this makes the process more transparent and allays possible fears relating to the unpredictability inherent in the consultation process. 4. The schedule is mailed to all anticipated participants together with a request for pre-session feedback. Ideally we can pick up the feedback during a short visit to a routine departmental meeting or via a brief telephone conference with representatives of the participants from different groups (e. g. workers’ council, field staff, care providers). A recommended practice is to get used to evaluating progress made at regular intervals by referring back to the contracting process and noting interim outcomes. Hargens (2005) suggests posing the following question: “If we talk about the issue in this way and in so doing address your needs, are we getting any closer to your objective?”

2

  Involuntary contracts and triadic contracting

Clarifying the diversity of the expectations and assignments goes hand in hand with developing a contract. Contracts might be designed in a more formal or informal way and be either more or less detailed depending upon the goals that have been agreed upon. Both parties agree that even if the goals are explicitly laid out, they should be flexible enough to allow later “re-adjustment” if necessary. Establishing a contract, or “contracting”, should therefore be regarded as something of a fluid work in progress. Two topics that continually crop up in connection with this subject are the notion of involuntarity and triadic contracting.

2.1  Systemic work within involuntary contexts During the contract clarification phase, it is not uncommon to find that the conversation partner who is directly involved has no immediate interest in the interview and is only there because he/she “has to be” (Liechti, 2009). ȤȤ A convicted person will only submit to psychological consultation under a court order. ȤȤ A department head will seek out a coach because he is likely to lose his job if he does not improve his performance. ȤȤ Parents will agree to family consultation as they will otherwise lose custody. Such cases require particular skill in order to establish a collaborative relationship with the reluctant clients (who are not in fact clients at all yet). Here, the key is to view the involuntary attitude (refusal to co-operate) as a specific form of solution orientation (Conen, 1999; 2005). This involves a willingness to understand possible reasons for the reluctant behavior and tap into an underlying readiness to comply. Reluctant behavior may be an indicator that the client strongly

30

Profiling systemic intervention

objects to the way in which the problem is defined by a third party. This behavior constitutes an important resource for the client’s identity as his/her entire energy goes into refusal and is essentially the key to his/her self-esteem: any cooperation would in his/her eyes mean that he/she accepts the definition of being “bad”, “the problem” or “sick”. A significant step in the direction of collaboration can be achieved if these qualities are acknowledged and honored. It is important to avoid becoming involved in a power struggle over the “right” definition of the problem. Instead, an attempt should be made to find out how one can make the most of the actual situation. How is it possible to solve the “impossible triad” between a controlling authority that resorts to pressure or even coercion, a conversation partner(s) who refuse(s) to accept the definition of the problem and a consultant who expects a minimum amount of initiative as a basis for collaboration? We suggest using the interview to convey a specific form of offer: How can I help … ȤȤ you to act in such a way that the others leave you in peace? ȤȤ you stop the others thinking of you as being (the problem, mad, bad, etc.)? ȤȤ you get rid of me as soon as possible? A pattern of questioning, as suggested below, might enhance the probability of bringing about a collaborative agreement (see also Figure 3 in the previous chapter): ȤȤ Whose idea was it for you to come here? ȤȤ What makes him/her think that you should be here? ȤȤ What would he/she like to have happen here? ȤȤ How does he/she define the problem? (= Problem definition and goal statement by a third party.) ȤȤ Is that something that you want too? Do you agree? If so, can an agreement be drawn up? ȤȤ If the answer is no, the scope of questions can be extended, for example: •• What do you intend to achieve by coming here? (It makes sense here to assume that the client’s mere presence indicates a cer-

Involuntary contracts andtriadic contracting 31

tain amount of willingness – even if it is only to satisfy the third party: that too is a kind of motivation to work with.) •• Do you know exactly what kind of change the third party would like to see in you? (At this point the parties may decide to conduct the interview in a triad or the client may be asked to clarify his/her stance together with the third party.) •• What consequences will your refusal to attend the sessions have? What are you prepared to do in order to avoid the consequences? How can I contribute to you being rid of me as quickly as possible? If those involved fail to initiate collaboration, efforts should be made to acknowledge and honor the client’s behavior by emphasizing the latter’s willingness to invest and take the risks involved in being honest and not letting him or herself be swayed. The session can end with an invitation to reconvene or by discussing the conditions under which the consultant would be willing to continue a possible collaboration (Walter & Peller, 1992).

2.2  Triadic contracting Another more general issue deals with the situation in which any third person is present who is not directly involved in the situation but is to be considered a partner in the contract. This does not always involve reluctance but the relationship should in any case be explored carefully. In the diagram below, A could represent the client (individual, team or family), B the consultant and C might be the external stakeholder: an authority, a child’s teacher, or the relevant institution calling for particular regulations and limitations. When establishing the role of the third party, it can be asked what he/she expects to happen during the cooperation – this might be done indirectly (“Do you know what C expects from our work here?”) or in a “trialogue” to check out the range of options. If C is the client’s actual employer (e. g. the corporation in the case of an internal coaching program), it must be clear how much leeway is acceptable and where the organization’s limits are. If A (the client) is not sure what C expects from him/her, he or she can be referred back to C in order

32

Profiling systemic intervention

to clarify C’s objectives or the three parties arrange to meet. If A and C are unable to find mutual objectives, then it should at least be clarified whether A is willing to cooperate in order to satisfy C (agreement form outlined above: “How can I as a coach support you in getting rid of me as soon as possible?”). It is important to assume an attitude of acceptance when faced with reluctance in a skeptical client. C (the one with the/or at least some power; e.g. boss, financier)

Expectations and agreements

A (consultant)

Expectations and agreements

Expectations and agreements

B (conversation partner/ customer/client)

Figure 4: Triadic contracting (in order to keep the picture clear, important perspectives are not included: A observes the relationship between B and C, B between A and C, and C between A and B)

Triadic contracting as a “basis for clear role functions” (Kallabis, 1992) helps regulate complexity, creates transparency, and can build up commitment. This kind of contracting is especially important in any context where a third party C is paying for the measure; e. g. C as the immediate disciplinarian has arranged for A to be coached or C holds another form of power over A and the outcome of the coaching process is likely to affect their relationship (e. g. an employer threatens to lay off an employee if certain objectives are not met as a result of coaching). Aside from the formal aspects, such as participating persons, time, money, cancellation regulations and how to deal with missed appointments, an agreement should be drawn up to determine the benefits of the procedure and how record-keeping should be dealt with. Confidentiality and privacy stipulations are important points to mention here – usually there is no direct communication regarding the confidential content of the process but rather a general overview of topics and themes that have been addressed in the

Involuntary contracts andtriadic contracting 33

course of the cooperation – this might take the form of a letter that is jointly written by A and B to C. Example The head of an oncology ward agrees to grant his team regular clinical case supervision, which is paid for out of clinic funds. In a joint decision, the team agrees that the former should not attend the meeting. The parties agree on a three-year contract that can be extended no more than twice for one additional year. At the end of each year, the clinical supervisor prepares a written record of the process. He shares the content of the letter with the team and forwards it to all parties concerned, including the head of oncology.

3

A systemic understanding of “problems”

Having completed the groundwork, one realizes that consultation has actually already begun. The “material” that any consultation deals with is meaning, or to be more precise: it is the process by which meaning is created and sense is made. Any psychic or social system processes meaning (Luhmann, 1984, 1995; see also Weick, 1995). The “glue of social systems” consists of multiple meta-perspectives, i. e. images, thoughts and feelings that each member of the system has of the images, thoughts and feelings of their fellow members. The goal of most systemic methods is to find access to the descriptions with which individuals manage to make themselves (sometimes collectively) unhappy. At the same time, these methods generate a certain dynamic: information is not only requested but is created at the same time. Gaining access to the sense-making processes thus always implies intervention. When a member of the system is interviewed by the counselor in the presence of a third party, the information regarding how the system member perceives the family, the group and the team is shared with everyone present. The latter in turn receives fresh information that may change the structure of their expectation-expectations and thus influence the process of meaning-creation within the psychic and communication system. Example Within the context of a supervision of the management team of a healthcare service, for example, there is a difference as to whether the head is asked what he/she likes in particular about the administration manager and how he/she believes the latter would answer the same question. Or if the head physician is called upon to say how he believes the administration manager is likely to answer. The range of different answers gives members of the system feedback at a number of very different levels as to how they are perceived by the others.

A systemic understanding of “problems”35

3.1  Problem-determined systems The term “problem-determined system” introduced by Harry Goolishian and his team (Anderson & Goolishian, 1986), also referred to in a short version as “problem system”, points to the origin of the problem based on a systemic premise. No one system alone such as a family, a clinic or a company “owns” the problem as a feature of its structural make up (“I have a problem!” – “Oh, do you carry it with you or does it wait at home for you?”). On the contrary, the situation can be seen the other way around: an undefined or for that matter even coincidental behavior crops up and becomes the focus of the problem in the course of the interaction, eventually evolving into a characteristic social system. In other words, when a problem arises it “creates” a problem system. This term tries to capture the different interweaving nuances that create what we are used to referring to as a “problem”. Seeing the issue in this light has many far-reaching implications. Problems are not considered to be a result of a “dysfunction” (or even pathology) in psychic or social systems, but rather as an interlinking of events and descriptions that results in a jointly constructed “attractor” as described above. A group of individuals have, during the course of their interaction, developed a particular pattern of communication that increasingly “enslaves” the way they think, experience and behave. Example The contrast with the familiar understanding of problems can be illustrated by means of a little mind game: if three people stand together to form a triangle, where “is” the triangle? Does the triangle actually exist or is it simply created by the way the three individuals are standing in relation to each other? If they decide to stand in a line, then the triangle disappears! From a systemic point of view, problems are more likely to be perceived as (of course much more complex) “constellations” of perspectives and descriptions in sensemaking rather than the “hardware” of “the problem”.

Problem systems can consist of entirely different actions by entirely different participants at entirely different system levels. The problem

36

Profiling systemic intervention

system inherent in psychosis, for example, is made up of what the patient does and those involved in his action do, which might be a neighbor, a policeman, an ambulance driver, the different employees at a neurological clinic or possibly related to the psychopathological diagnosis and efforts to secure a probable early retirement. Another example: the problem system “poor performance” in a department may be deduced from the interaction between the five employees, the department head and his/her supervisors and the company auditors against the backdrop of an economic recession. Accordingly, solution-oriented interventions are possible at entirely different levels. Quite often a “general overhaul” of the entire social system is not required since it is not the system that needs to change, but “merely” the communication surrounding the problem. The problem can be considered solved when everyone, or at least significant players, considers the problem solved. This notion reins in overly ambitious proselytization on the part of counselors and consultants.

3.2  What “is” a problem? According to this definition, a problem is considered to be a condition that is seen by a person (or more persons) as an undesirable state in need of change and also as a state that can be changed (von Schlippe & Schweitzer, 2012, p. 158). ȤȤ A condition: When a problem is considered to be a state by a number of people then this can be referred to as a form of selective agreement. One or more simultaneous processes move to the center of attention and are labeled. Other processes take second place. And this doesn’t just happen once! A myriad of interactions and forms of communication that are described by different individuals as “always the same story” or “nothing ever changes” are necessary to maintain what is eventually labeled “the problem”. ȤȤ By one ore more persons: It always takes one or more observers to discover and label a state. These individuals may agree or differ radically as to what constitutes a problem and where it “actually” lies (although they usually share the belief that it “is” a problem).

A systemic understanding of “problems”37

ȤȤ Undesirable/needs changing: The state is described by significant persons as undesirable and in need of change. ȤȤ The condition is considered not OK and herein lies the motivation to change it or to insist that someone change it. ȤȤ Changeable: It is generally believed that the condition can be modified or at least that is how it is described by those involved (“members”). Problems vary depending on fate, luck or tragedy and the belief that someone involved in the problem system (usually someone else …) might put an end to the undesirable condition. Most often, dissent as to the different labels is itself part of the “problem”. The interaction between these factors constitutes what is eventually defined as “the problem”. This essential part in the consultation process serves to identify the persons and communications involved in creating the “problem state” and to integrate them either physically or at least in thought. If the condition seems unchangeable (as judged by those involved), however unfortunate, we call this “restriction”. It is hardly worthwhile continuing to talk about the changeability of that which cannot be changed. We can, however, talk about the best way to endure a situation that we cannot change.

3.3  How are problems created? Simply put, the creation of a problem can be outlined as a complex way of social construction. It might be reconstructed as follows: Identifying the problem – creating the problem Someone (e. g. one or more family members, a teacher, a supervisor, police officers, counselors) observes the behavior of one or more individuals (spouse, family member, student, company department, suspect) including his/her own behavior and draws the conclusion that “something is not in order”. Emergence of a problem-determined communication system This idea gradually begins to dominate the communication, slowly the “problem” becomes the organizing principle of communication in the relationship among those involved. More and more people

38

Profiling systemic intervention

are drawn in, focusing collective (and selective) attention on what is “not in order”. Explaining the problem Those involved search for, find and negotiate a “justification” for the problem that, on the one hand, is plausible enough to survive but, on the other hand, doesn’t offer viable outcomes or problem-solving strategies. Some forms of justification are steeped in hopelessness and are particularly susceptible to this: ȤȤ “The past as fate” – explanations that attribute a determining and irreversible influence of past events (e. g. mistakes made, guilt, early childhood trauma, genetic defects, accidents) to the problem at hand (e. g. “the relationship broke him” or “she is emotionally devastated”). ȤȤ Labeling the complex interpersonal constellation by explanations that ascribe the fault or guilt to the individual characteristics of one member and thereby denying the person the ability or the free will to remedy the situation on his/her own, (a “bad” child – “bad to the core”, “an absolutely incompetent colleague”, “a totally run-down organization”). Attributing the causes of whatever to one person is one of the core factors of the chronification of problems and of conflicts. ȤȤ “We are all too small and weak”: this explanation declares all of those involved in the problem to be helpless, placing the power to bring about a solution in the hands of a third, external person and over whom one believes one has no influence: “those guys up there”, “our society”, “God”, “the KGB/the CIA”, “the market” – “he is simply unable to free himself from his parents’ control”. Problem-stabilizing interaction All those involved behave as if there is no way out of the problem or as if the solution to it lies solely in the hands of some other person. Here the power of descriptions shows its significance: to describe something in a way that there is no solution or only one single way limits the capacity of finding creative approaches. In a paradox way, the descriptions surrounding the problem may have become the

A systemic understanding of “problems”39

problem, and sometimes we find problem-stabilizing, long-term, symmetrical and complementary relationship constellations, which alternately reinforce and stabilize each other.

3.4 Consequences for how to proceed in systemic consultation If a problem is no longer perceived and defined as an “object” but rather a social construction, questions about when “it” arose and who might be “the one” responsible are not necessary any more. Instead of asking “what is it”-questions, it might be of interest to ask “who describes it”-questions: find differences in the way the problem is described by different members of a problem system (“Who sees it more/less difficult, serious, dangerous?”; “Who would be the one who might rather tend to see options and opportunities in what is described as problem?”; “Who is most/least alarmed and why?” …). Those differences may include variations in the way the problem is described in terms of perspectives, problem presentations, approaches to problem-solving and prognosis. Continual efforts are made to introduce reflectivity into the consultation, meaning that the members are encouraged to question their own preconceptions and problem descriptions; to reflect on other possible ways to perceive the “reality” of the problem and to consider alternative outcomes to the number of different positions. It is important to realize that not only problems are social constructions: any progress made only comes into being if it becomes the subject of communication. Progress only becomes real if someone becomes aware of it and shares their observation with others (Furman & Ahola, 1992). The following structure may be helpful in deconstructing a problem as it is described by the other person (instead of falling into a “problem-trance”). First, form a triad. A begins by describing a problem in a fixed manner: this is the problem (the person, the context, etc.). B asks questions that introduce differences into A’s description. C observes the impact of the questions and can support B if required.

40

Profiling systemic intervention

1. Consultation Context Who was most interested in attending this session? Who was the second most interested and who was the least interested (of those present and absent). What are the participants’ expectations of the session? What must happen for you/him/her to be satisfied or disappointed? (see also chapter 1.2 and 2) 2. Perspectives Who is involved in defining the problem? Are there any other opinions? Does everyone agree that this can be considered a problem? Is there anyone who sees the problem differently or perhaps as being less important/worse than you do? If someone were to see the identified problem as an opportunity, too, how would he/she describe this opportunity? Which of the members of the problem system would be the one to at least tend to think in that direction? Hypothetical perspectives, too, might be of interest: if your father were still alive, how would he describe the problem? What would the colleague in question say if he heard you say that? 3. Timing Who was the first to call it a problem? In what situation did it first crop up as a problem? What changes were in progress at the time or had been completed? Why have you decided on consultation at this point instead of doing so six months ago? How do you think significant observers would have described the problem differently at that time? How do you think you would describe it in, let’s say, one year’s time? 4. Intensity Who is most/least worried? How would you estimate the stress factor for yourself on a scale of 1 to 10 and how do you think other important protagonists would rate the pressure on that scale? How do you explain the differences? How serious does your father/spouse/boss etc. consider the problem to be? What would the various protagonists describe as being worst thing from their perspective if the problem were to continue as it is?

A systemic understanding of “problems”41

5. Problem definition Who explains the problem in what way? How do you understand the differences (or their absence)? If you were to choose a different explanation (e. g. “laziness” instead of “illness”), how would that change the “problem”? 6. Exceptions Are there times when you (or another person) are able to deal successfully with the problem? When did the problem last fail to arise even though one would have been expected it to? How do you explain this? What skills do you or others have to make this possible? 7. Approaches to solving the problem and prognosis What do you (or what does someone else) believe must be done in order to solve the problem? Who tends to be more optimistic/pessimistic? The “miracle question”: if during the night, whatever the problem was, it miraculously disappeared, who would be likely to notice it first and in what way the following day? In connection with this question, the next day(s) can be discussed step by step using this idea of the “miracle”: who would act in what situation differently, how would it affect relationships with the problem-bearer or between other individuals (“So if the pressure from the teacher lessened as your child attended school regularly, how would that affect the marital relationship?”) etc. What might happen if the problem is not resolved over a prolonged period of time? How would this affect you/your relationships? In our team discussion we came up with a totally crazy idea: assuming you were to do … (something out of the ordinary), what would happen?

4

Genograms, organigrams, system diagrams

There are various methods that allow us to gain a clear image of the complex information relating to social systems. Most often, a form of pictorial language is used in which certain symbols have become standard (von Schlippe & Schweitzer 2012, p. 228 f., McGoldrick et al. 1999): men are represented by squares and women by circles (some say: as in real life …). Connecting lines represent relatives and dotted lines represent less binding relationships.

4.1 Genogram

FC = Family with one son, a daughter, a pair of identical twins and a pair of fraternal twins as well as a foster child (FC; an adopted child would be marked as AC with a continuous line).

Figure 5: A genogram of a family

Important information can be included in the diagram, depending how much time is spent on each member, including: ȤȤ family name, first name, age, date of birth/death, professions, religious affiliation ȤȤ date of marriage, first contact, separation and divorce ȤȤ places of residence, family origin, change of residency, repatriation, etc. ȤȤ serious illness and symptoms, cause of death ȤȤ founding or loss of companies, farms, building a house, etc.

Genograms, organigrams, system diagrams43

So called “soft information” can also be of interest, such as: ȤȤ three characteristics attributed to the person ȤȤ a word/sentence to mark the specific atmosphere of a family or a part of it (e. g. a good sense of humor in sister’s family) ȤȤ an indication of particular conflict issues in the family/between members (e. g. jealousy) ȤȤ taboos and “blank spots”: which issues, which individuals are not to be mentioned, about whom there is little information? What events are veiled? ȤȤ conflict between individuals (indicated by a flash symbol) or particular affinity (a large number of connecting lines). The genogram is not meant as a diagnostic tool but rather as a means of initiating real-time discussion and conversation. It is also helpful when using language is more difficult, as when working with children and migrants (cf. von Schlippe et al., 2003): Quote In Turkish there are three words for the word “aunt”: the father’s sister is referred to using a different word from the mother’s, and there is a different word again when referring to an aunt by marriage. It is not necessary to go into detailed explanation here because pointing to the genogram will let everyone know who the person in question is (von Schlippe et al., 2003, p. 107, translated by the authors). Individuals’ positions become quite clear, misunderstanding can be avoided, and circular questioning can be supported (“What would the person there say to this person here if they were asked about x or y”?). Many variations are possible, such as color-coding the different parts of the genogram or supplementing particular family events, influences or trans-generational patterns. Family photographs may add more life to the “squares” and “circles”. The most important part is always the stories that fill the genogram as they form the backdrop to a new understanding of the present. In family consultation, the genogram is most often drawn up together with the person seeking advice, early on in consultation.

44

Profiling systemic intervention

Pre-designed computer programs are available (e. g. from www. stachowske.de).

4.2 Organigram Organizational consulting tends to rely on a formal chart of the hierarchy, the basis for an organigram. Many companies already have one in-house, otherwise drawing up this tool is one of the first steps in the consulting process. The organigram describes the structures in the decision-making and organizational processes. Employees or departments at the same level are placed side by side. In the case of larger corporations, only top management may be listed. Staff members (e. g. a personal assistant) are often not officially included, although we recommend this practice. Similar to the genogram, the organigram helps to initiate meaningful discourse related to work relationships, in which of course personal assistants frequently play a significant role. The conversational context is likely to lead to the much more interesting “informal organigram”. In this way, one can distinguish between a superficial and an in-depth structure (von Schlippe & Schweit­zer, 2012, p. 234 f.). This mirrors the patterns in a relationship, and defining these is often an integral part – if not the core – of the consultation process (cf. the paragraph below on system diagrams). While working on the differences between formal and informal organigrams, it is possible to develop hypotheses related to coalition structures and power issues within the organization. Questions that can be asked of the organigram: ȤȤ Who holds what formal position? Who might hold what informal position? Who fills informal leadership positions? Who is at the epicenter of the information loop? In whose office do the coffee breaks usually take place, etc.? ȤȤ Who has been part of the system for how long? (this might indicate a kind of informal hierarchy). ȤȤ Where are conflict areas, coalitions and alliances to be identified? ȤȤ Are there any “ghosts” to find, e. g. individuals who still “belong” to the system although they left long ago, for example a well-liked

Genograms, organigrams, system diagrams45

founder of the company or a former CEO against whose nimbus the successor must prove him/herself (Davis & Harveston, 1999). ȤȤ Are there any “skeletons in the closet”? What were the events leading to fateful connections between people? Are there cases of individuals holding certain positions by dint of others’ efforts or by exploiting others, for example? If so, who are they? ȤȤ Differences in pay scales among the management team, between full-time and part-time employees, salary levels, etc.: What kind of work is honored more and what kind less?

4.3  System diagrams Genograms and organigrams can evolve into the basis for system diagrams that use an accepted form of “shorthand” (from structural family therapy). Over time, these have proved useful in providing a rough draft of initial hypotheses, which are then compiled at the end of a family consultation session. Under no circumstances is this outline to be misinterpreted as a fixable “system diagnosis”. The following elements of the system can be integrated, according to the individuals who are considered significant to the problem system: ȤȤ A relationship is labeled an alliance (symbol: =========) if it is close but not directed against a third party. ȤȤ A coalition (symbol: ), on the other hand, describes a bond (often secret), between two parties against a third one, crossing two generations/hierarchical levels. ȤȤ Most often, the coalition branches off into open (--| |--) or hidden (---| |---) conflict. Often another person belonging to a different generation or level is involved in the conflict (a child positioned between parents, an employee between his/her superior and representatives). This constellation is referred to as a triadic constellation. The conflict is considered hidden if an observer notes a number of clues that indicate a conflict (incongruent forms of communication, overtones, etc.), whereas the participants either do not explicitly mention any conflict or else deny it outright. ȤȤ The boundaries between individuals can be marked, too. A rigid boundary between two individuals may be indicated by an unbro-

46

Profiling systemic intervention

ken line. Flexible boundaries and channels of communication can be indicated by a perforated line, and a diffuse relationship is characterized by a dotted line.

5

Systemic questioning

Questions are a core element of systemic intervention. A closer look at the seemingly harmless method of questioning reveals it to be a form of intervention that should not be underestimated. In line with the axiom that it is “impossible not to communicate” (Watz­ lawick et al., 1967), one cannot ask questions without prompting the recipient to generate his/her own ideas in response.

5.1 Consultation as an “engaged exchange of descriptions of reality” Schmidt (1985) describes systemic consultation as a form of circular hypnotherapy: the questions themselves convey implied messages and since, in many cases, several people are involved in the session, the effect of the questions is enhanced: not only is the person questioned but everyone else involved in the process gains new information, too (see Haley, 1973). Both the consultant and the client are constantly concerned with the way reality is perceived. This goes along with the epistemological position of constructivism and social constructionism mentioned earlier. “Reality” is seen as a joint social construction of the members of a system. Several systemic interventions address this, and it is explicitly dealt with in systemic questioning. The questions are anything but harmless requests for information. Although they may appear “weak” in the sense that they are more readily accepted than a request or, for that matter a command, questions tend to direct attention and, in so doing, contribute decisively to how an exchange develops. Example The German philosopher Matthias Varga von Kibéd offers a descriptive example of this in one of his presentations: “Had anyone in this room noticed the absence of a pink kangaroo before I called your attention

48

Profiling systemic intervention

to that fact?” Obviously not, however, everybody’s focus is momentarily diverted to this (im)possibility before he/she can begin to answer the question!

Each question the consultant poses implicitly contains an offer of how to perceive reality or how reality can be circumscribed. Seen from this perspective, it becomes evident that systemic questions (see below) are not only meant as information-gathering tools, but are in fact geared towards intervening in the family’s or the organization’s common belief system. Example A mother arrives at the consultation session and presents her view of reality with the words: “My son is a bad boy!” The consultant’s response, “What is it that your son does that you call bad?” offers a new image. The issue in question is the boy’s “behavior”, and more than this, it is “the boy’s behavior as perceived by someone else” and not a trait or an unchangeable quality (there is definitely a difference in saying “he is red” or “he is bad”). Further questioning may initiate a progressive deconstruction of this trait description: “In what situations does your son exhibit this behavior?” Perhaps the behavior occurs only at certain times – what a difference in comparison to a ‘100 %-badboy’! The mother could easily reject this offer: “He is always bad!”, thereby refusing any of the offers of a different description of reality. But maybe she says: “Well, my son always behaves this way!” She refuses the idea that the boy’s behavior depends on the situation but she accepts the suggested assumption that it’s a behavior instead of an invariant character trait. It would now be possible to continue with the following question: “Would you say that it was after or before the death of his grandmother that your son decided to behave ‘badly’?” or: “What person in your family is most upset by this?” (The implicit offer then is: “bad” is a form of decision, for which there might be reasons to be found. These are connected to relationships, within which there is differentiation). “Assuming your son decided to behave less ‘disagreeably’, would you and your husband quarrel more or less?” (Assumption: instead of acting “badly” we can see the behavior as “disagreeable” – this always includes an observer who declares a behavior

Systemic questioning49

as such; and this process of observing and declaring may possibly be related to the parents’ relationship). “If I were to ask you to cause your son to act ‘disagreeably’ right now, would you know how to do that?” (The assumption offered here: there are certain contextual conditions for “disagreeable” behavior that are at least partially in the mother’s hands), etc. (von Schlippe et al., 1998, p. 71).

Many systemic questions allow a kind of “mind-jogging” (Herwig-Lempp, 2013) as they offer different options as to how reality might be described differently – without preferring the one and only a “single right” interpretation. Every question contains a number of hidden suggestions as to how to perceive reality. In this way they may play a significant role in the deconstruction of habituated description patterns in a system. In the following section we will deal with the subject of “initial questions”, since the nature of the question and how it is asked may determine the further course of the exchange. Initial questions Earlier we referred to the importance of a framework and the role it plays in building the relationship, an aspect that is particularly important at the beginning of the session. If each person addresses another and if each statement contains an implicit offer of how to perceive reality, then the different implications within the exchange are bound to be of interest. Two aspects will be mentioned here. One is that we can differentiate between “opening” and “closing” questions (Herwig-Lempp, 2013, p. 66 f.). A question like: “Did you tell him your thoughts?” allows only a “yes” or “no”, whereas: “What did you do then?” leaves more space for choice. The second is to be aware that any question conveys a considerable portion of “epistemology”. You might discuss questions such as: “When did the illness show up first?”, “What is your problem?”, “Why are you depressive?” etc. and try to analyze the implicit world view of the person asking the question. We have included possible opening questions and their implications (according to Hargens, 2004, p. 41 ff., in a slightly abridged and task-focused version):

50

Profiling systemic intervention

ȤȤ How have you been doing since you called for an appointment with us? This is a very open and expansive question that invites a number of multi-faceted answers. Precisely because the question isn’t specific, it opens enough space to answer in different directions. ȤȤ What can we do for you today? This question invites an answer in the direction of possible contracting (see chapter 2) while sidestepping the assumption that it must be clear why and at what point someone seeks help through consultation. Clients reported later that they liked and remembered this question in particular (“The decision of what to answer, where I wanted to go and what I was really after was left up to me”). They also remembered what they disliked about the question (“I had a difficult time deciding what it was that you might can do for me”). ȤȤ What question would you like to be asked first today? What would you like to talk to us about today? What is the first question we must ask so that you can feel confident that today’s session is productive/will get off to a good start and will continue to move in a constructive direction? Do you have any ideas about what could or should happen here today? All of these questions aim to determine the direction in which a person wishes to progress. Furthermore, they serve to orient the client toward the topic they would like to speak about and what they are prepared to answer. ȤȤ Has anything positive happened since you called? What has changed in some positive sense since you called us? Which member of your family has felt better since you called? Each of these questions emphasizes positive events – naming these may help to develop ideas about where the process should be directed. They address exceptions or times when the problem appeared less threatening or stressful without downplaying it: on the contrary, they add positive aspects and possibilities to the negative description of the “problem”. ȤȤ When we finish our session in approximately an hour, what would have to have changed/happened for you in order for the session to have been useful/helpful/good?

Systemic questioning51

These questions are geared toward stimulating ideas about what is expected and helpful and making them more accessible. Moreover, they are oriented more towards conducive behavior and the notion that the efforts invested will lead to an outcome. ȤȤ What should happen today if we were to assume this was going to be the last session? De Shazer (1988) claims that in order for the process to be successfully concluded, concrete and specific behavior must be evident. It is helpful to ask this question in order to enter the realm of a “life after”. The question is particularly effective if a person believes the consultation involves a long-term commitment or for candidates who did not volunteer to participate but were earmarked for a coaching session. ȤȤ If your problem were solved, what would be noticeably different about you? This question is a slight deviation from those commonly used in solution-oriented approaches. As an opening question, it can be useful in orienting the person toward a solution in terms of a concrete concept. ȤȤ What have you done to make yourself feel good since you called us? What do you expect of us today? What do you expect of yourself today? These questions introduce the assumption that “doing oneself good” may be a good idea. They emphasize possible contributions of the participants toward a positive outcome of the session.

5.2  Forms of systemic discourse There are a number of different forms of systemic questioning techniques. The best known of these is circular questioning (sometimes called “triadic questioning”) and this is the one most often associated with systemic question types (Selvini Palazzoli et al., 1980b). Here, one person is asked questions about another person’s behavior or motives while he/she is present: “Mrs. Miller, what do you think your husband feels when the children quarrel?” The main idea in using a circular questioning technique is that one way of seeing any behavior exhibited within a social system is as communication. Behavior,

52

Profiling systemic intervention

symptoms and expressions of feelings of course express the motives of a person but they also play a role in defining relationships – a person may show her sadness and communicate an inner process but she also expresses her relation to the other party (e. g.: ‘It’s you who made me sad!’). Hence, it may be more interesting to find out the underlying meaning in the communicated message than to ask probing questions about the person’s feelings (“What do you think your mother feels like when she sees your father crying?” generates different information than asking the father why he is crying). Consequently, in questions centered on symptoms, it is important that each family member understands what is being asked, what expectations and observations are involved in the question and how the person reacts in response. “A question can be direct: ‘How do you feel?’ We avoid this, instead asking someone else: ‘How do you think your sister feels?’ A feeling is a message to someone else. Thus we ask the receiver of the message, not the sender. The same goes for a relationship: we ask the other person: ‘How do you feel about this relationship?’ A relationship also conveys a message to someone else.” (Cecchin quoted by von Schlippe & Kriz, 1987, p. 39). The following drawings by von Schlippe & Schweitzer (2012, p. 252 ff.) may illustrate this. Helmut is crying:

Systemic questioning53

Usually, we ask the following: “Why are you crying?” “What are you feeling?”

Consultant

Client

A perspective of this nature of course is important. Feelings can be perceived and honored as an expression of a person’s being. However, the term “expression” contains more: feelings are always “ex-pressed” and can therefore be understood as a message from one person to another:

Helmut is crying. Hannelore is aware of this and Helmut knows that Hannelore is aware of it. This communicative element is not taken into consideration in the question that would usually be asked. A different question is needed for this:

54

Profiling systemic intervention

“Helmut, what do you think it means to Hanne­ lore when you cry?”

And there is always a third party observing the relationship between two others: “Stefan, how do you think your mother feels when she sees your father crying?”

Stefan

This circular technique generates new information in the system: Helmut receives information about the possible meaning of his crying to Hannelore, while Hannelore receives information about Helmut’s possible intentions, and both get feedback regarding their relationship from Stefan’s point of view. This approach engenders new perspectives and thought processes. Collecting information in this way targets patterns rather than objects. A symptom, problem or illness are not objects, but processes that comprise interaction and communication among different individuals:

Systemic questioning55

ȤȤ What is it that your colleague does that you refer to as a “lack of leadership?” How would he describe and explain his behaviour? ȤȤ And what does your co-worker do when your colleague acts in this way? ȤȤ What is the secretary’s reaction? ȤȤ In what way exactly does your colleague behave differently when he is described by your companion as “competent?” Questions asked in this manner dilute labels such as “ill”, “bad”, “an incompetent leader” (Simon & Weber, 1988) and allow forms of behavior to emerge that can be placed in context within the relationship: ȤȤ Who considers what the CEO does to be a problem? ȤȤ Who does this upset most? Who else does it upset? (etc.) ȤȤ Who is the first in the company to notice what his/her colleague defines as the problem? A relationship, too, can be seen as a message toward a third party. So it may be of interest to ask how one family member perceives the relationship between the other two. This might also be called “gossiping about those present”. ȤȤ How do you think your colleague assesses the relationship between you and your supervisor? Do you think your secretary sees this in a similar light or completely differently? ȤȤ Assuming your colleague spoke of a situation in which she had done an exceptionally good job, what would she be likely to say? ȤȤ What would you say how your mother perceives the relationship between your father and her mother? In this way, information is gathered and made visible. A question can hardly be distinguished from an intervention. Relationship patterns become visible without becoming involved in discussions of right or wrong: it’s simply a matter of perspective! In addition, each circular question invites the person asked to adopt an “outsider perspective”, encouraging clients to distance themselves from their habituated pattern of describing “reality”. Moreover in their answers, family members provide each other indirectly with feedback and in

56

Profiling systemic intervention

so doing reveal their assumptions about each other (their “expectation-expectations”). Some people suffer extreme anguish, as Laing et al. (1966) note, because they insist on attributing to others a much greater facility in knowing what they feel than actually applies. Here the circular questioning technique can provide relief by airing misunderstanding about each other. Table: Questions don’t collect but rather create information “Here are some questions to help you recognize what you know and believe: –– What is the most important thing in life? (Trust the first thing that comes to your mind). –– What is the purpose of life? What is the purpose of your life? … –– What is the meaning of relationships, of families? What is your responsibility towards others? –– Why do relationships change? How much can people change? How do we know when change is necessary? –– What are the limits of relationships? When should relationships end? … –– What does it mean to love someone or something? –– What should parents most teach their children? What are the limits of parent’s responsibility, involvement? –– What is the role of emotions in your life? –– What is the purpose of work? –– How much of our life is controlled by the past? Big questions that you may or not have ready answers to. As you think about them, other questions come to mind … It’s not the content of the questions themselves that is important so much as the questioning process itself.” (Taibbi, 2007, p. 11).

Systemic questioning57

5.3  Questions that reveal differences Some types of circular questions prove to be especially helpful in generating and revealing differences. Classification questions Classification questions are especially effective in bringing differences of perception and relationships into focus by creating an order of priorities: ȤȤ Which manager in your company receives the most respect? What do you think is the reason for this? ȤȤ Assuming someone in this department was to quit his/her job, who would be the first to do so? ȤȤ Who was most optimistic about coming here today? Who was most skeptical? Questions asking for a percentage rating Questions asking for a percentage rating (“Give me a percentage rating as to how far you feel this is a matter of x or y?”) invite clients to differentiate clearly between many-layered ideas, convictions, moods and opinions. Those questions initially serve to clarify ambivalence, ambiguous impulses within individuals and social systems, and they may “dilute” these issues in the further course of the session. ȤȤ What percentage of your colleague’s behavior do you attribute to a kind of dysfunction, and what percentage to just an indication of his/her life style? If you continued to consider his/her behavior as dysfunctional, would this render your relationship with this person easier or more complicated? More pleasant or hopeless? And if you just saw it as being more than 50 % a lifestyle issue, how would this change your relationship towards him? ȤȤ What percentage rating would you give to the team workflow being smooth and well organized? How do you think the department head would answer this question? How do you explain the difference? ȤȤ You mention that it is equally important for both of you to be here today. Taking a closer look, for whom would it be just a lit-

58

Profiling systemic intervention

tle more important, who might say 51 % and who would be more likely to say 49 %? Questions of agreement Questions of agreement (“Do you see it similar or differently?”) might be put after many of the questions above. They provide insight as to “Who is allied with whom?” and what coalitions exist. On the other hand, they allow someone who has been at the center of a triadic questioning process for prolonged period to take a stance. ȤȤ Do you see the issue in the same way your colleague does? Where would you tend to disagree? ȤȤ Might it be possible that someone sees what you just described in an entirely different way? Who could this person be and how might he/she describe the situation? ȤȤ The CEO of the company believes that the reason for the present difficulties is a slow economy while the personnel board blames management. What position do you think the staff council/the supervisory board is likely to take? Comparison of subsystems A third party may be invited to observe and compare the intensity between different dyadic and triadic relationships. The answers obtained address the issue of “who gets along better with whom” more directly than formulating questions to obtain agreement. ȤȤ How do you see this as the in-house consultant: is the working relationship between colleagues A and B closer than between A and C or B and C? ȤȤ How do you see the situation as a church elder: does the parish priest sympathize more with the traditionally-minded church members or with the more modern members?

These kinds of questions are especially important in advancing systems in which any kind of diversity causes anxiety. They convey that differences and changes are acceptable, to be expected and in fact self-evident. With the help of these questions, supposedly taboo issues can be addressed relatively easily since one is merely asking and not insinuating. Consequently, there is no need to suffer endless

Systemic questioning59

hesitation before the participant summons the courage to address the issue of his or her own accord. Instead, suggestions, hypotheses, speculation, assumptions and intuition can be integrated into such questions on the spur of the moment.

5.4  Constructing reality and potentiality In order for a system to change, it will need two types of information from its internal and external relationships: information about what is and what could be. Accordingly, we differentiate between constructs of reality and constructs of potentiality. The former focuses on bringing the context to the surface and the latter strives to bring new options into perspective. Being adept at switching from one scenario to another is key to the art of systemic interviewing. I. Questions geared toward the reality construction clarify existing relationship patterns. 1. Questions pertaining to the process of establishing the assignment or “contracting” (see chapter 2) Asking about the initiator –– Whose idea was it to initiate the contact? –– What does he/she want to have happen here? –– Why is this particular client seeking my advice and not someone else’s and why at this particular time? Exploring expectations –– Who wants what from whom in this situation? –– Who is optimistic and who is more skeptical? –– What must I (we) do to fulfill the expectations? –– What must I (we) do to be unsuccessful? 2. Questions pertaining to the problem Opening the problem package –– What forms of behavior characterize the problem? –– To whom is this problematic behavior shown? To whom is it not shown? –– Under what circumstances is this behavior exhibited? And when is it not exhibited? –– How would you be able to tell that the problem had been solved?

60

Profiling systemic intervention

Exploring problem descriptions –– Who was the first to refer to the issue as a problem? –– Who would be the first to deny that this is a problem? –– What exactly does Dr. X mean when he/she refers to a “behavioral dysfunction”? Exploring the “dance around the problem” until a causal loop becomes evident –– Who reacts most to the problematic behavior? Who reacts less? Who is upset by it and who isn’t? –– How do others react to it? –– How does the “problem child” react to the reactions of others? –– How do the others react to the “problem child’s” reactions? Exploring explanations for the problem –– How do you explain the problem’s origin? –– How do you explain that it occurs at certain times and not at others? –– What consequences do these explanations have? Exploring the significance of the problem for the relationship –– What changed in the relationship when the problem began? –– What would change in the relationship if the problem were to disappear? II. Questions based on potentialities and relationship options yet to be realized. 1. Solution-oriented questions (improvement questions) Questions asking about exceptions to the problem –– How frequently (how long and when) did the problem not occur? –– What did you and others do differently during this time? –– How did you manage to avoid the problem during this time? Questions about resources –– What would you like to remain unchanged in your life? –– What are you good at, what do you enjoy doing, etc. –– What must occur for you to be able to do more of the above? How might X (partner, colleague, boss, etc.) answer that question? The miracle question –– Imagine a miracle has happened overnight and the problem is blown away: what would be the first thing you would do differently the morning after? And after that? –– Who would notice it first, whom would it surprise most/least? –– What would you miss most in your life if the problem suddenly disappeared?

Systemic questioning61

2. Problem-oriented questions (questions on how to worsen the situation) –– What would you have to do to hold on to the problem? To internalize it? To exacerbate it? What could I/we do to support you here? –– What would you have to do to make yourself extremely unhappy if this was what you wanted? –– How could others help you to do this? How could others offer to make you feel miserable? 3. A combination of solution-oriented and problem-oriented questions Questions exploring the usefulness of holding on to the problem (temporarily) –– What need would it serve to own the problem a bit longer, or to “invite it back” from time to time? –– What would get worse if the problem disappeared? Future time plans –– How long do you intend to keep your problem in your personal space? –– When do you think you’ll get rid of it? –– When would be too early to get rid of it? Questions regarding a “conscious relapse” –– If you had long since distanced yourself from your problem but wished to bring it up again, how could you go about doing this? As “if” questions –– If you wanted just to pretend to others that your problem had returned although it no longer existed, what would you have to do? –– Would others notice if your problem had actually returned or if you were just pretending?

III. Different areas in which to ask questions Questions about reality (how things “are”) and potentiality (how things might be or become) can be asked about a vast variety of issues and themes. The next sections describe different ways to arrange questioning around diverse topics.

62

Profiling systemic intervention

The contract within its context Clarifying the contract involves shedding light on the manifold and often contradictory expectations and uncovering the explicit and, most importantly, the often unspoken contracts (hidden agendas) held by individuals participating in a systemic consultation process. Often, it is not so much a question of what participants contribute but of issues that are actually initiated by those who are not present! For example, a CEO asks an employee to attend a coaching session within as part of a training program. Or the head of HR sends two department heads or personal assistants who do not get along with each other to a “communication seminar” held by the in-house department for organizational development. The usual case is that clients’ expectations differ and often conflict with those of the individuals who initiated the measures, who may or may not be present. Such discrepancies must be brought to light and dealt with early on, otherwise the consultant may be faced with an assignment or contract he/she is incapable of fulfilling (cf. chapter 2). Making sure everyone understands the purpose and scope of the cooperation is essential at the beginning of every session. Taking time out to “clear the air” may also be necessary during the course of the coaching process when a situation gets out of hand, an issue needs clarification or if a decision must be taken to end the session. Exploring the background context The role played in the session by individuals who indirectly initiated it has already been discussed, in particular the role of those who sent (more or less voluntary) participants to the session (so called “referral agents”). Initially it was believed that the presence of these referral agents could prove to be a distraction or irritant (Selvini Palazzoli et al., 1986). However, if one proceeds from the premise that a priority in systemic consultation is to create and sustain collaborative relationships, it is easier to see the referral agents as allies in achieving workable results or at least to work towards winning them over. The questions below attempt to clarify the background context: ȤȤ Whose idea was it to establish the cooperation? ȤȤ What does the referral agent hope to achieve by initiating a consultation?

Systemic questioning63

ȤȤ What must happen here for the referral agent to say that the session was worthwhile or not worthwhile? ȤȤ Why did the referral agent send you in particular and why specifically to me? The answers to these questions clarify whether the participant was motivated to attend the session by him/herself or whether he/she was advised to participate. They also shed light on particular attitudes and possible background factors relating to the systemic consultation session. Furthermore, the questions provide information about the function of systemic consultation as it relates to the relationship between clients and other employers/referral agents and what services are actually being requested. Having this information allows the coach to avoid wasting time on unnecessary research and committing to a misdirected goal. Example A specialized service provider in a large organization is granted the coaching measure he has been wanting for a long time. Management, however, wants the coaching session to help to secure and speed up an organizational reform that the majority of specialized service employees reject. The coach calls an initial meeting with representatives from management to find out to what extent the goals of both management and specialized service providers are compatible or at odds with each other. As it turns out, management was more interested in satisfying the employees’ wishes than in pursuing their own goals related to the coaching session. However, financing the measure could only be justified within the organization as a whole if it were backed up by an official goal statement. Everyone was able to live with that.

Exploring participants’ expectations Once the context in which the consultation is to take place has been clarified, the participants’ expectations become the center of attention as to how far they converge. Often, expectations differ considerably: one person expects that the conflict will be aired and he/she can be reassured that work flow processes will be improved in the department; another might, in contrast, want to talk about work

64

Profiling systemic intervention

morale or want support on his/her personal issue with the secretary, who, for her part, expresses no interests of her own and wants everything to continue as before: “Everything was just fine. Why do we have to make a big fuss about things?” Or, a father wants to tackle the issue of his son’s succession to the family-owned company. The mother, on the other hand, would like to see father and son just being able to speak to one another for a start, while the son wants nothing more than to escape from a highly stressful situation, etc. The following circular questions may help to clarify such different expectations: ȤȤ What do you think your supervisor expects from this discussion? ȤȤ Do you think your and your secretary’s wishes are compatible? How do they differ? ȤȤ What must I do today to meet your son’s expectations? What must I do to render this discussion entirely pointless, from your son’s point of view? The problem in context Having clarified both the referral agent’s and the participants’ expectations, the actual problem can be approached. “Unpack the problem package” General descriptions of the problem should first of all be differentiated in order to narrow down the problem and make it easier to work on. We recommend establishing what forms of behavior lead to the problem and how it can be described from the participants’ perspective. Exploring the descriptions related to the problem As mentioned above, systemic work tries to deconstruct the problem as being a “thing” that exists and turn it into a play of perspectives (see chapter 3). The goal then is to work together with the individuals seeking advice to find differences in how various people see the problem. The classification questions asked earlier (who more/who less?) as well as questions referring to percentage can be helpful here.

Systemic questioning65

Explore the “dance” around the problem Having analyzed the problematic behavior within specific contexts in which it is embedded, the chains of interactions may now be explored that keep a “problem” going. Although it is initially necessary to approach the situation from one angle, the overall goal is ultimately to clarify how each one of the participants simultaneously assumes the role of “perpetrator” and “victim” in those repetitive cycles (circular causality). Here too, the issue revolves around finding out the differences and the intensity in terms of how individuals deal with problematic issues: Who reacts more strongly? Who doesn’t react at all? Who feels bothered? Who doesn’t? And the way others respond to those reactions is of further interest. ȤȤ Do your colleagues also disapprove of the way you dress or only your customers? ȤȤ When you behave this way, who is first to become angry? How do you understand the fact that X doesn’t show anger at all while Y is so furious at the same time? ȤȤ The junior manager is often out of the office. Who is bothered by this and who is quite happy about it? And when the father shows his rage, what does the book-keeper do? ȤȤ Does your employee tend to show more understanding, anxiety or anger when you arrive at work late on a regular basis? And how do you react to this? What does he/she do then? ȤȤ Is your colleague more or less motivated when you threaten to lay him/her off? And how does the secretary comment on this? And what does your colleague do in response?

Having described the reaction of the others in more detail, one can return to the other side of the cycle, namely to the reaction of the person who has been identified as the “problem host” to the reaction of the others: ȤȤ If your employee frequently shows signs of anxiety, and the department head reacts in that protecting way that you don’t like: What do you do in response? What are the subsequent effects of your behavior on them? Are you content with this effect? ȤȤ You say you threaten to lay off your employee constantly and he/ she continues to put as little effort into his/her work as before.

66

Profiling systemic intervention

How do you react to this? What would happen if you came up with a new approach to deal with the situation? What if you continued to threaten? What would the response be and who would be most astonished about you? The decisive factor in these questions is that they allow the participants to perceive themselves as part of an ongoing cycle and, more importantly, the consequences of their actions become clear in their responses. Exploring explanations of the problem Ideas related to the interaction cycle are of similar importance, especially the kind used by participants to assign meaning to the problem. Each explanation can either extend or limit the scope of possible solutions to the problem. It is, therefore, quite interesting to see who has what explanations of the problem, what the different perspectives are and, in turn, what consequences these explanations have. ȤȤ How do you explain the fact that your boss drinks continuously? Do you think he would come up with a similar explanation? Who would be closer to yours, who to his? ȤȤ Assuming there is a connection between the rebellious behavior of your trainee and the management’s decision to tighten work safety regulations, how could I understand your theory? Who else would share this idea, who would strongly oppose it? How do you understand the differences? Exploring the problem’s significance in terms of relationships Questions that link the beginning and the (hypothetical) end of the problem to changes in the members’ relationship may help understand the bearing the problem has on a relationship. In systemic work, symptoms are often seen as connected to the lifecycle of a system. Cyclical questions can help us understand the changes that occur under specific circumstances. ȤȤ Did you understand your employees better before or after the merger?

Systemic questioning67

ȤȤ Was the problem that you describe more apparent before the elder sister left home or was it less than it is today? Do you see a connection? One can also ask questions that compare behavior in both the absence and presence of certain individuals or events that are connected to their presence. ȤȤ Is the animosity between you and the team stronger when the department head is present or when he’s absent? ȤȤ How does your daughter behave differently when the grandfather is at home in comparison to when the grandmother is present? And when you and your mother start to argue, what does she do? If father had the chance to see this, do you think that maybe he would spark off a kind of loyalty conflict in your daughter? The question as to what changes would occur in the relationships if the problem were to disappear can be just as interesting. More questions about constructing potentialities Questions may sharpen the sense of an awareness of options. Consultants frequently express empathy toward the suffering experienced by their conversation partners. But couldn’t they be expected to express just as much empathy toward the solutions that these individuals have reached and, above all, toward the further options, choices, and opportunities that might arise? One of the core demands of systemic practices is formulated by von Foerster (according to Pakman, 2003, p. 117): “We need to act to increase the number of choices”, and that’s the point when questions about constructing potentialities come into play. These questions make it possible to introduce creative ideas in a circular way. Since a system cannot be forced into coming up with new solutions, this type of question can offer fresher and more optimistic ways of approaching the issue. The results need not be realistic or even feasible. In any case, they add another element: “Assuming that …”, “Provided that …”, “What if …” and elaborate on the options: “Who would then react and how?” Also, it is possible to easily step back since it

68

Profiling systemic intervention

was “merely a question” and not a suggestion, an interpretation, or a task to be completed. Thus questions permit a non-threatening trial run allowing a counter reaction in response to a fear of change. Posing hypothetical questions also allows for more “spunkiness” than usual. The consultant/coach creates a form of non-committal “as-if reality” while subtly guiding attention in a constructive direction. ȤȤ Imagine for a moment that your employee’s decision to feel helpless and incapable were a form of protest – what would his/her protest be directed against in all likelihood? ȤȤ Assuming your senior chief decided to initiate an entirely new project – a project that no one in the company had previously thought of – who would he/she choose to join a creative team to start the planning? ȤȤ Assuming your colleague decided to collect all the problems of the past in a large envelope, seal it and place it in a drawer, would you get along better or worse than now? And who would maybe the first to open that drawer again? Questions pertaining to constructing potentialities may also probe the potential meaning of the symptoms, reframe the problem and test alternatives all at the same time. Hypothetically, the coach/consultant’s role could also be challenged: ȤȤ Assuming there were no such thing as a consultant (or coaching, therapy, and consultation suddenly became illegal), what would you do to solve your problem? ȤȤ Assuming we informed you that your problem couldn’t be solved by any means, how would you react to this information? How would your husband react? Another form of hypothetical questioning is to project into the future (so-called feed-forward): ȤȤ Imagine for a moment that you are five years into the future: Which of your colleagues will have left the company? How would the parting have been? For whom would it have been the most difficult? ȤȤ What will your life be like once your daughter has assumed management of the company?

Systemic questioning69

Moreover, hypothetical questions can even refer to events that are virtually impossible. These so-called “existential” questions (Boscolo et al., 1987) are conducive to unveiling taboo issues and hidden fantasies in families: ȤȤ What would the conflict over the succession to the family business look like if you had been born a girl instead of a boy? Would you be dealing with different issues? In what way would your relationship to your father/mother be different? ȤȤ Imagine for a moment that your preferred general manager had never been hired, what would the department be like today? Furthermore, thoughts about the past can be hypothetically recreated: ȤȤ Assuming you continue to believe that your miserable childhood ruined your life: how will this affect the way you treat your husband/children/your employees in the future? ȤȤ Assuming you were to question your father’s belief (that you have been living by so far) that the company’s growth is of utmost importance, what would be the first thing you would change? Many of those potentiality questions have emerged from the solution-oriented therapeutic approach, exploring the range of possible solutions. However, we recommend proceeding carefully here. Each question, as explained earlier, can also be seen as an intervention which implies a particular perception of reality. Questions targeting possible solutions may imply the norm that a problem should be solved. This suggests a particular course. Consequently, it may be important to supplement the questions as necessary, in order to maintain a balance as illustrated in the following examples. If problems can also be perceived as helpful in terms of a creative solution to a systemic dilemma, then a development toward an approach that (also) appreciates the “problem” becomes possible. This allows all parties involved to avoid normative ideas or, in other words, the “quick fix”. We therefore recommend juxtaposing a more solution-oriented approach to questions that exacerbate the situation, such as how a problem could be created intentionally or how it could be sustained,

70

Profiling systemic intervention

worsened and perpetuated. In the following discourse, we will take a closer look at exploring questions of possibility, including their different forms. The solution-oriented form of hypothetical questions (“improvement questions”) Whether a potential client seeks out a physician, a coach or a consultant within an educational facility or a company, he/she will most often describe a personal problem since the preoccupation with the problem is the reason for seeking help in the first place. However, the more the perspective is eclipsed by the problematic issue, the more the person moves away from “what works”. This provides an insight into how to approach what doesn’t work. Consequently, it is worthwhile starting to probe during the initial phase for experiences or thoughts that might open new possibilities beyond the actual problem. Exploring exceptions to the problem By comparing the times when the problems occur and times when they don’t, the underlying conditions are revealed. The following interconnected questions address this aspect: ȤȤ How often did the problem not arise (how long, when and where) even though you expected it to? ȤȤ What did you and others do differently during this time? ȤȤ What did you do/what did you tell yourself differently in order for the problem not to occur? Exploring resources – aside from the problem In systems where the clients have been experiencing “everything” as negative over a long period of time, it is often helpful to ask about aspects of their life with which they are satisfied, where they feel comfortable and competent – without comparison to the problem situation. Questions of this nature can also be assigned as homework. ȤȤ What aspects in your life would like to keep as it is now? ȤȤ What do you like about yourself (your partner, your colleagues)? ȤȤ Aside from all the problems: which aspects in your upbringing helped you to live your life up to today, still standing on your own two feet?

Systemic questioning71

The Miracle Question Some client systems are incapable of finding exceptions. They can think of “nothing” positive about themselves, “everything” is unbearable and they are unable to conjure up situations where there might be exceptions. Only a miracle can solve the dilemma … and precisely these miracles can be explored further: ȤȤ If the problem suddenly disappeared (because you were kissed by a fairy princess; following an operation; through God’s will or other instances): Who would be the first to realize that this miracle had occurred overnight? Who would be most surprised by the changes? What would that person say? ȤȤ What would be the first thing you/the people around you would do differently? ȤȤ If you were to do something differently, how would the people around you respond? ȤȤ What would the relationship look like a month (a year, five years) after the miracle?

The question about miracles produces two effects. Firstly, it isn’t binding (no responsibility can be taken for miracles) and thus opens up the imagination to possible changes. Secondly, clients often discover that the way they would proceed after the “miracle” does not amount to anything supernatural, but rather a chain of very simple yet viable activities (say “Hello” in a slightly different manner, answer a question with a little smile, drink a cup of coffee with the secretary before focusing on the emails, etc.). One may discover that after the miracle, one simply tends to do more of what was already being done but with a slight difference. The repertoire for the time after the miracle may already exist. Depending on the situation, it may be feasible, for example, to have the client agree to act as if the miracle had already happened for a certain length of time (i. e. 10 minutes a day or one hour a week; in case of a couple this task can be expanded: each chooses one “exceptional hour” without telling the other, whose task it is to observe the partner to identify this hour: sometimes this yields interesting results such as one being sure which the hour was, even though the partner wasn’t aware that he/she was behaving any differently).

72

Profiling systemic intervention

Problem-oriented questions (“exacerbating the situation”) Questions that exacerbate the situation lead to results similar to improvement questions by assuming an opposite approach. They illustrate how problems may be actively created and sustained, thereby implying the opposite: what behavior could be avoided in order to get rid of the problem. ȤȤ Let’s imagine the – albeit improbable – case that you needed your depression. What could you do to intentionally call it back? ȤȤ How could others help you keep your problem? How could they “invite” you to feel miserable?

5.5  Summary: Systemic questions The illustration below helps remember the scope of different possibilities. The conversation room can be divided into five different areas, assigning each a different option for questioning. The more general questions are in the middle. The questions from the middle can be posed differently according to the perspective held by each of the four corners. Choose a problem constellation occurring in your daily life. Think who is involved. Then proceed to each corner in turn and identify possible circular questions from the four perspectives by bouncing them off the possibilities offered in the middle.

Systemic questioning73 Corner 2:

Corner 1: Chatting in the presence of the other

ȤȤ Questions about expectation-expectations ȤȤ Assume your husband expressed his feelings …

Other individuals

ȤȤ How might others perceive the problem? ȤȤ Questions related to the consultation context ȤȤ Expectations/assignments of outsiders

General questions applied differently to any corner

1. Creating differences by asking … ȤȤ about differences in perception/assessment ȤȤ about classifications (to whom does it apply more/less?) ȤȤ about differences in terms of percentage ( 0-100 %)/scaling ȤȤ about agreement/disagreement (who more/less?) ȤȤ about comparison of sub-systems (mother and daughter more than father and son?) 2. Specify concrete behavior by asking … ȤȤ about who does what when, and who reacts in what way ȤȤ about clarification of ‘universals’ (never, always, etc.): when exactly? ȤȤ about differences in behavior: when did he last time act differently? 3. Direct thoughts in the direction of solutions by asking … ȤȤ about exceptions ȤȤ about resources ȤȤ about potential options and virtual realities 4. Balance solution orientation with an appreciation of the problem by asking … ȤȤ about the options for exacerbating the situation … ȤȤ about regrets that might arise it if the difficulties no longer existed? ȤȤ about positive qualities within the problem that might be of use some day

Corner 3: Hypothetical situations

ȤȤ Different circumstances, different decisions (Let’s assume that …) ȤȤ Miracle questions ȤȤ Who would notice the change first?

Corner 4: Different times/different places

ȤȤ What would someone from your native country/hometown suggest? ȤȤ What would your grandfather have advised in this situation? What advice might your grandson give in 10/20 years? ȤȤ Future plans or time plans ȤȤ How long will the problem remain your companion?

Figure 6: Summary of systemic questioning

6

Sculpting, constellations and other metaphorical approaches

Sculpting was introduced to family therapy by Virginia Satir. It has proved to be an essential part of an experiential form of systemic consultation. Another similar approach is becoming increasingly popular. This is the so-called method of family constellation. Although the two approaches are similar, they differ considerably in application.

Sculpting (first described by Duhl, Kantor & Duhl, 1973 and later in German by Schweitzer & Weber, 1982) is derived from psychodrama and is generally conducted with the participants themselves. Feelings, communication and relationship patterns are symbolically represented. An “accusing relationship”, for example, is characterized by one of the partners confronting the other with an upheld finger (the “blame finger”). The symbolism is most often immediately and intuitively understood by insiders as well as outsiders and can give rise to discussion as to whether the performance is experienced in a similar way by others. In addition, participants can express what they would like to see change and how such changes might be implemented. Another approach is the form of family (later also organizational) constellation according to Bert Hellinger and Gunthard Weber (Weber, 1993). This method usually involves a single person who addresses a personal question within a group setting of peers. According to this scheme, proxies act as stand-ins, expressing what they feel in response to a situation in the form of “representative perception”. In this way they are instrumental in offering further insights. Although this approach is undeniably interesting and stimulating, it has been attracted criticism due to the way its founder and many of his students have practiced the method. In sculpting, the person in question validates perceptions him-/herself (“Yes, that is exactly how I experience it at home!”, “No, that is not typical of us!”) or if the person involved is not present, the perceptions are described

Sculpting, constellations and other metaphorical approaches 75

in the form of a hypothesis (“Why don’t you talk to your colleague about this and ask him/her if he/she really feels excluded at times!”). In family constellations, on the other hand, the representative’s experiences and frequently intense emotions are the “material” and many consultants are convinced that this gives them the key to an approach that will ultimately reveal the “truth” and uncover actual secrets and entanglements. It may be tempting to observe amazing “overlaps” in both sculpting and family constellations (“Yes, my uncle really did have acute stomach pains, just like the representative!”) that coincide with intensive emotional outbreaks. These may lend credence to the feeling that there are actually “real processes” taking place. Believing he or she has touched upon the truth may lead the consultant making depreciating interventions and subjugation rituals in extreme cases (i. e. a person is forced to bow) or to mysterious accusations such as “Cancer is the punishment for failing to respect your parents” or statements in the absolute such as “That’s just the way it is!” The consultant may even resort to abrupt and drastic termination of the session by exclaiming, “You’re a hopeless case!” It seems that both the setting and the method evoke an illusion of power. The German umbrella organizations for systemic work have distanced themselves from associating this type of intervention with the systemic approach (for more information see www.systemische-gesellschaft.de and www.dgsf.org). Furthermore, they refer to the fact that the approach may be applied heuristically as long as it is based on a concept of collaborative partnership as described above. This chapter will therefore address family sculpting including its variations (i. e. work with symbols or figures) as well as constellation work as this is currently a topic of great interest. Here we would like to point out again that dealing with these instruments requires certain caution. We are always dealing with descriptions of reality, not reality itself. So we should always include the observer describing it. Family constellations (and sculpting) are hardly a means of finding out how an organization is “actually” faring. Examples such as the business woman who excluded her daughter-in-law from company operations because the family constellation “revealed” that she had “no place” in the company are simply unprofessional and incompatible with systemic practice. Given the fact

76

Profiling systemic intervention

that there are increasing reports of the catastrophic consequences of using constellations in various settings, this deserves very careful attention. Meanwhile, a large number of critical views based on a series of deliberations on family constellation work have emerged that clearly set themselves apart from the above-mentioned critical practice without condemning the method outright (König, 2004, Weber et al., 2005, Groth, 2005).

6.1 Sculpting The sculpting technique is certainly one of the most interesting methods ever developed in family consultation. The task to bring the attitudes and positions within the family relationship into a “living picture”, providing a holistic insight into the complex family system and its different layers (Schweitzer & Weber, 1982). The symbolic representation of family bonds created in this way takes its course without resorting to language as such and is therefore quite quickly understood. In this way, sculpting offers a means of symbolic representation regardless of age, social class, language and the problematic issues in question. Rationalization can be avoided, allowing participants to move on to the family’s main concern. At the same time, sculpting is an approach through which parts of the process can be portrayed simultaneously, interdependently and conditionally. Often there is no great extra effort involved. At the beginning of a consultation session in particular, it is easy to use sculpting subliminally, for example, by having the distance between chairs determine the degree of proximity between members or by simply having individuals adopt certain body language or small gestures. Example The following happened during an interview between a mother and a daughter with the American family therapist Virginia Satir: the mother began complaining about her daughter and accusing her. The therapist interrupted: “I would like to show you what I just observed, may I?” Then she took the mother’s hand and asked her to point a “blame finger” at her daughter. Asked how she responded when the mother did this, the daughter turned her back on her mother. “Is that what you want?”

Sculpting, constellations and other metaphorical approaches 77

Satir asked the mother; “No,” the latter answered. So the therapist then had the mother portray the desired image she was visualizing: the daughter was to stand across from the mother and look directly at her. “What can you do in order for your daughter to respond in this way?” The mother considered the matter for some time and then transformed the accusing finger into a palms-up gesture. Did the daughter know beforehand that this was what the mother wanted? No, she was surprised – as was the mother. It was now possible to address mutual needs, wishes and dreams.

In the original form of family sculpting, a family member is asked to portray his/her family in the way he/she experiences it as in the following prompt: “Imagine you are an artist and want to construct a sculpture of your family in your garden!” Another way would be for a consultant to offer him-/herself as an “artist” assembling a picture saying: “I would like to show you how I see you in this situation, OK?” Both versions are also possible when working with teams or other social systems. Sculpting is also used in supervision or as part of training (with role-players) to generate hypotheses about interaction in the family. The symbolic representations of family relationships that are created by sculpting are generally understood without having to resort to the rules of digital language. The simultaneity of processes is easier to show by a picture than by descriptions of actions. In a way this is similar to that of circular questioning (though it looks very different at first sight): the expectations of expectations are addressed. For example, one might ask the circular question: “How do you, C (child, employee, colleague) perceive the relationship between A and B (parents, top management, etc.)?” or one can ask C to assemble a picture of how he/she sees the relationship. Answering the question as well as putting A and B into a sculpture (close together, far away from each other, face to face or averted, etc.) provides complex feedback to all three about how C perceives the relationship. One of the intriguing aspects of this work is that on the one hand the protagonists are able to reconstruct a very precise representation of their inner pictures and, in so doing, experience a discernable moment of revelation if the image “fits” while creating a sculpture

78

Profiling systemic intervention

as in family constellations: “No, move another three inches to the right and please turn your head like this … yes, that’s perfect!” On the other hand, the feedback given by the members and even by other participants, often mirrors a considerable amount of subjectively experienced truth: “That’s exactly how I often feel!” In spite of all the fascination with this method, it is important to keep the subjective and hypothetically constructed nature of sculpting in perspective. This tool is intended as a means of intensifying the discourses of the conversation partners or creating hypotheses; it is not supposed to be a perfect effigy of “reality” (which, aside from the construction of observers, doesn’t exist or at least can’t be talked about …). Schweitzer & Weber (1982) offer a number of basic sculpting elements to help the consultant support the member by means of appropriate questions: ȤȤ proximity as a symbol of intimacy: Who stands how close to whom? How far away? ȤȤ up/down as a symbol of hierarchical structure: Who is most assertive, and looks down on the others? Who might even be standing on a pedestal (chair, etc.)? Who stands at the bottom of the decision hierarchy? Or sits or kneels on the floor? ȤȤ Facial expression and gesticulation as an expression of differentiation in relationships: Who touches whom? Who looks at whom? Who is bent over and makes a fist? Whose hands are open? Who secretly undermines the one “standing on the chair”? The “sculptor” is encouraged to use all of these basic elements, trying them out and modifying them until he or she is satisfied. The participants are then asked to “freeze” in their positions and to focus their awareness on the emotions that ensue. Feelings that are expressed, a desire to change and alternative sculptures may lead to intense discussion. A number of questions can be of help here: ȤȤ What does it feel like to be in this position? Does it correspond to the feeling that you also experience in everyday life? ȤȤ Did you know that the “sculptor” sees the system this way? ȤȤ Do you agree with the picture that was assembled? What would you think should be changed? ȤȤ What changes would each person like to happen for a better future?

Sculpting, constellations and other metaphorical approaches 79

The many positioning options of the sculpture require particular caution. Consultants can be tempted to read too much into the sculpture or be unable to bear a problematic sculpture, leading them to push for positive results. Furthermore, one should be aware that sculpting may meet with resistance and bring intimate topics to light before the conversation partners are ready for it. At the same time it takes considerable courage to motivate participants to engage in such unusual activity – so courage and caution need to be balanced carefully. It may be a good idea to start by bringing in movement and creating “miniature sculptures”, as mentioned above. On the other hand, comments such as: “During my training we were introduced to this odd method that we could try if you really want to …” condemn the approach to failure. Approaching the sculpting method with ease and self-confidence can be a pleasurable working experience. In this way, a systemic perspective is suggested in a playful manner such as in the reciprocity of behavior in social systems, a multi-generational perspective, positive connotation and the potential meaning of symptoms, etc. This is not the only aspect that becomes evident in sculpting. Often it helps to show a person quite clearly where he/she stands. For example, if a child puts the parents far apart, with the father almost leaving the room, this might be a powerful but also important confrontation for the couple. The standard procedure can be extended and includes variations: ȤȤ Outside in/inside out: Apart from the positioning of the sculpture by a member of the system (inside-out), the consultant can also introduce an outside-in perspective by giving the system feedback about how he/she experiences the system at a given moment: “I would just like to show you a picture that has come into my head …” ȤȤ A simultaneous sculpture is created when each member finds a place for her/himself in the room that corresponds to the way he/ she experiences his/her relationship to the others. ȤȤ Exchange of persons: another person may stand in for one of the members in the sculpture. This could be another member of the system (“Would you like to try out what the position feels like?”) or a co-consultant/trainee. This enables the person concerned

80

ȤȤ ȤȤ ȤȤ

ȤȤ

ȤȤ

ȤȤ

Profiling systemic intervention

to see him-/herself from outside and to talk about the emotions and impulses associated with the position expressed by the representative. Additional persons: Furthermore, members of an extended system who are not present can be included in a playful manner, for example by using furniture or other objects instead. Title: Asking members to come up with a title or metaphor for the sculpture intensifies the experience. Using symbolic objects can stimulate involvement further in a similar fashion, e. g. using bands to bind the members by their hands or feet to emphasize close emotional bonds, or placing an object symbolically right between two persons to illustrate conflict. In systems where a particular topic has become an “organizing principle” of the communication (e. g. a chronic illness or the addiction of a member), an object can be brought into the sculpture. What happens for example if the “illness” (symbolized by a chair) that everyone has fixated on is moved away from the mother or if the “bottle” is taken out of the system? Before/after: Important information might be gleaned from the sculptures that are assembled to show a picture before and after serious events such as the death of a company’s founder. The same may apply to expected future events such as impending retirement or similar occasions. Living sculpture: A variation on this theme is to let the sculpture “come alive” by play-acting sequences that involving members moving. Particularly redundant behavioral sequences may be repeatedly played out or each participant may be asked to vent their impulses in slow motion while reacting to changes observed in the other members. Gestures, words or sentences too, can be ritualized and repeated. This process accumulates confrontational force and is likely to release considerable emotions.

Example The consultant creates a sculpture to portray a divorced couple who are fighting over their child, whom they pull in opposite directions. The sculpture is set in motion and the child allows itself to be pulled

Sculpting, constellations and other metaphorical approaches 81

first to one side and then the other. Both parents are asked to repeat the following sentences: “You are only safe with me!” and “You really just want to be with me!” Repeatedly play-acting the sequence and repeating the same sentences confronts the pattern of including the child in the parents’ conflict.

ȤȤ Working with singles: A sculpture can also be used in face-to-face coaching such as by using empty chairs to symbolize a person. By sitting in each chair, the client can empathize to a certain extent with the feelings in each of the positions. ȤȤ Training and supervision: Sculpting might be a helpful technique in training sessions and clinical supervision to create hypotheses and assess the consultant’s role within the system. Here, the consultant often provides his/her image of the family and subsequently obtains valuable clues from the role-players’ feedback.

6.2  Family board and symbolic work Sculpting has many different versions ranging from simulated family systems in clinical supervision to working with figures and blocks such as the “family board” or the “family system test” (as quoted by von Schlippe & Schweitzer, 2012). This metaphorical work does not depend on all members being physically present. Systemic visualization techniques can be created with the help of dolls, Lego/Playmobil figures, etc. Steinhübel (2005) recommends a method called “circus systema” as a coaching tool. According to this technique, clients are asked to explore their position in the organization as well as that of important individuals within it in an analogy to a circus performance by using toy circus figures (e. g. a toy circus set). It gets quite interesting when a client is asked to choose a symbol and to place this accordingly: Do you sense the depression in front of you, behind or beside you? How do changes feel to you? A conflict, a problem or a concern can be symbolized in a similar way and thus be “externalized”: how does the relationship between two colleagues change if “competition” (symbolized by a black stone, for example) is placed in the corridor? What quality in their relationship might be revealed that could not come alive before? How would “Mr.

82

Profiling systemic intervention

Competition” (or is it maybe a woman?) invite himself in again, who would listen to his silent suggestions first?

6.3 Family constellations, organizational constellations The difference between family sculpting and family constellation has already been outlined. In general, constellations are not carried out with members of the actual systems (the same goes for organizational constellations). Rather, they offer a new perspective on the system for the individual (sometimes couples also visit specific workshops jointly to better understand the entanglement of each other in their families of origin). To begin with there are only a few basic questions are asked (so as not be overwhelmed by too many stories), mostly about structural information involving individuals who are a part of the system and past events that may be significant. In the case of family constellations, this may be an unexpected death, a serious illness, divorce, a congenital abnormality or a miscarriage. Where the constellation is set in an organization, the issues might involve unjust dismissals or being put into positions by nepotism, bullying or serious conflict (e. g. ignoring the rights of the legitimate heir to the family business) or the role of the firm during the Nazi regime (in this case a person might act as proxy for National Socialism in the constellation – cf. Sander, 2005). Next, the person seeking advice is asked to choose members of the group as representatives of significant individuals and positions them intuitively in the room “where they fit” without giving reasons for his/her action. Thus each representative is assigned a position (as in the case of sculpturing, this can also be done with figures or symbols). The consultant then asks the persons who have been positioned how they feel, what they perceive, the impulses they sense and about their bodily sensations. The representatives simply offer feedback on their sensations, perceptions and impulses if possible without forming any hypotheses. While they are in their positions, representatives may experience extreme physical and emotional turmoil.

Sculpting, constellations and other metaphorical approaches 83

Quote “These can differ clearly from one’s own sensations prior to having taken on the role. Thus unpleasant bodily sensations may develop even including actual pain in different parts of the body that has previously never been felt. Suddenly, strong feelings of empathy or aversion toward other representatives in the system may arise or else a strong impulse to either move close or very far away from someone” (Sander, 2005, p. 246, translated by the authors). The person seeking advice observes the process while the consultant intervenes more or less directly, depending on the situation. Based on a number of heuristics, the consultant tries to find a “good order” and capture images or formulas that will bring relief. The aim of the constellation in its classical form is to offer the person seeking advice a “constructive inner picture of a resolved conflict” that can grow and mature within him/her (Sander, ibid.). The underlying idea is that such an image will develop its own momentum and evolve positive energy to carry over into everyday life. The client may therefore be asked to change places with “his/her” role player at the end in order to not only see but also feel a constellation that has been unraveled. Heuristics for solutions A number of heuristics are used in searching for a “good picture” for the constellation. In the above sense, we consider heuristics to be helpful. However – to make this point again – they can be dangerous when described as “truths that have been revealed” by any of the members and seen as the “cause” for “healing”. This is especially important for the implied causal connections that are frequently used in the field: the idea of having found “the” cause of the problem and the way of curing it completely. We cannot therefore emphasize often enough that while we favor employing constellation work, it is vital to bear its experimental and hypothesis-generating nature in mind and not take recourse to a simplified scheme of causality.

84

Profiling systemic intervention

a) Order of origin and presumption Order seems to have a particular effect on members of a social system, at least will this be valid for the Western world. Hellinger called it the “order of origin” (Weber, 1993), which adheres to the point at which the system was entered: a member of a system who entered the system earlier has a higher “rank” than one who entered later. Trying to reverse this situation may cause problems. This dynamic is not only present within families. In organizations too, friction may develop where individuals who enter the system at a later point do not show the necessary respect or pay deference to those who have been in the system longer. In the search for a solution picture, the representatives can be repositioned in accordance with the order of origin (not in a schematic manner, of course but rather according to a process). These images can then be reinforced by sentences in which the representatives acknowledge the position of their counterpart (“I am the child, you are the mother!”, “I honor you!”, “You came before me, I came after you!”). Example The head of a consulting agency that was set up and run by a group of sponsors reports a difficult situation. At that point in time he had been in office for six months. One of his closest co-workers is also the chairwoman of the group of sponsor organization she had founded together with her husband years before. Although formally he is her supervisor, this construction would make her his superior. What is more, she also appointed her husband to the position of “second CEO”. The head refuses to accept this as the statutes of the organization do not provide for this position officially. He is now considering whether to initiate a “palace coup” to legally remove the CEO from the position or to resign himself. He is very interested in a picture that might show him in a “favorable position”. He is therefore asked to set up the relatively large team in line with its order of origin. Beginning with the chairwoman who was first of all, he positions the members in order in a half circle. His position is second to last. Asked if he is prepared to take a “serious step”, he says he is. Next, he is asked to bow to each member of the system according to the number of years that they have preceded him. He agrees to go through with the process and bows to

Sculpting, constellations and other metaphorical approaches 85

the founder many times and then moves on to her husband whom he acknowledges with a mere nod of the head. The facilitator reminds him of the “contract”: he had agreed to submit to a difficult task – is he now prepared to try it? Yes! He stands for a long time before the husband’s representative before bowing to him as well. After he has completed the round, the consultant suggests standing in the center of the half circle to say into the circle of colleagues: “With all respect and esteem to those who came before me, I will now assume my place as head and supervisor!” At the end of this very condensed process (which in fact took more than an hour), the colleague reported feeling considerably less tension with respect to the individuals in the organization, a feeling that continued. He later on claimed to have a clearer sense of direction in terms of his own “position” and stated that the power struggles with the CEO had ceased.

b) Exclusion, belonging and binding Every human being necessarily belongs to a family system. Therefore it is presumptuous to exclude a member from this system and consequently not to acknowledge the person as being a part of the system regardless of the reasons for doing so. In constellation work, individuals who may have been faded out are explicitly included in the process. For example, questions may focus on parents’ previous partners or children who have died so that they can be included in the constellation. The same goes for organizations where unjustified sidelining (via intrigue or ignoring the line of legal succession) constitutes a dynamic that flows into the constellation. When in doubt, the person in question can be included in the picture. The dynamic that is to be put in focus here is the following: if one figure in the system was excluded, a person (a child) that joins later may identify unknowingly with the person who was not acknowledged and try to carry this person’s burden, and this might take the form of a symptom. The basis of this dynamic is the child’s love for and bond to its system (“bond of destiny”). However, the child’s sacrifice is in vain since its attempts at resolution are misdirected. One cannot solve an issue for someone else. In such cases, healing is frequently experienced by looking at the person who has been excluded, acknowledging him or her and giving him or her “a place in the heart”. The

86

Profiling systemic intervention

latter person who had taken over that feeling can then return this feeling to the previously excluded individual in the form of a ritual within the constellation. c) A balance between give and take The key to setting a solution dynamic in motion can be found in the balance between giving and taking. Guilt and innocence within a system are integral to this process. The giver in the system most often seems to be in a more advantageous position as he or she stands for innocence. The taker on the other hand is guilty. Sometimes people will try to evade this dynamic and go through life as “innocents”. In this way they avoid taking part in the process of social exchange. The refusal to take may be linked to depression and hides behind many justifications: ‘I won’t take from my parents! What they gave to me was wrong, too little, etc.’ Where taking does become possible (especially from parents), the person in question often experiences energy and power. The idea that one can go through life only as the giver (helper syndrome) has a similar effect. This belief, too, is considered detrimental to the relationship. The equilibrium within a system is made up of continual giving and taking and corresponds to the realization that it is impossible to go through life as an innocent. Sometimes expressing gratitude is the only option left if equilibrium is to be reintroduced into the system.

6.4 Structural systemic constellations and tetralemma constellations Another interesting approach in systemic constellation work that skirts the various “pitfalls” is a form of structural constellation introduced by Varga v. Kibèd and Sparrer (Sparrer, 2011). This approach tends toward working only with structures instead of content. The person seeking advice is responsible for providing the content. This kind of approach is therefore similar to classic systemic methods. The “tetralemma”, for example, is a form of systemic constellation that aims to overcome a paralysis in thinking that occurs in dilemma situations (see Groth, 2005). As the term indicates, tetralemmata are described from the perspective of four positions. The two opposing positions, the “one”

Sculpting, constellations and other metaphorical approaches 87

or the “other” (the person does not even need to name the positions), often indicative of a conflict of ambivalence, are supplemented by two further positions: “both” and “neither”. Later, a fifth position located outside of the framework of the four positions is added: none of these and even not me (the paradoxical name might create constructive confusion)! Constellation work is conducted in a group with representatives of all five positions (plus a sixth one, the “focus”, the “I” of the person him-/herself). In a dyadic coaching session, figures or chairs might also be used. It may be difficult to imagine this kind of work while reading these lines. However, it frequently leads to remarkable experiences or at least to a kind of emotional readiness to resolve an issue. We recommend experimenting with this structure in a small group (maybe with the help of figures or symbols). This approach is less dangerous than family constellations, but like the latter it requires both discourse and playing with different positions after the constellation has started. The five positions are described as follows. Similar to constellation work, they are set up in the room one after the other by the person seeking advice to form an entire picture: ȤȤ The focus: first, a proxy is chosen to represent the self or the person who is involved in the conflict and positioned in the room. ȤȤ Position 1: “the one” is one side of the conflict, the one that is somewhat more present at the moment, also he/she will be put into the room (as in constellation work). ȤȤ Position 2: “the other” enters on the scene as the opposite position. ȤȤ Position 3: “both” is the position in which previously unseen agreement options might be approached. This can happen in a number of ways, for example, by reaching a compromise through which the opposing positions can be linked, by assuming first one position and then the other or by including respect and acknowledgement for the other party in the decision made by one or the other. ȤȤ Position 4: “neither one nor the other” helps to see the conflict from a distance. The position can broaden the perspective to include the question as to where the conflict was located until now: what challenges might be revealed if issues stop revolving around A or B? (‘Maybe I have to confront myself with writing my thesis once I stop thinking about whether I should be with Sheela or Vivian …’)

88

Profiling systemic intervention

ȤȤ Once the fifth position is included, it questions the entire context as well as itself: “Nothing of all that is there” – and even not this position itself! The substitute in this position may, in contrast to the others, move in whichever way he/she pleases without being asked and from the first moment on, his/her only concern is to find ways to maintain their own wellbeing. Here, too, the aim is to find a “good image”. The consultant, the proxies and the person seeking advice try to find a form of equilibrium. The question is always concerned with how the players feel and whether they feel “better” or “worse” in one place or another. Quite often the structural constellation ends with an image that raises further questions as to what consequence of the behavior will follow because the “solution” is everything else but clear. Yet the persons in question frequently claim that something in the way they experience their conflict has changed remarkably; they see it from another perspective and that they have come a step closer to the solution.

7

Reframing: “Spinning gold from straw”

The way we speak about a problem determines its nature and whether indeed it is a problem at all. Descriptions are not harmless at all, they do not merely “mirror” what they describe, but in fact influence it: descriptions change what they describe. As Wittgenstein once said: our language represents a whole and complex epistemology – and we are usually not aware of this.

Quote Names, labels and diagnostic terms are not just innocent definitions used to describe particular problems. Instead, they are a form of code language for underlying beliefs and assumptions about the nature of the problem. Most descriptions, even those that should actually be of a purely descriptive nature and entirely free of implicit explanation … could be laden with biases related to the cause and treatment of problems (Furman & Ahola 1992, p. 81 f.). Reframing, also known as re-definition, is an important tool in systemic practice – actually it might be seen more as a kind of attitude than an intervention (von Schlippe & Schweitzer, 2012, p. 312 f.). Reframing is not about finding a positive description at any cost but rather about being aware of how things are described in conversations and how they could be described in a different way, in a way that is “less costly”. Thus it is not so much a technique as a way of continually applying and conveying a systemic epistemology. If we see reality as social construction, the meaning of any issue will depend on each person’s perspective. No experience will be kept in mind without description: if it is not turned into a narrative, the experience is lost to memory (Bruner, 1992) – and whatever has been described can be described differently (going back to Wittgenstein again). The meaning of a story changes if it is told in a different

90

Profiling systemic intervention

light – if you change the frame it becomes another picture. Finding a constructive narrative is the “core business” in systemic work (see Omer & Alon, 1997; Dallos, 2006). Reframing thus should not be mistaken for a mere “technique”. Bateson (2000) has repeatedly pointed out that the meaning of information fragments depends on so-called “context markers” or indicators that show how the intervention is to be understood. In other words, context marking is a way in which human beings make sense of social relevance. An outburst such as “I’m really going to let you have it now!” draws its meaning from the context in which it stands – said by an angry drunkard with the corresponding emphasis, this message conveys an entirely different meaning than if it were said in jest, during a game of chess. The social context or the frame determines how a message is to be understood. A changed frame can change the intended message entirely. Every good joke is likely to be based on a reframing.

“Look at me, I look like a pig!” “You certainly do! And now you’ve spilled sauce on yourself, too!”

Figure 7: I look like a pig … (copyright Björn and Arist von Schlippe)

Reframing: “Spinning gold from straw”91

In systemic consultation, reframing may be puzzling but it can also lighten the mood. The frame in which the client or the family perceives an event is juxtaposed to another frame. This means that, whatever the grievance, the consultant can consider forms of description that offer more leeway. The idea that a traumatic experience in the past is the source of all sorrow and pain in the present is not “incorrect”, of course, but if one stops there it does limit a person’s choice in describing themselves in relation to what is possible. For instance, describing a difficult past as valuable as it contributes to a certain maturity, creates a different frame that offers more options: does a person relate to the traumatic aspect of his/her past or rather to the fact that it was possible to survive it? Then questions may arise as to how this survival was possible: “What are the qualities that enabled you to endure it? What support did you get?” etc. There is a vast variety of different and occasionally overlapping forms of reframing. Neither the list nor the exercise below are intended to imply that this is simply a technique. a) Reframing the meaning One way is to change the meaning that is ascribed to an event. What perspective might change the meaning of the story and, as a result, the story itself? Example A father complains about his two daughters: “I find it unbearable. They fight constantly, with doors slamming and the way they talk to each other, it’s terrible!” – “How was it for you when you were growing up?” – “Oh, my father wouldn’t have stood for it, he was extremely strict and often beat us hard. My brother and I were allies! That’s why it’s so difficult for me to understand why my daughters are so different.” – “So you and your brother formed a sort of emergency alliance. Are you as strict and hard as your father was?” – “No, I know what it’s like to be beaten and that’s why I promised myself to never beat my children, a promise I’ve kept.” – “Then one could actually consider it a ‘compliment’ if your daughters argue constantly, since by doing so, they show that there is no need to form an alliance against you. Instead, they are learning

92

Profiling systemic intervention

to deal with conflict situations on their own.” Astonished, the father’s expression “shifted” dramatically: “I’ve never considered it from that perspective – yes, it actually is a compliment for me, a compliment!”

b) Reframing the context The question here is what context could be imagined to see the problem itself as being meaningful, or even a the best possible solution. If human behavior is regarded consisting solely of capabilities, how could context and capabilities best be brought together? You complain about an aggressive colleague? Imagine a difficult conflict situation, such as an unjust demand on the part of the company management: he/she should have no problems asserting him/herself in that situation. On the contrary, his or her aggression and hot temper may be decidedly useful (and maybe you would benefit from this in some way, too). c) Reframing the content In this case, the negative denotation of the complaint stays negative, e. g. the quarrel of the couple remains an undesirable state. But looking at every behavior under the premise that it might have a positive intention, it might be possible to separate the offensive from the underlying “good intentions”. With any difficult behavior, a perspective can be found that gives meaning to both individuals and/or a social system. So maybe quarreling is a way to regulate distance between the partners – “Maybe it would be a good idea for us to start working on less costly ways to find good a good balance between closeness and distance?” And work disruptions that one complains about can be seen as a way to take time out and get distance from stress. “Maybe it would be a good idea to look for other ways of ensuring some distance and time out?” The “common factor”: create a difference Reframing reflects a “systemic description of the world”. It is an effort to enter a new tradition of description, one that disengages from the fascination of deficit and instead focuses on opportunities. It searches for the “stories beneath the narratives”: individuals who face a diffi-

Reframing: “Spinning gold from straw”93

cult fate and have learned to deal with it can profit from the experience to a greater extent than others – and describing the condition in this way can transform the feeling of eternal suffering into the awareness that this same condition contributes to a source of profound strength and maturity: “Which specific resources did you use to go through this experience/to survive? What specific experience did you draw from it? If you were asked for advice by someone in a similar situation that you were in at that time, what would you tell him/her?” If any situation can be described differently, this may help to reframe the issues that the client experiences as being “stuck in a rut”. Furman & Ahola (1992) suggest encouraging clients to search for a variety of explanations and come up with the most unlikely and bizarre explanation for a problem in order to practice “thinking outside of the box”. A detailed description can also be found in Watzlawick et al. (1974) and Bandler & Grinder (1985). Reframing is a predominantly linguistic tool and it may not always be easy to reframe adequately – sometimes the entire consultation consists of the search for the appropriate frame. Example A woman came to consultation after having suffered from bouts of bulimia over the past 18 years (up to three daily attacks). In working through the issue in consultation, it came to light that the symptoms arose whenever she said “yes” when she actual felt she wanted to say “no”. So she found a new description of her condition while working toward a resolution: “It is my creative path between yes and no.” She experienced this description as if a heavy burden had been lifted from her shoulders and began to experiment and experience new feelings. At the end of consultation, the symptoms still occurred periodically, though considerably less frequently than before (about three times a year). For this she coined the description “I’ve taken refuge in the symptoms again” or “Well, sometimes I still need this!” This description remained during her 5-year catamnesis and was experienced as helpful. Recalling the symptom no longer affected her.

94

Profiling systemic intervention

How to practice reframing Try to find different reframing options for each grievance. Then compare your findings with the recommendations provided. Keep in mind that there are no “right” answers. “Right” or “wrong” always depend on the context. Reframing can be “right” in one situation, because it fits and encourages a shift in perspective and “wrong” in another, because it causes irritation or is not convincing. 1. Reframing the meaning gives the problem a different significance (e. g. disagreement can be perceived as intensity in the relationship). 2. Reframing the context tries to find a context in which the adverse behavior may be meaningful (e. g. if one imagines two partners engaged in dispute as two grown-up persons standing up for their personal positions, the discord becomes a valuable quality). 3. Reframing the content attempts to separate the problem (which remains in a negative description) from the underlying “good intentions” (e. g. conflict is a desperate attempt to achieve equal partnership – perhaps this can be achieved by other means).

On the one hand, there is no single right solution for the tasks, on the other, the different forms of reframing overlap. It can be stated with good reason that the issue here is about the type of answer, some of which illustrated below should not necessarily be included in actual consultation! Complaint: “I can’t concentrate on my work!” ȤȤ Reframing the meaning: You seem to be a very versatile person who is open to many new things. ȤȤ Reframing the context: If new situations arose, you would be able to react immediately. ȤȤ Reframing the content: You are never bored. How could you manage to keep yourself stimulated in another way while you study – for example, by listening to loud music? Complaint: “My husband continually cheats on me!” ȤȤ Reframing the meaning: He must really love you, since he always comes back to you. Or: apparently, your husband must be very

Reframing: “Spinning gold from straw”95

attractive (be especially careful here: although the form fits, the sentence would not be appropiate in an interview.) ȤȤ Reframing the context: If ever you had a lover, you wouldn’t have to feel guilty. ȤȤ Reframing the content: Apparently he makes sure your marriage never gets boring. Would you consider the three of us getting together to look for other, less hurtful ways of keeping the marriage alive? Complaint: “I have terrible asthma!” ȤȤ Reframing the meaning: Your asthmatic condition is a clear signal of what is not good for you. ȤȤ Reframing the context: In a critical situation, no-one could ever force you to work yourself into a frenzy. ȤȤ Reframing the content: The situation offers you an opportunity to take time out, though the price is high. Or: It enables you to adopt a different attitude regarding your health; it gives you an awareness of how valuable your health is to you. Complaint: “My co-worker is continually in disagreement with others in the department!” ȤȤ Reframing the meaning: Evidently he seeks for clear positions and boundaries. ȤȤ Reframing the context: In terms of clear and unambiguous points of view, you don’t have to worry as to where he/she stands! ȤȤ Reframing the content: He/she shows the others that he/she won’t buckle under. Maybe a way can be found that is less stressful? Complaint: “We haven’t had sex for three years!” ȤȤ Reframing the meaning: Your love must be great for you to remain together in spite of this. ȤȤ Reframing the context: You don’t have to worry about contraception! (again you would not say this to a client!). ȤȤ Reframing the content: You obviously treat each other with a lot of respect. Maybe we could look for other ways of maintaining harmony in the relationship?

96

Profiling systemic intervention

Complaint: “I always have to make up for my colleagues’ mistakes!” ȤȤ Reframing the meaning: She gives you the chance to show your perfection. ȤȤ Reframing the context: You are more likely to be spared than your colleague when the next wave of layoffs comes around. ȤȤ Reframing the content: Maybe you can find new ways of showing her how much you like her. Complaint: “I can’t decide between two women (men)!” ȤȤ Reframing the meaning: I see your point – but, you have the choice between two obviously wonderful alternatives! I can imagine a lot of people being envious. ȤȤ Reframing the context: If you were a Mormon, this would hardly be an issue! ȤȤ Reframing the content: You seem to like living in ambivalence, having all the options in the world. Maybe there is another way to stay aware of the diversity of options in the world – even once you have decided to stay with one lover? Complaint: “My boss is simply too picky!” ȤȤ Reframing the meaning: She is very precise. Or: She has an attitude that binds the team together in solidarity. ȤȤ Reframing the context: If there were a tax audit in your company, you will certainly have nothing to worry about. ȤȤ Reframing the content: She seems to try to bring the team to perfection – maybe there are other ways of achieving that goal, what do you think?

8

Reflecting teams and reflecting positions

The approach taken by reflecting teams involves a form of “supportive dialogue” together with persons seeking advice or systems to smooth the way for cooperation. Within this context, participants share perspectives, impulses and input on how to resolve issues, they are integrated into the process on the basis of equal voices and they are offered a range of options from which to choose, according to their needs.

8.1  History and work approach The first book on the Reflecting Team (RT), a form of systemic work very much associated with the name Tom Andersen, first appeared in the late 1980s. The role of narrative theory in systemic consultation is put into an intriguing and seemingly easy form. Again it is less about a method than about steps into a new “culture” of systemic consultation that goes beyond goal-oriented and manipulative intervention. The concept of a narrative approach is central to discussions about how these changes have affected the culture of systemic consultation. In this context, the question arises as to the necessity and appropriateness of system-bound consultation in modeling living, especially in social systems. It is not “the family” or “the team” that marks the system but rather the way in which a story is “narrated” since this is what constitutes meaning in social systems. Language is a necessary prerequisite for perceiving reality, but meaning is created at another level, namely in the form of stories. Human existence does not take place in the abstractness of language but rather in a world of commonly shared and communicated meaning, e. g. in the continual creation of a conversational context, of discussion and storytelling, through which our reality is sustained, and our identities are mutually confirmed. Our thoughts and beliefs about ourselves are developed through the stories that we use (Shotter, 2002), including their

98

Profiling systemic intervention

plots (action structures). Jerome Bruner claimed that events are lost to memory if they are not structured in narratives (1992), as the organizing principle in everyday psychology is that of a narrative rather than of a logical or categorical nature. Stories told in this way develop a dynamic force toward creating reality: “What stories do you allow to take over your life? And who else could you be if you didn’t give them so much control?” These questions, asked by Michael White (1993), suggest a form of counter-conversation that contrasts with culturally-dictated descriptions and seeks out the “story behind the story” that is overshadowed by the dominant narrative. This perspective acknowledges an ancient (albeit somewhat overlooked) wisdom, the presence of which we take for granted in novels and literature, which states that reality can be described in a variety of different ways and that it takes many narrative perspectives to tell a story. Neither perspective is right or wrong, rather it is precisely the diversity of viewpoints that allows complex events to be perceived appropriately, without being reduced to a single structure or theory. Working with the Reflecting Team (RT) is still relatively new to systemic consultation. On the basis of the systemic approach described earlier, this model assumes that it is precisely this actively maintained variety of narrative perspectives that lends itself to complex sequences of events and cannot be reduced to a single explanation. Thus an attempt is made to enter into supportive dialogue with advice-seeking systems and open up a context of cooperation – a space in which all participants are given equal chance to align their perspectives, impulses and problem-solving ideas.

8.2  Basic structure of RT work The core structure consists of creating and maintaining a spatial separation between a consultation system – family, team, couple, etc., consultant (we will call it “team A” in the following) and “team B” an observational system consisting of two to four observers. The two different positions between team A and team B generate different levels of perspectives in the room, which in turn may promote different descriptions and thus generate distinctive meaning, etc. (Hargens & von Schlippe, 1998).

Reflecting teams and reflecting positions99

The interview starts in team A, the system joined by consultant of the conversation partners. After introducing the setting (and getting a “yes” from every participant to the approach), the consultant begins the conversational dialogue by asking questions that are “appropriate and unusual” (Andersen, 1991): not too far away from the experience of the people but not so soft and easy that no new and unusual information is generated. In the classical form of RT, as introduced by Andersen, the consultant just asks and refrains from any intervening attitude. After 30–40 minutes, the session is interrupted to allow for a phase of reflection within team B, the observation team. Consultation team A is present and listens. The members of A, including the consultant, do not participate in this reflecting conversation. Team B discusses the session in an open way so that it becomes easy to say “no” for the members of team A to what they have heard. So team B do not promote diagnoses, interpretations, and psychological phrases but contribute assumptions and associations, draw connections between topics, and share their own feelings and thoughts that arose while observing the interview. In this way, the persons seeking advice in team A may listen to ideas and solution-oriented associations without feeling under pressure or in need to defend their view. It could be compared to the situation of walking past an open door and hearing one’s own name spoken. It’s much more interesting to stop and listen than to enter and get “involved”. Guidelines for RT ȤȤ Every comment should reflect an appreciative perspective. Condescending and “analyzing” remarks (“It’s easy to see that this man behaving this cowardly towards his wife hasn’t yet solved the autonomy-dependency conflict with his mother!”) have no place in RT. ȤȤ Comments should be careful, exploratory and formulated in the “conditional” (“it could be …”) rather than pre-determined and diagnostic. The point is not to find “the” one single explanation. Instead, it is actively sustained diversity that helps the advice-seeking system to become aware of multiple, co-existing perspectives.

100

Profiling systemic intervention

ȤȤ Consequently, differing views in RT are not perceived as antagonistic. Rather, they are considered an inspiration and an opportunity for further reflection on new ways of looking at things (“It’s interesting that you see it this way! I have had another association …”). This avoids competition (“Who has the best – or the one right – answer?”) Instead, the aim is to offer a “diverse range of perspectives” from which to choose. ȤȤ Reflection should not take too much time (approx. 5–10 minutes) and not be confused by bringing in too many ideas. To finish off, the consultant encourages participants in the consultation system to comment on the different reflections. After this, conversational dialogue is resumed in Team A. The consultant supports the different voices now, while keeping the focus on new aspects (“Was there something that inspired you? Were you able to make new connections?”), and less on correcting comments from the RT. Most often, after another 20–40 minutes there is another round of reflection by team B (in rare cases a third). The interview ends (in general after about 90 min.) and the members of team A have the last say in any case.

8.3  Reflecting positions in team coaching Once it is understood that it is not the setting (it is not easy always to engage a “team B” for a session) but rather the logic of playing with levels of reflection that is of importance, the range of options in systemic work opens up: Reflecting positions (RP) can be applied in every situation, even when there is no reflecting team available. The idea, after all, is to introduce perspectivity and to support persons/ systems seeking advice in assuming another point of view. Thus, the counseling process proceeds as usual at the beginning: a consultant starts the interview with questioning. The dialogue then may be interrupted by up to three reflection phases when some or all participants are invited to take in reflecting positions (RP). That means that those involved become members of a “virtual team B” and start a “conversation about the conversation”. The whole group (if not too large) or parts of it may be encouraged to assemble on different chairs

Reflecting teams and reflecting positions101

(the “observation chars”) and start to comment on the conversational dialogue from this new perspective. The process can be repeatedly interrupted while the consultant selects different sub-groups to join the “eagle’s nest” from where they can observe the course of the conversation from “a bird’s eye perspective”. When? The right time to interrupt the dialogue process and to bring in and apply RP as a model depends on spur-of-the-moment intuition. From experience, we can say that the following are good indicators: ȤȤ Little clarity, but a lot of emotion in the air ȤȤ Possible “hidden agendas” or some issues seem to be avoided ȤȤ Fear of direct confrontation ȤȤ Clear sub-systems are delineated that usually aren’t seen as specific groups (e. g. men-women sub-systems, different work groups, full-time and part-time employees, etc.) ȤȤ Following an extended conversational process in which both content and emotional aspects played a role. The next step is then to sort things out Who should be included? If there are fewer than four people in a group, the entire team can be brought into the reflecting position. Otherwise, it is more interesting to address sub-systems. For example: ȤȤ Two opponents, who attacked each other most vehemently in the conflict ȤȤ Two or three “silent types” whose observation and hypotheses may prove conducive to the conversational process ȤȤ Representatives of specific sub-systems, such as women-only or men-only reflecting teams

Creating an imbalance by bringing in only those representing conflict positions should be avoided. How to introduce team members? The selection of team members is, of course, very important as is the wording used in inviting them to join. We have had positive expe-

102

Profiling systemic intervention

rience with invitations in which the wording both tends to reduce anxiety and present a challenge. Both elements are embedded in metaphorical language. Example “We have been talking for quite some time now and I would like to share an idea of mine with you which might help us to sort things out. It is a very simple way of helping to generate new ideas – and if it doesn’t work, we can simply consider it an interesting experiment. Would you like to try it? I would like for us to proceed to the ‘eagle’s nest’ (new place in the room) and to observe our dialogue from above, so to speak. This will require some discipline, however, so as not to continue the dispute, but to actually maintain an eagle’s perspective when speaking about the dialogue, ‘talk about talking’ so to speak. I’m not quite sure if you are able to manage this at this point or if you are in fact still too caught up in the conflict. Do you think you can manage this? If it doesn’t work, put the blame on me and we’ll simply continue as before.” Next, the chairs are switched around to demarcate the context: this is now the “eagle’s nest”. It must be placed at the edge rather than in the center, where a reflecting position is often difficult to assume: a “fish bowl” is not the bird’s eye position. Certain rules apply in the eagle’s nest: all statements will be in the conditional form, searching and careful, as conjecture or deliberation and comments will only be made about the dialogue itself and its process. We recommend encouraging individuals in the “eagle’s nest” to refer to themselves in the third person so as to hypothesize about themselves as if observing themselves from the outside.

Structuring the work with reflecting positions When members of the advice-seeking system are invited into a reflecting position, the consultant is faced with the important task of moderating the reflecting process, making sure that the members remain in the “eagle’s perspective” and do not continue with problem talk. In our experience, a model that lends itself to description over several phases has proven effective (von Schlippe, 2009).

Reflecting teams and reflecting positions103

Phases of the reflecting process as applied in reflecting positions Phase I: Invite participants to join the “eagle’s nest” Explain and then change the setting, assuming a meta-perspective. Challenge the participants to stay in the observer’s position (otherwise ascribe the responsibility of a possible failure to yourself).

Phase II: Stimulating reflection The invited persons may be asked questions such as: “In what way could this structure be both meaningful and helpful at this point?”; “How have you been feeling as the ‘observer’ of the conversation so far? Do you think those people come closer to solving their issues the way they talk?”; “What associations arise for you when you reflect back upon the course of the dialogue? What are you curious about? Where do doubts arise?” Related input can also come from the consultant: “I was curious/ had my doubts at this point … how did it affect you?”; “I had a funny association when watching the consultant …” Confrontation, too, is possible: “I question this or that … do you do that to? How is it that you don’t find that surprising?” Whenever the dialogue reverts to a discussion about content, gently encourage/challenge the client to keep to the “eagle’s perspective” and to separate the levels. Phase III: Sensitizing to patterns In this phase, circular questions can be used to inspire participants to recognize and analyze patterns: “If asked as observers: What is the pattern here? Is what is happening here familiar or rather new?”; “At what point did something in the dialogue strike you as new?”, “Whenever …, then …”. This can proceed on a confrontational level: “This is what I observed, who do you think feels bad about this?”; “I noticed that the conflict seemed mainly to escalate between x and y (e. g. between two colleagues in the ‘eagle’s nest’). Why do you think these two individuals stand for this? What does this mean for the team: is the team having them put on a show? In what way does the team benefit from just letting those two fight?”

104

Profiling systemic intervention

Phase IV: Changing patterns Questions related to pattern changes can be formulated as follows: “What would constitute another pattern, or a modification? What are your inner images? What would you say to that group over there as an advisor for a modification to be effective?” But remember not only to ask in positive directions: questions should always be asked about the benefit to be derived from holding onto this pattern, at least for the moment. Phase V: Using the reflecting position to prepare for possible changes “What disadvantages would adapting to a new pattern involve? How would you like them to act in a similar situation in the future? What could prevent them from doing so? What might be a good thing to do if one were to lapse back into the old pattern?” Phase VI: Back on the level of the conversation, team reflection “Reflecting what those ‘observers’ presented to us: what was new for you? What issues arose up for you? Was there maybe something that would have been better left unsaid?”

8.4 The “Visits with the Reflection List” in organizational consultation In the project “Systemic Organizational Development in Psychiatric Facilities” (Schweitzer et al., 2005), we developed a further variation of reflecting work. Visits by a “neutral” systemic observer were to initiate self-reflection within the organization from the external perspective. The research question of the project was: “By which criteria may an observer recognize that a (psychiatric) facility is managed according to the standards of systems theory and systems consultation?” Together with 17 other psychiatric facilities, indicators were elaborated for working systemically at the organizational level. The result was the “Reflection List for Systemic Process Design”, an instrument which an organization can use to determine how many and what kind of systemic elements can be implemented in their psychiatric practice. The reflection list is divided into three main topic areas, establishing the respective facility’s current situation:

Reflecting teams and reflecting positions105

Topics of the “reflection list” Heading: The facility’s current situation 1. Size and age of the facility 2. Type of institution: medical or within the context of social services, in- patient or out-patient? 3. Viability status: security or endangerment, growth or decline?

Systemic work with patients and relatives 1. Speaking about “illness and health” 2. Negotiating implication, content and length of stay 3. Treatment choices available 4. Management of medication and diagnoses 5. The setting for reflection for relatives and other participants 6. Systemic consultation regarding options in difficult situations Employee participation, leadership culture and organization 1. Credo and style of organizational development 2. Employees: participation and autonomy in team sessions, in conversations with customers and organizational development 3. Human resource development: use of resources and strengthening competence 4. Reflection setting: clinical supervision, team facilitation and coaching 5. Leadership culture: inspiring and unsettling, or controlling and authoritarian 6. Feedback culture between officers and employees 7. Internal information policy: transparency and openness to dialogue Relationship to the environment 1. External feedback 2. Regional case management 3. Networking agreement Such “visits with the reflection list”, are particularly conducive to bringing about real change processes in organizations, ȤȤ when the visits coincide with previously planned change processes for which the persons responsible have been designated;

106

Profiling systemic intervention

ȤȤ when a decision has to be made which partial systems of the organization are to be visited and which not; ȤȤ when the visit is integrated into the overall goal and change process, participants have been informed well in advance and the purpose is clear; ȤȤ when both interaction partners and participants represent a wide range of interested parties (in a psychiatric hospital, for example, in addition to employees and patients, also relatives and cooperating facilities in the immediate vicinity); ȤȤ when, through helpful questions and surprising responses, as well as competent facilitation during group interviews conducted during the visit, a new awareness is generated among participants; ȤȤ when the consultant assumes a mindful approach, coupled with natural and sincere curiosity and conveys this in a convincing manner; presents feedback in an anonymous way; describes their initial impression in a positive way before turning to the more critical aspects; initiates discussion of their comments among participants on site; ȤȤ when the individuals responsible for the process integrate its findings into their work.

8.5  Reflecting teams in case management Case management has maintained a considerable impetus over the last 20 years throughout the healthcare and social service sectors (Wendt, 1995). It becomes significant when individual service providers no longer act exclusively on their own, charging exorbitant fees while considering that this in some way reflects their business savvy. Given these circumstances, collaboration with individual service providers is ethically laudable, however, in a business sense it is entirely expendable. On the other hand, if the collaboration evolves into a business-based comprehensive system (e. g. in managed care, in cooperative offices, in community-based organizations in an internally regionalized social or youth services facility, etc.) that coordinates its internal overlaps, a collaboration may prove effective. This is where case management steps in. One of the specialists assumes the position of “coordinator” of the many specialists, follows the clients’,

Reflecting teams and reflecting positions107

patients’ or pupils’ progress through the support network, compiles the reports submitted by all specialists and maintains overall responsibility for the client, regardless of the latter’s actual “condition” and the facility at which he/she is being treated. Case management is not yet an entity unto itself. Depending on the case manager’s “systems competence” (Manteuffel & Schiepek, 1998), progress made in consultation may or may not be satisfactory and, in addition, can be handled in a very bureaucratic way. Case management distinguishes itself further through the support of advisory case management teams whose job is to resolve critical or chronically unproductive care together with the coordinator. This includes exploring different system levels (the patients’ personal psychodynamic, the dynamic in his/her relationship with their family, medical or social conditions and cooperation between the attending physicians), how such factors thwart new developments and which steps must be taken to achieve better results. Such case management teams deal with difficult cases and should be assembled according to the “Noah’s Ark principle”, consisting of colleagues from different institutions and departments in an effort to pool heterogeneous field competence. Team members should receive basic training in systemic thinking and coaching techniques. The reflecting team is ideal in situations such as these, as it motivates members to collectively engage in systematic, idea-generating reflection on better problem-solving.

9

Interventions in coaching

9.1  Working with inner parts The idea that human beings are made up of many “inner parts” that can interact more or less effectively and that form a kind of “inner parliament”, a “choir of inner voices”, an “inner team” or an “inner family system” within us, has a long tradition (more detail: Schwartz, 1997; Schulz-von Thun & Stegemann, 2004). This idea becomes systemically-constructivist when clients themselves invent and label these parts and organize their interaction by themselves.

The advantage of this type of metaphorical description is that it allows clients to adapt to and identify with it quite easily and that “monolithic” descriptions (Alon & Omer, 2005 also refer to “demonic descriptions”) can be avoided, by which individuals might be referred to as “thoroughly” evil, incompetent, bad or ill. Even if a person is prone to violence, ill-temper or acts excessively aggressively, it can be assumed that other voices that also contribute to their inner “parliament” can be addressed and recruited as allies. Offering an image with such a range of inner “parts” is particularly helpful in face-to-face coaching. The different parts that have their origin in a person’s biography surround a core or “the self ”. This can be illustrated on a flip chart and labeled. The “self ” serves an important authoritative function that engages with the separate parts, establishes a connection and integrates them. Example The head of a social services center who felt that his work was being continually disrupted discovered that as a person with leadership responsibility, three of his inner characters were involved in a constant process of inner dissent. The characters took the form of a “clown” (creative and vibrant with energy and new ideas), “the pig” (power hungry, egotistical, assertive) and a “teddy bear” (slightly depressive, melancholy and loving). Without an integrated sense of self, these

Interventions in coaching109

characters would lose their strength and disempower one another. It was an eye-opener for him to realize that these three character traits in combination were actually ideal attributes of a leader and that if one trait were missing, it would deprive him of a key part of his personality. The “clown”, for example, would be wasting his creativity without the ability to assert himself. The “pig” without the loving element would make him a ruthless leader. The “teddy bear” without the others would remain helpless and alienated. His main task henceforth was to determine how he (i. e. his “self”) could improve the conditions for these three “valuable advisors” to allow them to cooperate more effectively.

The best way to try out this form of intervention is to practice with three people in a work group. One assumes the role of the client (A) and comes up with a problem such as a disruptive factor in his/her work. The others (B and C) are interface partners. 1. Problem identification and contract After an initial introduction to the problem, the advisors introduce the idea that we all consist of different parts, inner voices and partial personalities. The parts may or may not work well together. Counseling could consist of observing the cooperation between the different parts and, if possible, generating measures to improve it. 2. Identifying and labeling the parts How do you feel about this? Which parts would you make responsible to some extent for the disruption in your work (or another problem you may have named)? Those seeking advice should come up with at least three (in the case of disruptions at work there is usually one assertive part that insists on working things out. Another resists and, in so doing, makes sure that it doesn’t happen. A further “creative inner part” can then be asked to join in and given the task of generating new ideas and problem-solving possibilities). The parts should also be given names such as just “Henry”, or “Sleeping Beauty”, “My Courage”, “Cinderella” (this comes quite close to what Virginia Satir, one of the pioneer-figures of the systemic family therapy, called a “parts party”). Whether the names refer to a man or a woman evokes further interesting aspects.

110

Profiling systemic intervention

3. Interviewing the parts Now a conversational dialogue can be initiated about the issue of how the three (or more) characters get along, followed by circular questions, the distance between them, how they feel about one another, how well they cooperate, etc. Blocks or other symbols can be used to boost imagination and visualization. The parts can also be interviewed directly. This is done by A sitting in a chair reserved for one of the parts (it should be a different one than the one of the “self ”) and being questioned by B or C in this role. 4. Search for the self Now the group of parts can be cast in the picture of a “circle of elders” among Native Americans tribes. Who is the chief? In this way, the idea can be introdused that the core of the person, the “self ” is actually this chief (or “captain of the ship” or the like). “How well are you able to identify with your role at this point? Do you allow the parts to counsel you adequately or have you given over the reins entirely? Which one of the parts thinks that he/she is the one predestined to take charge should the captain be momentarily incapacitated?” 5. A holistic view of one’s own inner conflict This involves reframing; the inner conflict evolves into a “counseling session” for the inner advisors, who conduct the session in order to support the decision-making self. An important aspect here is that all the advisors (even a negatively connoted part) should be treated with respect, acknowledged and valued: “What does A enable you to do? And B? Perhaps having both sides is especially beneficial to you. One side makes sure you enjoy what you are doing, the other that you maintain a structure and yet others act as the ‘accelerator’ and the ‘brake’. And how does the creative part feel about all this? What novel idea that you were previously not aware of could this part contribute? How would you feel if you acknowledged and valued each one of these inner advisors – and then told them respectfully how you intend to decide?” 6. In closing, homework can be assigned on a voluntary basis. So it may be possible to “lend a hand” to one of the parts one wants to get more in touch with and then start writing a letter. After

Interventions in coaching111

receiving that letter, an answer can be written etc., back and forth. In one case a client after four weeks came back with a pack of 30 pages of correspondence, his relationship to his “inner Goethe” had changed drastically by writing.

9.2  The “Carousel of expectations and assignments” Consultants are always at the center of a web of different expectations (see also chapter 2). The image of a “carousel” can be of particular benefit in face-to-face or group coaching. Moreover, it has proven successful in coaching in cases of succession in family business (von Schlippe, 2014). Individuals who are not directly present in the setting play a considerable role in any form of consultation. They might frequently assign mandates, too. They may be “invisibly” present in the room, their fantasies and wishes with regard to the session may influence the process to a great extent and may even limit the participants’ freedom of expression. The following model illustrates how ingrained situations offer an opportunity of gaining a comprehensive overview of the external and inner voices in the contract constellation, so that a person can “pull him-/herself out of the situation by their own boot strings”. The “carousel” can be helpful to the person striving for clarification by him/herself, or with the help of others in a peer-supervision setting (for this kind of setting, see Herwig-Lempp, 2013). At the heart of this method stands the web of expectations and assignments as perceived and experienced by the person and regardless of its actual nature (in fact it is a way of clarifying the web of personal expectation-expectations). The following suggestions are intended as a case-specific set of instructions but can easily be modified as needed. Provide time and space Find a space where you will be undisturbed for up to two hours. Center yourself and ask yourself, without censorship, who you believe plays an important part in the present situation. Designate a chair (or pillow or just a sheet of paper) for each person you can think of, placing notes on them with their names on.

112

Profiling systemic intervention

Name the external problem system Of course you start with those who are directly involved in the process. Next, it is important to concentrate on those with whom you are not directly in contact. The problem-system may include these. The question here addresses “implicit membership”: what explicit and hidden expectations of these implied members might be present in the room? Which individuals develop a perspective with regard to what is happening in the sessions and what types of contract-offers do they convey, either directly or indirectly? Find inner expectations, inner parts Problem systems do not only come about through communication between people on the outside, but also through communication with inner voices, e. g. with representatives of one’s own critical or supportive parts. They can be addressed to people in one’s own personal history such as a strict, performance-oriented father, a needy grandmother as well as very personal inner voices such as the “inner pressure to perform”, “the perfectionist”, “the inner feminist”, etc. (one can also choose fantasy figures such as a fairy tale character, actor, politician, famous people in history or the like). Surround yourself with these characters (usually no more than 2–3) while keeping helpful inner and external people in mind (e. g. your partner who says: “Regardless of how you solve the problem, I still like you!”). Finally invite your “creative part” to join you, the entity that has helped you so many times in the past to tackle your problems successfully by seeing them in an entirely new way. Feeling the block up The carousel always proceeds from the core feeling of being blocked. Try to focus on this feeling in detail: how do I feel with regard to the system I’m concerned with? Take a look around: where is the feeling strongest? Begin there. Identification: focusing the contract The next step involves getting in closer contact with all or the most important characters by sitting in their chairs and empathizing with them: identify with the person, “become the person” in a way, trying

Interventions in coaching113

to see the situation from his/her perspective. This method of identification, derived from Gestalt therapy, offers unmitigated access to personal experience that cannot be achieved by being too much “in the mind”. Furthermore, through identification in this way, new hypotheses can be generated about hidden contracts that lie beneath the surface of the actual contract. Try to end the identification with a concise statement about the actual assignments and the hidden ones: “I want a clear feedback culture in our team!”; “Make sure that when it all blows up, you keep me out of it!”; “Help me to be better appreciated by father!”; “Help me to not feel so guilty!”; “Make it clear that my wife is responsible for the problems in our family!” Focusing issues in this way is easier with the aid of a second person who helps “squeeze the lemon” to really get to the essential sentence that captures the expectation. The sentences are then written down on the paper. Introducing “helpers” where indicated This step can be omitted but can be an interesting experience in a group setting: sit at the center of the group and have the contracts read to you again out loud, by role-players. At the beginning, this can proceed step-by-step and can eventually take on the character of a carousel as the sentences flow into one another. Close your eyes: which contracts do you feel were given more emphasis? How do single key words affect you? The “democratic feeling” Since the abolition of feudalism and slavery, no one can be forced into something against his/her will. You might do something you do not enjoy doing in order to keep your job, but you always reserve the right to say “no”. It is important to bear this in mind: no one can force me, I am never obliged to accept a contract, especially if it’s automatically assumed that I’ll be given it. A contract requires agreement on the part of both parties. This is an important prerequisite for the next step, differentiation: what will I accept, what do I reject outright and where do I suggest a compromise?

114

Profiling systemic intervention

Differentiate the abundance of expectations: acceptance, modification, rejection If you return to your original position following the different identification processes, you might experience similar feelings to those individuals who are overcome with feelings of helplessness when faced with various and often contradictory and incompatible expectations: “I’ll never get all that straight!” One is confronted with the complexity of the whole thing and may experience it as something that cannot be reduced. Here, it is important to differentiate and follow the Chinese proverb: “The path of 1000 miles begins with the first step”. Take your chair and sit across from every single person, one after the other and pay attention to what part of the contract you are prepared to deal with, what you will modify and what you will reject: “I will not accept the contract in this form. I can, however, offer you this and that!” After having completed this round, many consultants experience a feeling of liberation: it isn’t necessary to comply with all expectations. One can juxtapose one’s own offers as soon as the web of expectations and assignments has become clear. Where do I stand now? Determining your point of departure and implementation Going through the carousel frequently opens up more freedom of action. Clarification of the situation may lead to a range of actions which themselves impact on the system and allow new interaction patterns to develop. Sometimes the carousel itself needs more clarification: 1. In the case of very problematic explicit expectations. Where the contracts are very vague or contradictory, these should be discussed openly with clients as the contract is obviously not yet clear. Clarification of this nature can lead to termination of the session or to a continuation at another level with other participants. 2. In the case of relentless critical parts. Unlike external cooperating partners, contracts involving persistent inner voices cannot simply be rejected. Quite possibly, in confronting critical inner voices, life issues may arise for which one will need support. An interim agreement can be made with these critical voices, for

Interventions in coaching115

example, by asking the inner “critic” to wait outside for the duration of the session, perhaps even on a special chair reserved for that purpose.

9.3  Leadership consultation and coaching Managers seek professional advice either from within their organization (most often at company expense) or on their own (at their own expense). Many occasions call for professional advice in individual sessions (coaching). Three of the most common situations in which professional advice is sought are described here. Counseling as a transitional ritual: alleviating the fear of assuming a leadership role. In our work, “future supervisors” who have just recently assumed or are about to assume this role in their work and who anticipate complications repeatedly consult us: ȤȤ having been appointed supervisor of a social services organization and fearing their colleagues’ envy or non-cooperation, ȤȤ having been hired externally as the director of a school, where they are new and in direct competition with the incumbent assistant director, ȤȤ declining, as head physician, to extend the contracts of certain employees, despite anxiety about possible resentment, ȤȤ being uncertain about how self-confident to appear amid the “good old boys”, in the role as temporary deputy. All these situations can be considered to be typical of potential problem areas in which a certain amount of uncertainty is unavoidable. On the one hand, the new supervisor must inevitably leave behind parts of their old “employee identity” behind, while it is not yet clear which parts they can keep. On the other, they may have a vague feeling that they must show respect for the traditions and employees at the new site. However, where does their restructuring contract begin and where and to what extent may they “step on people’s toes”? Moreover, they have doubts about the roles expected of them, some of which they may not be willing to identify with and others they may choose to avoid all together. And finally they need an ally,

116

Profiling systemic intervention

in particular someone with whom they can share their worries and doubts. Who, aside from the counselor, could this be? In our experience, these kinds of counseling sessions can be very brief: one or two, at most five meetings suffice for the new supervisor to begin answering his/her own questions. Frequently, the individuals who are posted to such difficult leadership positions are very socially competent and are able to put the experience gained during counseling to work straight away. The following exploratory questions have proved helpful for future supervisors facing a transitional phase: ȤȤ What are the small but significant symbolic actions that staff are quick to notice with regard to a new leading figure in this facility? What words and behavior would quickly push warning buttons and what behavior is looked upon favorably? ȤȤ Who are the “ghosts” and who the heroes in the history of this organization’s past? What stories circulate indicating “open wounds”? ȤȤ What are the new employees particularly proud of, that they would like to see the new supervisor acknowledge? ȤȤ Why was this particular individual chosen as the new head? What unfulfilled wishes within the organization is he/she expected to fulfill? ȤȤ Who is hurt or feels passed over by the supervisor’s appointment? ȤȤ Who are the new supervisor’s obvious and potentially loyal supporters? Could there be other sources of support that he/she is not yet aware of? ȤȤ Five years later, what will have become of the resistance observed toward the new supervisor during the first four weeks? The answers to these questions provide a rough map of the history, culture and coalitions within this organization. The idea now is to confront this map in “respectful disrespect” and mistrust, and to call into question those points that seem to unnerve the new supervisor. The coach can help in such a situation by recounting stories from similar experiences or by asking questions that approach the situation from a worst-case scenario: “What could you say about yourself if you wanted to make yourself lose confidence entirely in this sit-

Interventions in coaching117

uation?” And vice-versa: “What story could you tell about yourself and this situation if you wanted to go into it calmly and confidently, beginning tomorrow?” Management coaching on issues of balancing both family and job Other key indications for consultation in this field are impending job transfers, relocation to distant locations, as is often required in large corporations, and changing to another company. Many of these transitions do not transpire or are revoked because they don’t fit in with the manager’s personal plans. Such obstacles are often rooted somewhere between the triad involving family, job and self-image: ȤȤ The spouse is unwilling or unable either to give up, interrupt or relocate his/her work; nor is either spouse prepared to shuttle between bases. ȤȤ The children protest against moving; the parents fear that the children will be disadvantaged by changing school systems, leaving their circle of friends or giving up convenient child-care situations. ȤȤ The parties fear isolation or even danger at the new site. ȤȤ Relocation has never been considered an option for the manager. ȤȤ The job offer does not appear safe or reliable enough, bottom-line amenities seem insufficient or undependable, benefits for career advancement seem questionable and the quality standards of the work involved are not clearly defined.

Characteristic of this decision-making situation is its multi-layered nature: each argument stems from an entirely different system logic based on different reasoning, which means that in the end things do not add up (“How significant must the father’s (and, increasingly, mother’s) career advancement be for the parents to be able to withstand stress within the relationship or to make up for the daughter’s bad grades?”). In today’s post-modern, democratically-structured families, with women claiming equal rights, it is unlikely that the reasoning behind the spouse’s career choice will proceed without at least some conflicting viewpoints.

118

Profiling systemic intervention

In management coaching, the coach looks at each intricate part of the work-life construct separately to identify possible misunderstandings, insufficient or incorrect information etc. Next, the task is to gain a comprehensive overview of the contradictory situation, which, in most cases inevitably takes place at the intuitive level, since the facts alone don’t add up in an objective sense. It could prove effective to address the following issues: ȤȤ The attitude towards the offer: “When you heard about it for the first time, was the first thing you said ‘Great!’ or ‘Oh, no!’?”, ȤȤ Feedforward: ask the person to picture a particularly pleasant life situation for the next two years (and maybe also a particularly unpleasant one as an alternative) and then see if the job change will be part of this work-life situation. Ask future-oriented questions to explore: “How will you feel two, three, five years after accepting this job offer?”, ȤȤ Time-travel: take the manager through an imaginary time warp over the next few months and years, while “experiencing” symbolically how the future will “feel” once a decision has been taken in one direction or another, ȤȤ Use of media: have the manager create a spontaneous image during a session to be illustrated through sculpting (with objects in a dyadic session or with role-players in a group), also demonstrating the power relationship or family constellation, e. g. “Where do I stand in relation to my old job, the new job, my family, my desires and my feelings of obligation?” All these approaches may help intuitively and comprehensively assess alternative decisions. Getting out of the sandwich: counseling managers at the middle and lower levels Middle management and managers at lower levels of the ladder (e. g. foremen in industrial trades, department chiefs, hospital ward managers) are often called upon to implement decisions at a base level even though they were never involved in the decision-making process of the top-level management team. Quite possibly they are not even aware of all the details involved or understand the implica-

Interventions in coaching119

tions. However, they are the first to feel the pressure from employees at baseline. Example A group of foremen ask for a consultation. They complain that they “leave for work every morning, full of anxiety” and are “not able wind down after work in the evening”. Occasionally, they “explode”. The way they experience the situation: their job is to motivate fewer employees than before to perform at a higher level, while work conditions are becoming worse and the pace of work is increasing. This pressure at work means that employees rarely see each other or have the time to chat. The result is that they are constantly confronted with work-related problems left unfinished by their colleagues, causing general discontent. After listing these issues, the employees’ own problem-solving ideas are explored, and the consultant contributes some suggestions of his own. In the end, three ideas are generated at very different system levels. At an individual level, participants agree to set some time aside for after-work downtime and to cultivate personal evening “rituals” (“taking a shower”, “driving the 40 km home”, “relaxing on the terrace”, “thinking about what bedtime story to read to the children tonight”). Depending on the number of employees, it is agreed to arrange a halfhour Friday afternoon session during which the otherwise widely dispersed workers have the chance to get together and talk: “What went well this week? What went less well? What could be done differently next week?” Upper management should be informed about information deficits in the organization and about what plans for change are not acceptable. Furthermore, they are requested to bring these issues up and take a stance at the works council the following month.

Consultation with “dependent supervisors” must assume a dual role, showing respect for hierarchy on the one hand and disrespect on the other. The hierarchy must be intrinsically respected while exploring just how much elbow room the “dependent supervisors” have at their disposal, so that they can be supported in rejecting “impossible assignments” in a reasonable manner and hand them over to individuals who are better equipped to do the job. The ultimate goal is to ensure the employees’ physical wellbeing and enhance job satisfaction.

10

Interventions in systemic team and organizational consultation

Team or organizational consultation is most often sought after at times of unstable transitional phases, such as during the team’s initial formation stage; when two existing teams are fused into one (frequently against the employees’ own will); a redefinition of the scope of work of a longstanding project; the decentralization (including dispersion) of a team that has worked together closely or the splitting up of a large team into a number of smaller teams. Consultation is also often sought when teams from different organizations are asked to collaborate.

Teamwork has taken on a key role in the planning of and adaptation to decentralized organizational leadership in different environmental conditions (Zwack, Zwack & Schweitzer, 2007). Work teams are expected to be self-organizing and coordinate leadership among members subject to certain overall conditions (contract, success criteria with regular checks, budget, possibly the number of team members) that has been prescribed from above. Furthermore, when the conditions periodically change, the team is expected to adapt. In cases such as these, in particular, a number of hands-on approaches for medium-sized to large groups have been effective in keeping teams and organizations on target (Schweitzer, 2005). In times of rapid change, it is important to keep the team on track and remain steady under pressure.

10.1  Forming teams In the early phase of forming an entirely new team with members from different backgrounds, a consultant can help in selecting candidates if this turns out to be more challenging than expected.

Interventions in systemic team and organizational consultation 121

Example A large hospital committee is planning to open a satellite clinic. The move is accompanied by mixed feelings, as a number of well-liked employees at the main hospital will relocate to the satellite clinic. Those who are moving to the new site vacillate between feeling that this is a great opportunity and being “thrown in at the deep end”. A reason for this ambivalence can be found in the circle of supervisors, whose half-hearted efforts to recruit personnel both from inside and outside the clinic was not successful in attracting enough candidates in the two months before the interviews were to take place. A counselor claimed in a second meeting that the unprofessional way in which candidate recruitment was handled seemed to him like an extraordinarily intelligent form of self- sabotage in view of the proposed new clinic. It may even have been an act of loyalty to counter existing doubts. This unleashed an animated debate about how “aggressively” or “secretively” one dares to advertise. In a third meeting and as a meaningful, symbolic act, three managers from the main center were asked to give the project and the aggressive recruitment measures “their blessing”. Once achieved, the decision was taken at a fourth meeting to go ahead with a more aggressive form of advertising. By the time a fifth meeting was held, three months after the meeting concerning the “self-sabotaging”, nearly all the positions had been filled.

Once the employees are on board, external counseling can help speed up the initial team-forming phase and ease the team into the performing phase. It helps if the team members, together with their leaders, can briefly devise a “map” that indicates their diverse professional work experience (former jobs, job training), as well as expectations and reservations with regard to their new responsibilities. Sculpting positions, in particular, lend themselves very well to visualizing this situation.

10.2  Merging teams Teams merge when either the number of employees decreases or when the function of one or both teams is no longer considered necessary by management. Often a section of the newly merged teams

122

Profiling systemic intervention

experiences the situation as the victim of institutional development and is not particularly motivated to take on the work expected by management. Moreover, the two team cultures often lack trust and feel uncomfortable with each other. Occasionally, counseling is sought in situations such as these when performance decreases dramatically and internal friction drains energy, leading to utter demotivation. The goal could be to achieve the following in two to five meetings: ȤȤ Explore the background history of both teams, as well as the merger, in order to understand the source of confusion and demotivation and then work toward resolving the issue. ȤȤ Clarify the situation and find a way for the team cultures to adapt to one another so that a starting point for a new mutual team culture can develop. ȤȤ Establish rules for renegotiating the most important questions regarding the collaboration. ȤȤ Redefine the new feeling of “togetherness” to be projected to the outside. Example Three half-day workshops are conducted with a hospital ward that has been combined with other existing wards, as part of a consolidation measure. During the first half-day session, participants, who already know each other, form small groups to discuss “the best and worst” possible scenarios that come to mind. Subsequently, participants are taken on a journey back in time from over the past 14 years to review their euphoric, traumatic and routine phases. In closing, newspaper mock-ups are developed profiling the ward’s progress “a year later, when everything is well on its way” so as to document the very first steps. Representatives present the results of the group-work on these “first steps” from each group at the next meeting.

10.3  Decentralizing teams In the course of transforming specialized and centralized services into more generalized and decentralized business areas that are closer to the customer, existing teams may be dissolved and relocated to

Interventions in systemic team and organizational consultation 123

other centers. Whole sections of the administrative divisions are assigned to production units; marketing and controlling experts are appointed to the commercial road vehicle division; social workers and psychologists are appointed to separate wards within hospitals or outsourced to a city’s youth services as so called “inner city teams”. For employees, this is often a painful process and there also is a considerable cost to the organization. The employees are proud of their degree of specialization and feel supported in their role as experts by their colleagues, who share their professionalism and can answer difficult questions that come up on a daily basis. They risk losing these advantages if they are assigned to “the backwoods”. Of course, the prospect of new and more direct access “on site” may attract the curious and more adventurous of them. Counseling is usually sought at two different times during such transitional phases: ȤȤ During the planning phase of the reorganization, where expert advice was sought with regard to the question of how other organizations profited from similar reorganization processes. ȤȤ To ensure the smooth transition from single specialist teams to the teams “on site”. Counseling is preferred for teams who experience difficulties with the transition and block the move by resisting authority and showing signs of depression. Accompanying decentralization of the specialized service proceeds according to the following typical steps: 1. Clarify the contract: the goal, the scope, the latitude granted to decision-making flexibility and how to deal with trust must be determined together with the supervisor responsible for restructuring, the department of specialized services and possibly also with the supervisors of the prospective home teams. 2. Look back in gratitude, sorrow and anger: the idea here is to honor in retrospect what was good; to regret what is lost from both a professional and a more personal perspective. But also to review dissatisfaction with the former work situation (most often the view from “the ivory tower”) and the opportunities offered by decentralization. At this point, the employees separate into different camps, becoming the “changers” or “maintainers”. The facilitator’s job is to allow both voices to be heard equally. In sit-

124

Profiling systemic intervention

uations where there is anger and progress grinds to a standstill, a discussion (easy to evoke) about revenge, sabotage and redundancy fantasies can help visualize the useful energy that had previously been bound to “the call of duty” and increase the number of absences due to illness etc. 3. Move on: once the situation has been accepted, employees can gather in a ritual to bid farewell to the past (with a glass of wine, a short parting speech, a “funeral” or a departure symposium). Just like a good funeral, this ritual brings the irreversibility of the act into perspective. 4. Plan the move: the employees are entering a world that may be entirely new to them. In counseling, the main approach is to test and explore this unfamiliar territory, (“What are the people like there? How do they tick? What do they want from us?”), upon arrival (“Should we bring presents? What should we wear on our first day of work? How could we manage to appear impossible on the very first day?”) and about redefining one’s sense of self and self-confidence in the new context (“What do we have to offer them?”). 5. Maintain professional networks following the move: how can we keep the lines for exchange of professional information open? How can we support each other if there are difficulties in adapting to the new unit bases?

10.4  Position sculptures In team development and in workshops to foster regional cooperation among the different organizations, we most often begin with a position sculpture. Participants are asked to stand near those individuals with whom they feel they share at least one characteristic, in response to specific questions. Next, they are asked to stand far away from those they feel are unlike them. We begin with external characteristics that are easily expressed, e. g.: ȤȤ their place of birth or where they live on a national or regional map, ȤȤ the form of public transportation by which they arrived here today (on foot, by bike, car, train or bus),

Interventions in systemic team and organizational consultation 125

ȤȤ their educational background (e. g. medicine, sociology, nursing, administration or …), ȤȤ the facility in which they worked before or where they work now. The next questions get gradually closer to the event’s main theme. Here, we ask the participants to discuss the questions for two minutes with the person standing next to them. If the issue is regional collaboration, the following instructions could be given: ȤȤ Stand next to those colleagues in other facilities with whom you interact on a daily basis more than with others (and discuss the best experiences you had in the course of collaboration). ȤȤ Then, pick a colleague with whom you haven’t worked before (and discuss why, up to now, that wasn’t necessary). If the workshop’s main focus is conflict, the issues can be addressed in position sculptures: ȤȤ Find those colleagues with whom you have spoken most about the subject of this workshop (and discuss which subjects you would like to avoid during this session). ȤȤ Find a colleague with whom you have not spoken about today’s subject (and tell them what your greatest wish for this workshop would be). Position sculptures serve a number of functions. All participants get an idea of the big picture: “What interest do I share with people here and what sets me apart from whom?” This exercise gives the workshop direction and takes the place of time-consuming introductions. Participants make quick, early contact with each other in short, but nevertheless significant discussion and establish familiarity. The fact that this exercise is done while “milling around” also sets the stage physiologically, in the sense that something is set in motion. The questions lead right to the heart of the event’s subject matter. Position sculptures are recommended for groups with at least ten people or, better still, from fifteen upwards. The size of the group is limited only by room size and the availability of a microphone for the moderator.

126

Profiling systemic intervention

10.5  Walking the timeline The timeline is a versatile and experience-oriented tool (e. g. Grabbe, 2003, Schweitzer, 2006). Its structure is clear and easy to follow: a representative timeline (most often a rope) is placed on the floor with significant points marking years or other dates. Participants walk along the different points, allowing them to re-evaluate past events and develop plans for the future. Many of an individual’s characteristics and those of the social system (family, team, organization) become clearer when one gets to know their history, in particular the “critical phases” that often provide insights into how these were dealt with. Depending on the length of time the employees have been with the company, they are better able to assess both the “old timers” and the “youngsters” and are able to understand their very different views of the current situation. The founding member Together with a founding member, the facilitator initiates a “timeline journey” through the past years of the company’s existence, in the presence of the employees. During the process, the group delineates the organizational boundaries (e. g. only the bedroom furniture department or the entire furniture store; only the general psychology department or the entire psychiatric hospital), including the time frame under discussion. Frequently the time frame depends on the length of time the employees have been with the company. If, for example, an employee has been with the company for 20 years, then the participants walk the longest possible straight line in the room and indicate approximately where these 20 years are located on the line. Next, all the newer employees are asked to line up to the right and left of the time line depending on the year they joined the company, forming a guard of honor through which the facilitator and the longest serving employee walk together very slowly. The facilitator stops at (nearly) every year and asks the most senior employee, and then the later arrivals standing to the right and left of the line, what was particularly significant or characteristic that year. In this way, both the older and newer employees are made aware of the transition that has taken place over the years. More importantly, it becomes clear why

Interventions in systemic team and organizational consultation 127

the old-timers are content with entirely different things and suffer more from certain circumstances than the newcomers and vice versa. Example The employees of a department realize that they have been through a number of change processes that have ultimately led to a positive change in their approach to work. This causes a general feeling of satisfaction among them. On the other hand, they begin to understand that the uncertain employment status (temporary contracts) of the newer colleagues, as compared to the permanent employment status of the older colleagues, accounts for the tendency of the former to get less involved.

Using the timeline as a tool in crisis intervention Here too, work begins by laying down a line in the form of a rope. Participants agree on the direction the line is to take from the past into the future, marking the point at which the facility/team was founded. The point at which each individual joined the system is written on a card together with the person’s name. In addition, other cards of the same color list the following: ȤȤ the skills and abilities contributed by that particular person, ȤȤ the qualifications required by management upon hiring the person ȤȤ and the skills and qualifications acquired and brought into the system (the skills and qualifications are symbolized rather than specifically named).

The next step can involve indicating significant events in the organization’s history (by laying down cards). Team members develop these issues further and discuss them, allowing room for individual design (strings, knots, dates, etc.). In the follow-up, each participant answers three questions for him/herself that are presented to the group (without discussion): ȤȤ What skills and abilities have I contributed? ȤȤ On the basis of what qualification was I hired? ȤȤ What skills have I contributed since then? At this point, cards are laid along the timeline indicating crises in the company, also personal crises that have been successfully dealt with

128

Profiling systemic intervention

over time. Noted exceptions: where can situations be identified in the past that are similar to the current situation and that proceeded without turmoil? How might this indicate existing resources? In a next step, symbols for the current predicament can be placed on the timeline at the point indicating the present time followed by a discussion of the symbols, their meaning and the reason why they were chosen. Each person proceeds to walk the timeline from their particular point of entry into the organization and finds his/her own way of symbolically overcoming the crisis, i. e. stepping over the symbols (or around, under, etc.) in an effort to reach the near future: “the day after”. A short guided meditation on this issue: “How does it feel, how would you and the others notice that it is the day after the crisis? – What aspect in the past helped you or the organization – did it come from yourself or the organization?” Facing the future lying ahead: “In what way was it important to have experienced the crisis?” Participants are asked to proceed with an “over the shoulder view” and acknowledge past events. Then, each participant walks the line on the “march into the future” (e. g. possibly leaving the room in the process) and assumes the viewpoint of an observer looking from the outside on the present and ongoing process: “Where am I today? How was the crisis situation helpful, seen from this perspective?” From this perspective, each participant is encouraged to come up with a statement that is relevant to the difficult predicament and a similar statement addressed to the team and/or the organization. This exercise should not be discussed at length, so that the outcome can evolve in the course of the ongoing process.

10.6  Creating rituals Any sequence that takes place in organizations every day, every week, every month, from an observer’s perspective, illustrates ritual behavior, without participants being aware of them as such. This includes official meetings: meetings to discuss cases and strategy, team and support team meetings, discussions to plan support measures and work, council meetings, members’ meetings and board meetings. These involve informal and recurring forms of contact and an exchange of information: meeting at the coffee machine; “running

Interventions in systemic team and organizational consultation 129

into” the supervisor at an opportune moment on the way to the cafeteria; meeting around the water fountain (“Have you heard the latest …”). Also included are recurring processes whereby patients are admitted to hospitals and procedures recorded; where new customers are attracted and customer complaints handled by companies, either with appreciation for the feedback or countered defensively; and whether visitors are welcomed with a cup of tea or left alone in a dark and dismal hallway. These sequences of events form daily rituals. They lack much of what makes up classic rituals in the religious sense: ȤȤ They are secular rituals. They are not explicit in terms of written edicts. Instead, they “just happen”, albeit noticeably similar in practice, and usually with the unspoken consent of everyone involved. ȤȤ Participants don’t need to ascribe a “deeper meaning” to their rituals. Their actions are helpful in uncovering latent structures which convey meaning from the perspective of outsiders and/or from self-observation. In our experience, observing or exploring everyday rituals is the quickest way to get to know an organization’s culture. Moreover, such rituals point to key events in which small changes can herald a considerable impact on the culture. In this respect, and from a counselor/facilitator’s perspective, they are of interest with regard to when intervention should take place. With reference to Rappaport (as quoted by Roberts, 1988), a daily ritual within an organization can be understood in terms of a course of events with the following characteristics: ȤȤ Repetition: the same sequences of action, content and manner are repeatedly manifested or verbalized. ȤȤ Collectivity: the event becomes significant from a sociological perspective when the sequences are acted out or expressed collectively. ȤȤ Order: there is a typical beginning, a typical end and a typical course of events. ȤȤ Atypical behavior: participants behave or speak “somehow differently” than usual.

130

Profiling systemic intervention

ȤȤ Inherent meaning: during the course of observation, information concerning significant aspects of the organization’s self-awareness emerges. The final point is particularly important. From a constructivist point of view, there is no such thing as an everyday ritual in itself: before ascribing inherent meaning to the rituals and applying this to the organization’s culture, the participants and/or external counselor must first identify the nature of the meaning through a process of self-reflection and/or external observation. Not until this has been done can the participants decide if they want to continue to convey meaning in this form or present an alternative self-assessment by changing the old pattern (Imber-Black, Roberts & Whiting, 1988). Example A clinical training session takes place in the nursing academy every Monday morning from 8:00 to 9:00 a. m. The participants sit with their backs to the door of the classroom. The door creaks loudly whenever it is opened and causes considerable irritation. This has been going on for a number of years, during which time it has never been oiled. Every participant who enters later than 8:00 a. m. causes 20 to 30 heads to turn. The department heads generally live close to the hospital while the assistant heads often live an hour’s drive from the facility. As a rule, the head physicians are the ones who are irritated by the assistants’ late arrival and let them know, in no uncertain terms. After putting up with this situation for about two years, one of the assistant physicians suggests beginning at 8:15 a. m. instead of 8:00 a. m. on the grounds that the creaking door is experienced as an unwarranted and demeaning ritual. The department heads, on the other hand, feel that beginning punctually symbolizes dependability and commitment. After two more years, a compromise is finally reached.

Examples from psychiatric facilities lend themselves particularly well to describing outdated rituals in organizational development, regardless of whether they decide to undergo changes on their own or enlist outside support (Schweitzer et al., 2005).

Interventions in systemic team and organizational consultation 131

Transition rituals Rituals marking transition illustrate how times have changed in a meaningful way. They recall past events and acknowledge past achievements and then move on to prepare for new tasks. Rituals of this nature facilitate transitions from the pioneer phase to the differentiation phase and are characteristic of young start-up organizations that have undergone rapid development. Example A social services organization expanded rapidly over the last ten years. It had started with five employees and had grown to 100. The introduction of a middle management level and the end of the pioneer phase was imminent. The counselor suggested “founding a museum”. It is common knowledge that museums are often founded to preserve customs that are in danger of dying out. The organization museum, in the form of a wooden box, was mounted on the wall in the entrance area. Employees could place notes or items there to document what used to be important to them and were now a thing of the past. Established organizations at the cusp of transition from the differentiation phase to the integration phase, and whose field of specialization has become unnecessary ballast, must first do away with some specialized services they offer. Occasionally, this is accompanied by feelings of bereavement and resistance. Mourning rituals help legitimize such feelings. Once the employees have gone through them, they are more prepared to move on. Decision rituals In smaller organizations there are generally three basic (albeit simplified) decision models available that can be combined in many different ways. ȤȤ Top-down decision making: the supervisor makes the decisions ȤȤ The communicative model: the employee who is “closest to the case” decides. If difficulties arise he/she consults more experienced colleagues or the supervisor him/herself. ȤȤ The consensus model: everyone decides together. Only the decision that everyone can agree with is implemented.

132

Profiling systemic intervention

All three models have their pros and cons: the top-down model lends itself to arriving at results when employees are inexperienced, when a decision must be made quickly and when controversial issues in the team cannot be solved in any other way. However, practicing this model may turn into an obstacle if the supervisor takes over too much of the decision-making and can keep employees from contributing to the process. The communicative model is suited to experienced and competent employees but it requires a basis of trust among colleagues and a supervisor who is willing to delegate. The consensus model lends itself to decision-making where the participants’ vital interests are at stake and ought not to be overlooked. However, this approach may lead to a prolongation of the process, as well as to psychosomatic reactions in the attempt to reach a consensus. Rituals for time planning Meetings make regulations visible that are central to an organization. Meetings can also serve to bond employees, without which cohesion would be unlikely. When 70 % of the time spent in meetings in a clinical facility involves gossip about repair work on the premises, new administrative forms or a neighboring facility, this is an example of how the meeting serves the purpose of bonding. These kinds of meetings could also be transformed into an officially approved lunch hour, taking the official edge off the meeting and giving it a relaxed and non-threatening touch. This is not to say that there is a general excess of meetings. Sometimes it turns out that a request for external consultation is a result of a lack of internal meeting time, for which there may be good reason. Twice we found out during initial team meetings at an in-patient facility that the clinical team supervision held once every four weeks was the only opportunity for all members of the team to meet. Since the employees, in particular the nursing staff, worked radically different shifts, this was the only time they could agree to attend. As professional supervisors, we were asked to assist in finding a solution to the chronic communication problems among the shift workers: the second shift never continued the measures that had been initiated by the first together with the patients and carefully documented in the clinic ward agenda. Such issues, however, can’t be solved by clin-

Interventions in systemic team and organizational consultation 133

ical supervision since cooperation can only function when people are able to meet on a regular basis. Instead of further endless clinical supervision, two different approaches were adopted: a change of working schedule (one co-worker worked a regular, nine-to-five schedule so that he/she could be a constant factor and act as liaison between the early and late shifts) and team supervision meetings replaced the large meetings attended by all the teams every four weeks. Consequently, organizations and clinic consultants can benefit from observing how the meetings function. Once this has become clear, meetings can be tailored to the employees’ most pressing needs. These could take more time-effective and enjoyable forms in addition to the more formal and regular conference-like discussions.

10.7 “The chanting technique”: voicing the organization’s self-doubt Belief systems of a social system (see preface) are jointly held basic assumptions; they may become salient when they crystallize into convictions that resist change. Everyone who observes an organization from within or externally will be able to identify convictions of this nature that have been intricately assembled into complex assumptions. They might be identified by the observers as the “invisible credo” behind the participants’ (often incomprehensible) actions. Some basic assumptions empower and inspire an organization, others paralyze and weaken it. It is interesting to put oneself in the employees’ shoes in order to get a clearer picture of how they adhere to their basic assumptions. The following are basic assumptions that differ in small yet significant nuances: ȤȤ “We have always been leaders in the field – nothing is going to change that.” ȤȤ “We have good chances of maintaining our leadership role.” ȤȤ “If we can’t manage to stay on top, we’re off the radar.” ȤȤ “We’ve never been leaders in the field and our chances don’t look good.”

134

Profiling systemic intervention

It is fairly certain that the first sentence will invite a sense of phlegmatic complacency; the second will most likely elicit an optimistic winner mentality; the third might lead to a frustrated attempt to perform at a high level and the fourth suggests giving up before having even begun. With the “choral chanting technique”, these basic assumptions can be brought to light and be explored. This can be accomplished in a one-hour workshop in the following steps: all participants note the answers to the question below on a piece of paper: “What do I think is the worst thing about working in our organization? Whose fault is it? How much/little can we change about that? What would we have to tell ourselves to make it worse? What would we have to do to make it worse? What could we tell ourselves to make it better? What could we do to make it better?” Participants then discuss their answers in groups of three or four. The answers to the questions: “What do we have to tell ourselves to make it worse?” (problem-trance affirmation) and “What could we tell ourselves to make it better?” (solution-trance affirmation) are written on a flipchart. After this exercise, a survey is conducted to determine the sentences that have either the most discouraging or most stimulating effect on the participants. Next, the group is divided up into two large chorus groups, each with at least half of the participants. The first group are the “problem chanters” who start up with a few of the main problem-trance affirmations. Then the “solution chanters” start with some of their main solution-trance affirmations. The respective choirs sing for a chosen colleague (“audience”) who stands opposite the “conductor” (the consultant) in front of the choir and has the choir sing or chant “his/her” affirmation. The “problem-trance affirmations” must be repeated until the “audience” feels a reaction coming on. He/she may become amused or angry (“Why do I torture myself with these beliefs?”). There can be a number of different ideas such as (“That’s not always the case”), a revision of the basic assumptions (“It is much better for your health not to always have to be ahead of the game”), a new modus operandi (“I’d like to try something new”) or a novel idea (“Slow down …you’re moving too fast”). The choir and the conductor do the following:

Interventions in systemic team and organizational consultation 135

a) They repeat a given affirmation until the audience perceives new impulses. b) The new impulses are reformulated and introduced into the choir. The majority of the members of the choir sing the original affirmation while a minority starts chanting the new one. c) The two affirmations confront each other in a clash of voices. As a result, the audience often generates a third (later even a fourth or fifth) idea that is sung each time by a new voice in varying partial choirs and integrated into the concert. d) The exercise ends when the listener feels that the concert has changed to the degree that he/she feels renewed energy and strength or at least some peace of mind, instead of constant selfdoubt. Solution-trance assertions are voiced with less intonation. Hearing them might be a “moment of celebration”. If they are mulled over too much, they lose their effect. The incantations serve to alleviate depression and help dispel basic assumptions nourished by anxiety and insecurity. This approach is not conducive to dealing with conflict or animosity between individuals or groups. The approach described above contains elements of externalization, ceremonial ritual and paradoxical intention. If successful, the musical and particularly the rhythmic aspect of the exercise can lend the organization a certain up-beat ambience.

Glossary

Ambivalence:  (literally: “both values”) a person or social system is moving between two simultaneous contradictory feelings and wishes. Ambivalence is an unevitable part of the human condition. Many problems arise from trials to either fight or too quickly resolve ambivalence. Attractor:  in chaotic processes, “attractors” may come up, sometimes just by chance, that start to organize the field. The best example: in a theater the clapping of the hands after the show may suddenly become rhythmical – not because somebody directed it but by self-organization. Once the rhythm is established it tends to organize the single claps. Similar in communication: by communication the attractor is built, but once it is there it starts to control the single conversation, e. g. if a conflict conversation has become the status of an attractor, opposition and negativity is expected, and it might be very difficult to get out of the conflict. Case management:  the coordination of services provided by several specialists to the same client. Causality, circular causality:  Causality is a relationship be­­ tween two variables (e. g. two behaviors), in which one is seen as the cause of the other. Although present in everyday life, the idea of cause-and-effect in systemic work is seen as an epistemological premise that might lead to difficulties when applied to complex social issues, where usually circular causality (Behavior A is the reason of behavior B and behavior B is simultaneously the reason of behavior A) may be observed. Circular questioning:  a method of asking questions that targets relationship patterns instead of objects and takes circular causality into account: any behavior will be seen as a part of a pattern, not as “the” origin of a problem → triadic questioning. Coaching:  advising/mentoring in work-life related situations, typically in the form of one-on-one sessions with top-level or middle

Glossary137

level management. Differently from therapy, no in-depth work on the personal history is made. The focus is on the actual situation. Constellation:  a method similar to → sculpting where a single person chooses proxies for his/her family or team members and builds a complex picture of the relations. Consultation:  is used in two ways: (a) a one-time-only, single session intervention, e. g. a consultation of an external supervisor to a therapist or a hospital team and his/their patients (b) a process of systemic interventions in the organizational and business world. Contract, contracting:  A contract is an agreement in therapy and counseling about the goals of cooperation and bout how to achieve them. Prior to a final contracting, both parties have clarified the expectations of the advice-seeking persons, and wether these expectations can be met by the means of the professionals. In practice it is more a process of contracting (again and again reassuring that the process is going into the right direction) than a “contract” that has to be fulfilled once it is made up → logical record-keeping. Counselling:  a professional supports clients to find their own solutions for their problems. While the boundaries of the term are not precise, (systemic) counselling is often differentiated from → psychotherapy (for health problems), → coaching (for work problems) and → consultation (for business systems problems). Deconstruct/deconstruction:  focusing on that which is not said, on the story “behind the story”, the story that is not told, to challenge apparent certainties (“maybe it’s just the other way round!”). Dyadic, triadic relationship:  “dyadic” describes a relationship between two parties, while “triadic” is a relationship between three parties. Externalization, externalized:  a problem/symptom is treated in the interview like a “person” that acts like a member of the system (“How and when does depression invite you to stay in bed?”) Family setting:  guided conversation that is conducted together with the whole family or at least several family members, rather than in a one-on-one or couples basis.

138

Glossary

Family therapy:  was developed from the 1950es on. It was quite differentfrom other therapeutic approaches (Kriz, 2014), because at that time it was not common, at some places even forbidden in psychotherapy to get in touch with relatives of patients. Pioneers started to cross that line and worked in “conjoint therapy” with the whole family. Today it is not necessarily the family, usually all people are invited who have the idea that they can contribute to a solution. Feedforward:  fantasizing an imaginary future to obtain positive visions that may help to change the present situation: Sometimes even the “future II” is interesting: to fantasize what will happen after the problem will be solved. Fluctuation:  spontaneous, chaotic movement is aggravated by an outside source of energy or information with the intent and/or consequence of “shifting” or reordering the system. Frame/framing:  an emotional and sense-giving framework that is created by verbal and non-verbal interaction. Part of the work of the counselor is to create a safe and friendly “affective framing” to the counseling situation (→ re-framing). Generic principles:  general therapeutic and counseling heuristics: create a frame of safety; find out which system is relevant; create a frame of meaning to the problem; activate resources; provide interruption of patterns; find the appropriate, fitting moment; help to build up new structures; stabilize new patterns. Genogram:  a mapping technique to quickly get a picture about a family (in organizations there is a corresponding tool → organigram): the generations and the subfamilies are listed in a family tree, usually at least three generations. Gestalt:  a term to describe the constellation of elements that together form a different shape than just an addition of the elements would form (e. g. a melody is different from just summing up the single notes). Heuristics:  Strategies that are used as possible problem-solving tools (as opposed to determining a single right problem-solving-strategy). Hypnotherapy:  the use of altered attention focusing (trance) for solving problems; a specific method of psychotherapy.

Glossary139

Hypotheses:  an assumption about relational patterns that has not yet been tested. In systemic practice many hypotheses are created just to stimulate the next intervention. It is not their target to find “the one right hypothesis”; rather it is the variety of hypotheses that helps being in motion and offering different perspectives for change. Kairos:  in Greek mythology, “Kairos” was the goddess of the “right moment”. A systemic intervention may be inappropriate in one situation, and appropriate in the other. It takes sensitivity and experience to find and utilize this “right moment”. Logical record-keeping:  in the context of systemic interventions it meas being clear what you talk about in an interview: do you understand what the wishes and interests of the partner(s) are, do you work in the same direction, do you understand what everybody wants here? Managed care:  health insurances transfer patient care to a healthcare facility (sometimes owned by the insurance itself) at an all-inclusive cost. Narrative approach:  an approach to consultation or counseling that uses storytelling and modifying/retelling stories to influence the lives of individuals or organizations in both positive and negative ways. Organigram:  an organization’s plan, a diagrammatic representation of the organization’s leadership structure, informing about the organizations hierarchy, functional division of tasks and subsystems → genogram Perspectivity:  the realization that an experience can be viewed from different angles and be seen from different standpoints, so that any new perspectives may provide a valuable new insight. Problem-trance:  being unable to see ways out of a problem because being caught by the premises of the problem – to be replaced hopefully by a “solution-trance” where many resources and possibilities become visible. Psychotherapy:  helping persons with a physical or mental health problem to overcome or reduce this problem by talking with a professional psychotherapist. Systemic psychotherapy follows the same essential theoretical and methodological guidelines as sys-

140

Glossary

temic → coaching, → counseling or → consultation, but these guidelines are modified to be helpful for treating persons with specific physical or mental health problems. Reflecting positions:  creating a base for “supportive dialogue” with participants from the advice-seeking systems (not with professionals like in reflecting team), with future collaboration in mind. Reflecting team →  reflecting positions Reframe/Reframing:  “re-interpretation” of a situation or experience in order to offer a different meaning, thus allowing an alternative perspective. Resources:  everything that a person or a social system can rely on. In systemic counseling it usually is regarded more important to look after the resources than after the deficits. Sculpting:  a person builds his/her close system (family, team) in presence of the others as if he/she would create a statue. Later the participants may comment on this picture and show their own version of the picture. Similar from → constellation where usually a person reconstructs his/her family within a group context. Solution-trance: see → Problem-trance Supervision:  specialists in a given field exchange informations and impressions on client treatment and care with the objective to improve their professional services. Symptom:  in systemic practice, a symptom is seen as an indicator of a need within the system for change, like the “red light” in the car. Focussing too much attention on the symptom might lead to a → problem-trance. System:  a system is a group of elements that are related with each other and can jointly be differentiated from their environment. In social systems theory, comminications are considered to be the elements of a social system; the system consists of the way the communications build patterns. These patterns of communication then often develop a kind of autonomy against the attempts of the participants to change them: usually a communication system can’t be changed by one person. Triadic questioning:  questions that specifically address triadic relationships: a third person (observer) is asked to comment on his perception of the relationship of the two others → circular questioning.

Literature

Alon, N., Omer, H. (2005). The psychology of demonization: Promoting acceptance and reducing conflict. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Andersen, T. (1991). The reflecting team: Dialogues and dialogues about the dialogues. New York: Norton. Anderson, H., Goolishian, H. (1988). “Human systems as linguistic systems: Evolving ideas about the implications for theory and practice”. Family Process 27, 371–393. Anderson, H., Goolishian, H. A., Windermand, L. (1986). Problem determined systems: Towards transformation in family therapy. Journal of Strategic & Systemic Therapies, 5 (4), 1–13. Asen, E., Dawson, N., McHugh, B. (Eds.) (2001). Multiple family therapy: The Marlborough model and its wider applications. London: Karnac. Asen, E., Scholz, M. (2009). Praxis der Multifamilientherapie. Heidelberg: Carl Auer Systeme. Bandler, R., Grinder, J., Andreas, S. (1982). Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the transformation of meaning. Moab: Real People Press. Bateson, G. (2000 reprint. First published 1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Beer, S. (1995). Diagnosing the system for organizations. New York: Wiley. Boscolo, L., Bertrando, P. (1996). Systemic therapy with individuals. London: Karnac. Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., Hoffman, L., Penn, P. (1987). Milan systemic family therapy: Conversations in theory and practice. New York: Basic Books. Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28 (5), 759–775. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Caby, F., Caby, A. (2014). The Therapist’s Treasure Chest: Solution-Oriented Tips and Tricks for Everyday Practice. New York: Norton. Campbell, D., Draper, R., Huffington, C. (1991). A systemic approach to consultation. London: Karnac. Campbell, D., Huffington, C. (Eds.) (2008). Organizations connected: A handbook of systemic consultation. London: Karnac. Carr, A. (2012). Family therapy: Concepts, process and practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Cecchin, G. (1987). Hypothesizing, Circularity, and Neutrality Revisited: An Invitation to Curiosity. Family Process 26 (4), 405–413.

142

Literature

Combrinck-Graham, L. (Ed.) (2013). Children in family contexts: Perspectives on treatment. New York: Guilford Publications. Conen, M.-L. (1999). „Unfreiwilligkeit“ – ein Lösungsverhalten. Zwangskontexte und systemische Therapie und Beratung. Familiendynamik 24 (3), 28–297. Conen, M.-L. (2005). Zwangskontexte konstruktiv nutzen – Psychotherapie und Beratung bei „hoffnungslosen“ Klienten. Psychotherapie im Dialog 5 (2), 166–169. Conen, M.-L. (2007). Ressourcenorientierung als therapeutische Grundhaltung. Familiendynamik 32 (1), 41–54. Davis, P., Harveston, P. (1999). In the founder’s shadow: Conflict in the family firm. Family Business Review 12 (4), 311–323. Dallos, R. (2006). Attachment narrative therapy. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Dallos, R., Draper, R. (2010). An introduction to family therapy: Systemic theory and practice. McGraw-Hill International. Denzau, A., North, D. (1994). Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions. Kyklos 47, 3–31. Duhl, F. S., Kantor, D., Duhl, B. S. (1973). Learning Space and action in family therapy: A primer of sculpting. In D. Bloch (Ed.), Techniques of family psychotherapy: A primer. New York: Grune & Stratton. Dym, B. (1995). Readiness and change in couple therapy. New York: Basic Books. Efran, J. S., Lukens, M. D., Lukens, R. J. (1990). Language, structure, and change: Frameworks of meaning in psychotherapy. New York: Norton. Fishbane, M. D. (2013). Loving with the Brain in Mind: Neurobiology and Couple Therapy. New York: Norton. Fraenkel, P. (2009). The therapeutic palette: A guide to choice points in integrative couple therapy. Clinical Social Work Journal, 37 (3), 234–247. Fryszer, A., Schwing, R. (2014). Handbook of Systemic Psychotherapy. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Foerster, H. von (2003). What is memory that it may have hindsight and foresight as well? In H. von Foerster, Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition (pp. 101– 132). New York: Springer. Furman, B., Ahola, T. (1992). Solution talk: Hosting therapeutic conversations. New York: Norton. Gergen, M., Gergen, K. (2003). Social construction: A reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Grabbe, M. (2003). Time-Line in der Krisenintervention. In: Psychotherapie im Dialog 4 (4), 376–379. Groth, T. (2005). Organisationsaufstellung – systemtheoretisch gewendet. In M. Mohe (Hrsg.), Innovative Beratungskonzepte. Ansätze, Fallbeispiele, Reflexionen (S. 139–158). Leonberg: Rosenberger Fachverlag. Gurman, A. S., Fraenkel, P. (2002). The history of couple therapy: A millennial review. Family Process, 41 (2), 199–260. Haken, H. (1983). Synergetics, an introduction: Nonequilibrium phase transi-

Literature143

tions and self-organization in physics, chemistry, and biology, 3rd rev. ed. New York: Springer. Haley, J. (1973). Uncommon Therapy: The Psychiatric Techniques of MH Erickson. New York: Norton. Hargens, J. (2004). Aller Anfang ist ein Anfang. Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten hilfreicher systemischer Gespräche. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hargens, J. (2005). Das systemische Spiel mit unterschiedlichen Perspektiven. In H. Schindler, A.von Schlippe (Hrsg.), Anwendungsfelder systemischer Praxis: Ein Handbuch (S. 55–70). Dortmund: Borgmann Media. Hargens, J., Schlippe, A. von (1998). Das Spiel der Ideen. Reflektierendes Team und systemische Praxis. Dortmund: Modernes Lernen. Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., Cunningham, P. B. (1998). Multisystemic treatment of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. New York: Guilford Press. Herwig-Lempp, J. (2013). Resource-oriented teamwork. A systemic approach to collegial consultation. Göttingen, Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hills, J. (2012). Introduction to Systemic and Family Therapy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hoffman, L., Clark, K. (2002). Family therapy: An intimate history. New York: Norton. Imber-Black, E., Roberts, J., Whiting, R. A. (Eds.) (1988). Rituals in families and family therapy. New York: Norton. Jaynes, J. (1990). The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. Jones, E. (1993). Family systems therapy: Developments in the Milan-systemic therapies. Chichester: Wiley. Kallabis, O. (1992). Gestaltung von Dreieckskontrakten – eine Kontraktierung zwischen drei Interessenvertretern. Supervision 22, 14–29. Klein, R., Kannicht, A. (2009). Einführung in die Praxis der systemischen Therapie und Beratung. Heidelberg: Carl Auer Systeme. König, O. (2004). Familienwelten. Theorie und Praxis von Familienaufstellungen. Stuttgart: Pfeiffer (Klett-Cotta). Königswieser, R., Exner, A. (2002). Systemische Interventionen. Stuttgart: KlettCotta. Königswieser, R., Hillebrand, M. (2004). Einführung in die systemische Organisationsberatung. Heidelberg: Carl Auer Systeme. Kotre, J. N. (1995). White gloves: How we create ourselves through memory. New York: Free Press. Kriz, J. (1999). Systemtheorie für Psychotherapeuten, Psychologen und Mediziner. Wien: Facultas. Kriz, J. (2008). Self-Actualization: Person-Centered Approach and Systems Theory. Ross-on-Wye, UK: PCCS-books. Kriz, J. (2014). Grundkonzepte der Psychotherapie (7. Completely revised ed.). Weinheim: Beltz.

144

Literature

Kruse, P. (2004). Next practice. Erfolgreiches Management von Instabilität. Offenbach: Gabal. Laing, R. D., Phillipson, H., Lee, A. R. (1966). Interpersonal perception: A theory and a method of research. London: Tavistock. Lebow, J. L. (Ed.) (2005). Handbook of clinical family therapy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Levold, T. (1997). Affekt und System. Plädoyer für eine Perspektivenerweiterung. System Familie 10 (3), 120–127. Liechti, J. (2009). Dann komm ich halt, sag aber nichts. Motivierung Jugendlicher in Therapie und Beratung. Heidelberg: Carl Auer Systeme. Loth, W. (2005). „Einiges könnte ganz schön anders sein“ – Systemische Grundlagen für das Klären von Aufträgen. In H. Schindler, A. von Schlippe (Hrsg.), Anwendungsfelder systemischer Praxis – ein Handbuch (S. 25–54). Dortmund: Modernes Lernen. Loth, W., Schlippe, A. v. (2004). Die therapeutische Beziehung aus systemischer Sicht. In: Psychotherapie im Dialog 5 (4), 341–347. Ludewig, K. (1992). Systemische Therapie. Grundlagen klinischer Theorie und Praxis. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Luhmann, N. (1988). Therapeutische Systeme – Fragen an Niklas Luhmann. In F. B. Simon (Hrsg.), Lebende Systeme. Wirklichkeitskonstruktionen in der systemischen Therapie (S. 124–138). Berlin: Springer. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford: University Press. Manteuffel, A., Schiepek, G. (1998). Systeme spielen. Selbstorganisation und Kompetenzentwicklung in sozialen Systemen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. McFarlane, W. R. (2004). Multifamily groups in the treatment of severe psychiatric disorders. New York: Guilford. McGoldrick, M., Gerson, R., Shellenberger, S. (1999). Genograms: assessment and intervention. 2nd edition. New York: Norton. McGoldrick, M., Hardy, K. V. (2008). Re-visioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice. New York: Guilford Press. Mercier, P. (2008). Night train to Lisbon. New York: Grove press. Mohe, M. (Hrsg.) (2005). Innovative Beratungskonzepte. Ansätze, Fallbeispiele, Reflexionen. Leonberg: Rosenberger. Omer, H., Alon, N. (1997). Constructing therapeutic narratives. Northvale: Jason Aronson. Pakman, M. (2003). Elements for a Foersterian Poietics in psychotherapic practices. In Cybernetics and Human Knowing 10 (3–4), 107–123. Reiss, D., Olivieri, M. (1983). Family paradigm and family coping. In D. Olson, B. Miller (Eds.), Family Studies Review Yearbook I. New York: Sage. Retzlaff, R. (2008). Spiel-Räume. Lehrbuch der systemischen Therapie mit Kindern und Jugendlichen. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Ritscher, W. (2002). Systemische Modelle für die Soziale Arbeit. Heidelberg: Carl Auer Systeme.

Literature145

Rivett, M., Street, E. (2009). Family therapy: 100 key points and techniques. London: Routledge. Roberts, J. (1988). Setting the frame: Definition, functions, and typology of rituals. In E. Imber-Black, J. Roberts, R. A. Whiting (Eds.), Rituals in families and family therapy (pp. 3–46). New York: Norton. Sander, R. (2005). Stell dich nicht an – stell auf! In: H. Schindler, A. von Schlippe (Hrsg.), Anwendungsfelder systemischer Praxis: Ein Handbuch (S. 245–264). Dortmund: Borgmann Media. Schiepek, G. (1999). Die Grundlagen der systemischen Therapie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schiepek, G. (2004). Synergetisches Prozessmanagement  – ein Beitrag zur Theorie und Praxis der Psychotherapie. In: A. von Schlippe, W. C. Kriz (Hrsg.), Personzentrierung und Systemtheorie (S. 252–268). Göttingen: Vanden­hoeck & Ruprecht. Schlippe, A. von (2009). Der Blick aus dem Adlerhorst. Reflektierende Positionen in der Teamentwicklung. In H. Neumann Wirsig (Hrsg.), SupervisionsTools (S. 181–187). Bonn: ManagerSeminare. Schlippe, A. von (2014). Das Auftragskarussell als Instrument der Klärung eigener Erwartungs‐Erwartungen. In T. Levold, M. Wirsching (Hrsg.), Systemische Therapie und Beratung (S. 223–226). Heidelberg: Carl Auer Systeme. Schlippe, A. von, Braun-Brönneke, A., Schröder, K. (1998). Systemische Therapie als engagierter Austausch von Wirklichkeitsbeschreibungen. Empirische Rekonstruktionen therapeutischer Interaktionen. System Familie 11 (2), 70–79. Schlippe, A. von, El Hachimi, M., Jürgens, G. (2003). Multikulturelle systemische Praxis. Heidelberg: Carl Auer Systeme. Schlippe, A. von, Kriz, J. (Hrsg.) (1987). Symposion Familientherapie, Kontro­ verses – Gemeinsames. Wildberg: Bögner-Kaufmann. Schlippe, A. von, Schweitzer, J. (2012). Lehrbuch der systemischen Therapie und Beratung I. Das Grundlagenwissen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schmidt, G. (1985). Systemische Familientherapie als zirkuläre Hypnotherapie. Familiendynamik, 10 (3), 241–264. Schneewind, K. (2010). Familienpsychologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Schulz-von Thun, F., Stegemann, W. (Hrsg.) (2004). Das innere Team in Aktion. Reinbek: Rowohlt. Schwartz, R. C. (1997). Internal family systems therapy. New York: Guilford Press. Schweitzer, J. (1995): Kundenorientierung als systemische Dienstleistungsphilosophie. Familiendynamik 20 (3), 292–313. Schweitzer, J., Nicolai, E., Hirschenberger, N. (2005). Wenn Krankenhäuser Stimmen hören. Lernprozesse in psychiatrischen Organisationen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schweitzer, J., Weber, G. (1982). Beziehung als Metapher: die Familienskulptur als diagnostische, therapeutische und Ausbildungstechnik. Familiendynamik 7, 113–128.

146

Literature

Selvini Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., Prata, G. (1980a). The Problem of the Referring Person. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 6, 3–9. Selvini, M. P., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., Prata, G. (1980b). Hypothesizing – circularity – neutrality: Three guidelines for the conductor of the session. Family Process, 19 (1), 3–12. Selvini Palazzoli, M., Anolli, L., Di Blasio, P., Giossi, L., Pisano, I., Ricci, C., Sacchi, M., Ugazio, V. (1986). The Hidden Games of the Organization. New York. Pantheon Books. Senge, P. M. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York/London: Crown Business. Shazer, St. de (1988). Therapie als System. Entwurf einer Theorie. In L. Reiter (Hrsg.), Von der Familientherapie zur systemischen Perspektive (S. 217–229). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Shotter, J. (2002). Conversational realities. Constructing life through language. London: Sage. Simon, F. B. (Hrsg.) (1988). Lebende Systeme. Wirklichkeitskonstruktionen in der systemischen Therapie. Berlin: Springer. Simon, F. B., Stierlin, H., Wynne, L. (1985). The language of family therapy – a systemic vokabulary and sourcebook. New York: Family Process Inc. Simon, F., Rech-Simon, Ch. (1999). Zirkuläres Fragen. Systemische Therapie in Fallbeispielen: Ein Lernbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Auer Systeme. Simon, F., Weber, G. (1988). Das Ding an sich. Wie man „Krankheit“ erweicht, verflüssigt, entdinglicht … Familiendynamik 13 (1), 56–61. Sparrer, I. (2011). Miracle, solution, and system. Solution-focused systemic structural constellations for therapy and organizational change. London: Solutions Books. Steinhübel, A. (2005). Systemisches Coaching. In H. Schindler, A. von Schlippe (Hrsg.), Anwendungsfelder systemischer Praxis – ein Handbuch (S. 297–330). Dortmund: Borgmann Media. Stern, D. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant. New York: Basic. Stierlin, H. (1988). Die Familie als Ort psychosomatischer Erkrankungen. Familiendynamik 13, 287–299. Taibbi, R. (2007). Doing family therapy. New York: Guilford. Trebesch, C. (2000). Organisationsentwicklung. Konzepte, Strategien, Fallstudien. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Voss, R. (Hrsg.) (2005). Lernlust und EigenSinn. Systemisch-konstruktivistische Lernwelten. Heidelberg: Carl Auer Systeme. Walter, J. L., Peller, J. E. (1992). Becoming solution-focused in brief therapy. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel. Watzlawick, P. (1993). The situation is hopeless, but not serious: The pursuit of unhappiness. New York: Norton. Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., Jackson, D. D. (1967, reedited in 2011). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York: Norton.

Literature147

Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York: Norton. Weber, G. (Hrsg.) (1993). Zweierlei Glück. Die systemische Psychotherapie Bert Hellingers. Heidelberg: Carl Auer Systeme. Weber, G., Schmidt, G., Simon, F. (Hrsg.) (2005). Aufstellungsarbeit revisited … nach Hellinger? Heidelberg: Carl Auer Systeme. Wedekind, E., Georgi, H. (2005). Orientierende Rahmung – Überlegungen zu einem systemischen Leitungsverständnis. In H. Schindler, A. v. Schlippe (Hrsg.), Anwendungsfelder systemischer Praxis – ein Handbuch (S. 265–284). Dortmund: Borgmann Media. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Los Angeles/Lomdon: Sage. Welter-Enderlin, R., Hildenbrand, B. (1996). Systemische Therapie als Begegnung. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Welter-Enderlin, R., Hildenbrand, B. (1998). Gefühle und Systeme. Heidelberg: Carl Auer Systeme. Wendt, W. R. (1995). Unterstützung fallweise. Case-Management in der Sozialarbeit. Freiburg: Lambertus. White, M. (1993). Deconstruction and therapy. In S. Gilligan, R. Price (Eds.), Therapeutic Conversation (pp. 22–61). New York: W.W. Norton. Wilson, J. (1998). Child-focused practice: A collaborative systemic approach. Karnac Books. Winek, J. (2010). Systemic family therapy. From theory to practice. Los Angeles, London: Sage. Wimmer, R. (2004). Organisation und Beratung. Heidelberg: Carl Auer Systeme. Wimmer, R., Meissner, J. O., Wolf, P. (Hrsg.) (2009). Praktische Organisationswissenschaft. Lehrbuch für Studium und Beruf. Heidelberg. Carl Auer Systeme. Winek, J. (2010). Systemic family therapy. From theory to practice. Los Angeles, London: Sage. Wynne, L., McDaniel, S., Weber, T. (1986). Systems consultation. New York: Guilford Press. Zwack, J., Zwack, M., Schweitzer, J. (2007). Systemische Teamberatung – Mitarbeiter und Führungskräfte miteinander „ins Geschäft bringen“. Psychotherapie im Dialog, 3, 267–273.