How do organizational consultants benefit from the solution-focused approach?

The solution-focused approach was developed in psychotherapy in the 1980's at the Brief Familty Therapy Center in Milwaukee (US). In the 1990's, the solution-focused approach spread became a well known approach in therapy in many countries throughout the world. During the last decade the solution-focused approach became a familiar approach outside therapy too, first in the field of coaching, later also in education, team facilitation, management and organizational change.

I'd like to write an article about the solution-focused approach for the target groups of organizational consultants (or management consultants). For that purpose I'd love to hear some experiences from organizational consultants who use the solution-focused approach. So, if you are a consultant and you use the solution-focused approach please share some of your experiences here. I'd be particularly interested in the following things:

• What type of consultancy do you practise?
• When did you learn about the solution-focused approach?
• How do you use it in your work? 
• How does it help you? 

10 questions for the solution-focused coach

Below are some questions you may ask yourself as a solution-focused coach as you collect information from your coachee. The questions can be helpful in adapting yourself to your client and to make the conversation really useful.

1. What is important to this client?
2. How does this client view his situation?
3. What does he want to see changed?
   
4. What is his good reason for wanting to see that change?
   
5. What does he see as advantages to himself and others of this change?
   
6. What strategies has he already employed which have somehow been helpful?
   
7. What improvements has he already made?
   
8. How far is he already in accomplishing what he wants?
   
9. What resources can he draw on?
   
10. What is he willing to do and what will he not do?
    

I made this list based on a list by Insoo Kim Berg (in this book, page 54). I changed her list quite a bit though, based on the seven steps approach.


(repost)

Les Copeland playing slide guitar at home- song for Ry

Advice from the future

Case sent in by Jo Hanssen from Curaçao

One day, I walked past the room of one of my vice principals. There she sat, opposite to a student. In that small room the both of them had managed to create a maximal distance between them and you could see steam clouds escape. In other words, there was a crisis. She gestured me to come in. It turned out the student had been rude to the caretaker and she thought he should apologize. He, however, thought the caretaker had snubbed him so he was right. The more she tried to convince him, the more he opposed. His mother had already been called to come to school to talk about this.
The conversation had turned very grim and seemed like it could only escalate further. After the vice principal and he both had told their -reasonably similar- stories I asked the student which class he was in. It turned out he was  in  HAVO-5. Then I said that I expected someone at the level to be able to solve problems in a positive manner.   Next, I asked him where he would be in two years time. He said that he would then be studying in Rotterdam.  I asked what he would be studying and how things would be going. He began to explain enthusiastically and his body posture changed from leaning back in chair to leaning forward. The vice principal's body posture  started to change too. She leaned forward and started to listen with interest.
After the student had described many things about how his life and study in Rotterdam would be, I asked him whether he would then still be having this kind of problems. Then he started to laugh. No, he would then be able to handle this type of problems. Then I asked him whether he, as this future student, would have some suggestions for this younger version of him that was now sitting in the vice principal's office. We were very surprised when started to choose practically all the solutions that the vice principal had just mentioned in their conversation. His mother was called off, I could leave, and the two of them took care of the situation.

Is doing-what-works the most successful social strategy?

Do you know the prisoner's dilemma? In 1979, Robert Axelrod wanted to find out which strategy would be the most effective with repeated prisoner's dilemmas. He organized a computer tournament for which scientist could send in their strategies in the form of a computer program. To his invitation 14 strategies were sent in by scientist from 5 disciplines. During the tournament the programs would play repeated prisoner's dilemma's against each other and against themselves. In total, 225 confrontations took place during the tournament.
The winner was the program Tit-for-tat which was send in by Anatol Rappoport. Tit-for-tat was the simplest program which had just the following instruction: start positive and then do what the other party did in his previous move. In the nineteen eighties, Axelrod organized another tournament. Now, 62 strategies were sent by people who, of course, knew about tit-for-tat. Some programs were very complex and shrewd but the winner was, again, the simple strategy of Tit-for-that. Axelrod's research got a lot of attention among scientists and among a broader audience. It showed how cooperation could emerge on the basis of reciprocity, even when many individuals followed egoistical strategies.
Axelrod now wondered whether Tit-for-tat was also a stable and resilient strategy that would be able to defend itself against an invasion of egoistical strategies. To find this out, he did a new tournament in which he gave the strategies which had been sent in for his earlier tournaments the capacity to reproduce themselves. The tournament would now take place in multiple rounds. Each round represented a generation of strategies. De degree of success of a strategy in the first round determined how often this strategy would be found in the next round. By doing this, Axelrod simulated the principle of natural selection. By building in this evolutionary principle the strategies were getting stronger by each round. In earlier round there were still many over-naive strategies and many exploiting strategies but in later rounds both disappeared more and more. Axelrod did 1000 rounds and the result was that tit-for-tat was still the most successful and fasted growing strategy of all. If you wanted to describe Tit-for-tat in human psychological terms you could say that it is a positive strategy (because it always starts of with cooperation), that is also prepared to hit back when deceived (because it defects when the other person has done so), but is also forgiving (when the other start cooperation again, it does so too) and transparent/predictable (because of its simplicity and consistency).
Axelrods work has been very important. He wrote the book The Evolution of Cooperation about it. But Tit-for-tat is not the most successful strategy after all, as turned out several years later. In 1993 a still more successful strategy was identified by Martin Nowak and Karl Sigmund. It was named Pavlov and it had the following instruction: follow the same strategy as in the previous move if it was successful, change if it was not successful. It is a pity this strategy was named Pavlov because Do-what-works would perhaps have been an even more appropriate name (if it works, go on, if not, do something else). Pavlov has one major weakness: it is powerless against the strategy: 'always deceive' (Pavlov keeps on switching when confronted with this strategy). Nowak and Sigmund found that Pavlov can only start to develop really well after Tit-for-tat has terminated the 'always deceive' strategies.

It is interesting to see how the simple and pragmatic Pavlov strategy, which comes down to do-what-works, is perhaps the most successful strategy for repeated social dilemmas.

(repost)

First sign of improvement question

As Peter De Jong and Insoo Kim Berg explain their book Interviewing for solutions, when coaches or therapists ask clients how they will know their problems will be solved, they often describe a final result, a finish line as it were. They describe a situation in which lots of things will be better. When they describe such a final result they may become aware of the contrast between that good situation and their current not-so-good situation, which may demotivate them. What coaches can do in these types of situations is to ask the first-sign-of-improvement- question, which goes something like this: "What will be the first small sign that will tell you that things are starting to move in the right direction?" This type of question usually helps clients to notice small positive changes (a.k.a. micro progression) which usually is very motivating.

Also read: 10 questions for the solution-focused coach

(repost)

What's the deal with self esteem?

Many people in education have long believed that in order to improve performance of pupils at school you have to first make them feel good about themselves. The idea behind this was: it is easier to function well if you feel good about your self. Many educators, psychologists and parents have tried this. But does it work? Here is a long quote from a very interesting article by Albert Mohler:

"Since the 1969 publication of The Psychology of Self-Esteem, in which Nathaniel Branden opined that self-esteem was the single most important facet of a person, the belief that one must do whatever he can to achieve positive self-esteem has become a movement with broad societal effects. Anything potentially damaging to kids' self-esteem was axed. Competitions were frowned upon. Soccer coaches stopped counting goals and handed out trophies to everyone. Teachers threw out their red pencils. Criticism was replaced with ubiquitous, even undeserved, praise. In 2003 the Association for Psychological Science asked Dr. Roy Baumeister, then a leading proponent of self-esteem, to review this literature. His team concluded that self-esteem was polluted with flawed science. Only 200 of those 15,000 studies met their rigorous standards. After reviewing those 200 studies, Baumeister concluded that having high self-esteem didn't improve grades or career achievement. It didn't even reduce alcohol usage. And it especially did not lower violence of any sort. (Highly aggressive, violent people happen to think very highly of them selves, debunking the theory that people are aggressive to make up for low self-esteem.) At the time, Baumeister was quoted as saying that his findings were "the biggest disappointment of my career". Now he's on Dweck's side of the argument, and his work is going in a similar direction: He will soon publish an article showing that for college students on the verge of failing in class, esteem-building praise causes their grades to sink further. Baumeister has come to believe the continued appeal of self-esteem is largely tied to parents' pride in their children's achievements: It's so strong that "when they praise their kids, it's not that far from praising themselves."

The basic idea of the self esteem movement sounded plausible but was incorrect. Trying to improve a child's functioning by first trying to make them feel good about themselves ... does not work. But is there no relationship at all between functioning and self esteem? Yes there is, but as Martin Seligman has written, the causal relationship is more likely to be the other way around. By functioning well, people are more likely to start feeling well about themselves. So, first there is functioning well, then there is self esteem, not the other way around.

But does this mean there is no need for or place for praising children (or co-workers) at all? Sure there is. Here we get back to the thrilling research by Carol Dweck. She has shown it depends on the way you compliment. As I wrote before, she compared two forms of praise: process praise and trait praise. With process praise you compliment the child with his or her effort or strategy ("You must have worked hard", or: "You must have used a good strategy to solve this"). With trait praise you compliment the child for a trait, some kind of fixed internal quality ("You have done well, you must be very smart."). Both forms of praise feel good at first but after some time trait praise turns out to lead to some negative effects: it makes the person afraid of taking risks and defensive whereas process praise works well also in the long term.

So what does this mean? Don't go for the self esteem movement idea. Don't believe you have to make the person feel good about themselves first before you can expect progress. Praising can be very useful but process praise has a far better chance of working that trait praise, even when the child has a low self esteem.

repost from march 1, 2008

Also read: Trait praise and low self-esteem ctd

The what and how of reframing

Insoo Kim Berg's book Family Based Service, A Solution-Focused Approach (1994) explains the concept of reframing nicely: "Reframing is simply an alternate, usually a positive interpretation of troublesome behavior that gives a positive meaning to the client's interaction with those in her environment. it suggests a new and different way of behaving, freeing the client to alter behavior and making it possible to bring about changes while "saving face". As a result, the client sees her situation differently, and may even find solutions in ways that she did not expect." Then, she gives some examples (slightly altered by me):

Troublesome behavior	Reframed version
Lazy	Laid back, relaxed, taking it easy
Pushy	Assertive, action oriented
Impatient	Action-oriented, has high standards
Uncaring	Allows room for others
Agressive	Strong, unaware of his own strength
Nagging	Concerned, trying to bring out the best in someone
Withdrawn	Deep thinker, thoughtful

Next, she describes a few steps with which you may practice your reframing skills:

1.    Think about what your current interpretation of the client's troublesome behavior.

2.    Train yourself to think of a number of alternative interpretations of the same behavior.

3.    Pick the one interpretation that seems most plausible and most fits the client's way of acting and thinking.

4.    Formulate a sentence in your mind that describes the new positive interpretation.

5.    Give the client feedback on what your thoughts are.

6.    The client reaction will let you know whether your reframing fit her or not. A good fit will bring a visible change in the client. Some clients look stunned, shocked, amused; they may even start to laugh.

Cultivating our neuronal networks

"There is really no upper limit on learning since the neurons seem to be capable of growing new connections whenever they are used repeatedly. I think all of us need to develop the capacity to motivate ourselves. One way to do that is to search for meaningful contact points and bridges between what we want to learn and what we already know. When we do so, we cultivate our neuronal networks. [...] To ensure a safe learning environment, you have to make sure to accept all answers, and build on them. We should view students as plants and flowers that need careful cultivation: grow some areas, help reduce others."

~ James Zull, in The Sharp Brains Guide to Brain Fitness, p 17/18

Interview with Keith Stanovich

By Coert Visser

Dr. Keith Stanovich, Professor of Human Development and Applied Psychology of the University of Toronto, is a leading expert on the psychology of reading and on rationality. His latest book, What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought, shows that IQ tests are very incomplete measures of cognitive functioning. These tests fail to assess rational thinking styles and skills which are nevertheless crucial to real-world behavior. In this interview with Keith Stanovich he explains the difference between IQ and rationality and why rationality is so important. Also he shares his views on how rationality can be enhanced.

In your book, you say that IQ tests are incomplete measures of cognitive functioning. Could you explain that?

I start out my book by noting the irony that in 2002, cognitive scientist Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University won the Nobel Prize in Economics for work on how humans make choices and assess probabilities—in short, for work on human rationality.  Being rational means adopting appropriate goals, taking the appropriate action given one’s goals and beliefs, and holding beliefs that are commensurate with available evidence—it means achieving one’s life goals using the best means possible.  To violate the thinking rules examined by Kahneman and Tversky thus has the practical consequence that we are less satisfied with our lives than we might be.  Research conducted in my own laboratory has indicated that there are systematic individual differences in the judgment and decision making skills studied by Kahneman and Tversky.

It is a profound historical irony of the behavioral sciences that the Nobel Prize was awarded for studies of cognitive characteristics that are entirely missing from the most well-known mental assessment device in the behavioral sciences—the intelligence test, and its many proxies, such as the SAT.  It is ironic because most laypeople are prone to think that IQ tests are tests of, to put it colloquially, good thinking.  Scientists and laypeople alike would tend to agree that “good thinking” encompasses good judgment and decision making—the type of thinking that helps us achieve our goals.  In fact, the type of “good thinking” that Kahneman and Tversky studied was deemed so important that research on it was awarded the Nobel Prize.  Yet assessments of such good thinking—rational thinking—are nowhere to be found on IQ tests.  Intelligence tests measure important things, but not these—they do not assess the extent of rational thought.  This might not be such an omission if it were the case that intelligence was a strong predictor of rational thinking.  However, my research group has found just the opposite—that it is a mild predictor at best and that some rational thinking skills are totally dissociated from intelligence.


Read more

A description of you

I suspect that you, reader of this blog, will recognize yourself reasonably well in this description:

You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Your sexual adjustment has presented problems for you. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life.

Read here why I think that.

The Thinktank That Created The Solution-Focused Approach - Interview with Eve Lipchik

By Coert Visser

Eve Lipchik was one of the original core members of the Brief Family Therapy Center in Milwaukee, which created solution-focused therapy in the beginning of the l980's. She worked at the BFTC until l988, when she cofounded ICF Consultants. She is the author of the book Beyond Techniques in Solution-Focused Therapy and numerous chapters and articles. In this interview she looks back on the time the solution-focused approach was developed and she shares her memories of the process of developing the approach and of the people involved. She tells about the essential shift the team made from gathering information about the problem to focusing on constructing solutions with clients. Also, she reflects on recent developments and she explains the importance of describing the approach as encompassing both philosophy and techniques. Finally, she tells about some of her current interests and activities.

Coert: Could you tell me about some of your memories of the early times of the Brief Family Therapy Center? How did you get involved with that and how did you experience that starting period?

Read the interview here

Problem externalisation interventions

Mark McKergow posted an interesting post on his blog about article Is narrative therapy systemic? Among other things, this article is about externalizing problems. I'll try to summarize it a bit.

Externalizing  is a practice which was developed within narrative therapy (White, 1989). It is an intervention  that creates a perspective on reality in which the person has a relationship to the problem and in which the person is not the problem and the problem is not inside the person. In these latter cases, the problem is internalized. Internalizing problems creates a perspective in which people easily start to blame themselves and feel they have to take action against themselves.  Externalizing views problems as coming from outside the person – e.g. in relationships with others, with cultures, with institutions or with power relationships. Externalizing invites people to keep the problem outside the person 5 so that he does not have to fight himself. Here are some examples of internalizing questions and of externalizing questions:

Internalizing questions

Externalizing questions

·       How long have you been so worried?  ·       How did you get to be so anxious?  ·       Why do you think you’re such a worrier?  ·       Does being anxious run in your family?  ·       How many people know you’re a worrier?  ·       What does being so anxious tell you about the kind of person you really are deep down?

·       When did anxiety first try and interfere with your life?  ·       What has happened that might have made you vulnerable to the influence of worry?  ·       What does worry try to get you to believe about yourself?  ·       What does worry want you to believe about other people?  ·       Are there tricks or tactics that anxiety uses to try and influence you?  ·       In which situations is anxiety most likely to try and take over?

The pragmatic effects of our interactions with clients

"Ultimately, doing our job well in the eye of the only important beholders (our clients, the only ones who can, ultimately, decide) seems to me to depend less on our adherence to "correct" models or approaches or philosophical stances, but much more to the nuts and bolts of the pragmatic effects of our interactions with them. If, after talking with us, they are influenced and persuaded through the course of the dialogue to change for the better (in their eyes), whether it be by what we thought, said, or suggested or by what they thought, said, or decided (or whether by what they or we thought that they or we said or heard, regardless of what was actually said or heard, assuming that could ever be reliably remembered or interpreted), then we have done our part of the job, whatever way we have done it."

~ Brian Cade, source, page 58

Feeling grumpy good for you?

BBC reports this: In a bad mood? Don't worry - according to research, it's good for you.

An Australian psychology expert who has been studying emotions has found being grumpy makes us think more clearly.

In contrast to those annoying happy types, miserable people are better at decision-making and less gullible, his experiments showed.

While cheerfulness fosters creativity, gloominess breeds attentiveness and careful thinking, Professor Joe Forgas told Australian Science Magazine.