Business Bolet

Thursday, February 28, 2008

The Origin of the Solution-Focused Approach

The Origin of the Solution-Focused Approach
Coert F. Visser

Abstract: The solution-focused approach to therapy and coaching has its roots in the work done by therapists in the second half of the twentieth century. This article discusses some important precursors, such as Milton Erickson and the Mental Research Institute. Further, it shows how the members of the Brief Family Therapy Center, led by Insoo Kim Berg and Steve de Shazer, developed the core of the solution-focused approach in the 1980s. Key concepts and publications are discussed and a description is given of how the team members worked together closely to find out what works in therapy.

Keywords solution-focused, BFTC, solution-focused history, de Shazer, Berg

Download full text (pdf)

Saturday, February 16, 2008

The Support Group Approach - Interview with Sue Young

Sue Young now divides her time between behaviour support to schools and training in solution focused practice. She advocates using solution-focused thinking to encourage success at every level in schools. Her initiatives include implementing national policies across schools, helping local staff encourage positive behaviours in their students and giving support to individual children and parents. One of Sue’s particular interests is promoting an anti-bullying ethos. In the mid-ninties, she developed the support group approach for responding to incidents of bullying. Later she discovered how well her approach fitted with solution focused thinking and ever since, has been applying solution focused principles to all areas of her work. So, what is the support group approach and how does it work? Is it hard to do? How does it help? Find answers to these questions and more in this interview.

COERT: Hi Sue, could you explain, for readers who haven't heard about it yet, what the support group approach is?

SUE: Briefly, the support group approach is a solution focused strategy for resolving complaints of bullying, particularly in primary schools. I think it is a good example of a ‘solution key’ (de Shazer) because the simplicity of the intervention enables it to fit a wide range of circumstances. The child who is upset is interviewed to find out who they are finding difficult to cope with at the moment, who else is around when they find things difficult and who is (are) their friend(s). They are not asked for any information about what has been happening. The child is reassured that things will begin to get better and told that a group of children, chosen from the names they have given, will be asked to help. The child is asked to notice anything that gets better so they can tell you about it when you review after a week. A support group is made up from these names, ideally 5-8 children. The group is seen separately and simply asked to help with the aim of making the target child happy in school. No explanation is given about why the child may be unhappy. It is important that whoever leads the interviewing does not use the word ‘bullying’ at all and tries to leave behind any judgement about what has been happening. They are asked for suggestions of small things they might try and an arrangement is made to review what they have managed to do a week later.

COERT: Okay, and what happens one week later in the review meetings with the bullied child and in the meeting with the support group?

SUE: In the review meeting the target child is asked about things that are better and is praised for how they have handled the situation. In the group’s meeting that follows, the children are asked how they think things are going and each one is given the chance to report back on what they have managed to do. They are thanked individually for the help they have given and then congratulated for their success as a group. A further review can be arranged in another week's time, if necessary. Sometimes there needs to be more than one review to ensure that any teasing or bullying that is happening, typically by someone outside the group, stops completely but it is rare for it to go as far as five meetings. The criterion for finishing the group is that everyone is agreed that the child is now happy in school: the target child, the members of the group, staff involved at school and the parents.

COERT: I understand how it works. What do you see as the main characteristics and advantages of this approach in comparison to other anti-bullying approaches?

SUE: It is unnecessary for a child to repeat over what has been happening, with the disadvantage of re-traumatising and demoralising a child who is often already feeling powerless and anxious about telling anyone about how they are feeling, plus talking it over may actually reinforce those feelings. It also feels less ‘risky’ for the child when they don’t have to ‘tell tales’ on anyone. Most other approaches presume that bullying has been happening, although in practice this can be difficult to be certain about, since bullying generally takes place outside the view of adults. Other children who know it's happening very seldom report it, and anyone accused of bullying tends to deny it. So ‘proving’ it can be very difficult. Thankfully proving it doesn’t matter with this approach, since no assumptions need to be made about what’s going on. None of the children are labelled by it – ‘bully’, ‘victim’ - whilst at the same time the opportunity is open to them to make amends, if they want to. That applies sometimes, surprisingly maybe, to the target child, too.

COERT: And what is different in the way parents are involved?

SUE: If a parent has made a complaint, they get regular updates at the reviews on how things are going and are involved in evaluating progress. This is reassuring for them at a very difficult time. Often in traditional strategies they get left out, don’t get feedback, and this can exacerbate the difficulties. They can even end up being blamed for being ‘over-protective’. There’s no need to tell other children’s parents that their child has been accused of being a bully – resulting difficulties between parents can become more problematic than the original complaint. On the contrary, parents can be told how helpful and kind their child has been. Parents get to know when their school deals with bullying effectively – and they value it highly because it is something that a lot of parents fear happening to their child.

COERT: How do children typically respond to the Support group approach?

SUE: The children enjoy it – we have interviewed children who have been in support groups and they say things like: I enjoyed doing it, I made more friends too, it made me feel important, it made me feel happier. It teaches children a more helpful way of responding to others and feeling good about themselves. Over the longer term, this can affect the whole ethos of a school. Some other approaches, e.g. assertiveness training, implicitly blame the ‘victim’. However, if you stop the bullying, assertiveness or low self esteem etc. are no longer a problem - and it's easier and quicker this way to stop the bullying.

COERT: This all sounds simple and attractive. What can you tell me about the effectiveness of the approach? Have you done some research for instance or have you otherwise gotten systematic feedback?

SUE: This approach has been subject to rigorous review of a large number of actual cases in terms of outcomes – we know it works, whereas with most other strategies there has been no evaluation based on outcomes (other than solution focused brief therapy, which we have also evaluated). It’s fast acting… and it is maintained longer term. Other approaches tend to rely on the assumed efficacy of the process e.g. traditional counselling, phone help lines, punishment of offenders etc. or anecdotal accounts of a few cases. In an article I wrote at the time (read it here), I describe two types of research: outcome based evaluation and process based. Firstly, and most importantly, evaluation based on the outcomes: in the first 50 support groups that I led, there was immediate success in 80% (40) of those cases, then it tapers off - 7 cases took up to 5 meetings before everyone was satisfied that the child was happy in school and there was no bullying, I called that 'delayed success'. In 3 cases (6%), although there was improvement, I was not completely satisfied, I called that limited success. Importantly, no case got worse. What is interesting, by the way, is that when the group was led by staff from within school, the outcomes seem to be even better - higher than 80% and fewer meetings on average!

Although this research was done about ten years ago now, I still haven't come across any other study of an intervention for bullying that is as transparent in outcomes or as successful as this, over a large number of cases (other than the one I mentioned on SFBT earlier, that Gail Holdorf and I did). I am both proud of this article for that reason, but also frustrated. All the research that has been done into bullying - 'admiring the problem'! - but so little done into what works in individual cases to stop it.

COERT: Can you give an example of an experience of teacher who has used the Support Group Approach?

SUE: In terms of independent corroboration, I trained a teaching assistant to lead support groups in a primary school that had particular difficulties. She kept excellent records which she allowed me to look through later. Her records showed that she also had led over 50 groups and all had been effective. However, she always continued group meetings for about 5 sessions – even when her records showed there was no problem - I think she just enjoyed doing it! At this school they called them ‘Friendly Groups’. I referred to her work in my chapter in Solutions in Schools – but she wouldn’t let me put in her name! Other than this, I’ve had loads of feedback from individuals who have used it and been delighted. Of course, anyone who didn’t have success is unlikely to feed back. Nevertheless, so many people have tried it successfully, and at the first attempt, I’m certain that it is a very robust strategy.

COERT: You mentioned process research. Could you explain that?

SUE: Sure, I did research into the processes happening in the support group, the theories in social psychology about how groups work and the behaviour of bystanders. I was looking for the rational for why it worked so well, and so quickly. Whilst researching on this, I came across 'solution focused brief therapy'. It seemed to me that how I was doing support groups was a good example of solution focused work, although not therapy. More recently, I have done some research on what children who have been in support groups think about it – I made a couple of videos interviewing them. We took two of these children to the EBTA (European Brief Therapy Association) conference in Krakow and they took part in our workshop there. They were great! It seems obvious to them, if someone is unhappy in school you ask other children to help… of course it works…. of course they enjoy it…. what’s so hard to understand about that...?!

COERT: Sounds logical, indeed. Do you have any experiences with or thoughts on situation in which aggression and physical violence are involved? Would you recommend using the Support Group Approach in the same manner or should additional or different things be done?

SUE: I have used a support group where children have had bruises, black eyes or been kicked etc. and in long term cases where bullying appears to have been a problem for more than a year, maybe at successive schools. However, I recommend using support groups in primary schools – and children don’t generally do very serious harm at that age. I have never had a case in a primary school when I felt unable to recommend it. Although I have led support groups in secondary schools successfully, and I know others have, I would not recommend it universally for any situation. For example, one case I remember was of a teenage girl where there had been a sexual assault by two or three boys – I would not have felt comfortable leading a support group including those boys. (I’m not sure I would call this bullying, although on the news here recently a murder of a schoolboy was called ‘bullying’.) With anything so serious, the police would normally be involved and I would not want to interfere with any investigation. Generally, the student(s) would be suspended from attending school whilst this was going on, anyway. In serious cases in secondary schools, I would use solution focused brief therapy to support the ‘victim’, if that was wanted. I wrote an article with Gail Holdorf on the success of using SFBT, mainly with older students (read it here). There are other reasons why a support group may not be appropriate in secondary school, too - e.g. the student may not want anyone else involved at all and we would respect that.

It is interesting that the anti-bullying project very rarely had referrals of ‘bullies’ – almost all referrals were of perceived ‘victims’. Now I work part time for a behaviour support service, I get referrals of students for ‘anger management’, maybe violent outbursts, and bullying others may occasionally be mentioned. I deal with these individual cases using SFBT too – so I work with them individually on ‘staying calm’ or ‘getting on with work’ or ‘staying in school’ (i.e. not getting excluded) - whatever they identify they want to change. This is not as successful in terms of outcomes as I would like, although still far better than other approaches I have used in the past. It can be hard to get any progress noticed, or recognised as significant, by other staff. Generally, I find working in a solution focused way directly with teachers and other school staff to be more successful in terms of outcomes for children with serious behaviour difficulties.

COERT: As a last question I’d like to ask: what practical suggestions do you have for teachers reading who want to try this out?

SUE: It doesn’t need a lot of training or particular expertise – just a willingness to have a go with something different – so it’s accessible to school staff. I think it would be very helpful to read a case study – there’s one in Interviewing for Solutions and another in my chapter in Solutions in Schools, mentioned before. I am hoping to have a new book out soon – my old one, Solutions to Bullying, is out of print. Anyone leading the group needs to remember the suggestions for making the child happy in school should all come from the group - and resist the temptation to give them any other information or advice. When people have watched me leading a group in a school, as they usually did, they have said that the most surprising thing is that I don’t talk about bullying at all – either with the ‘victim’ or the group. And all the staff I know who have done it, love it! Staff and children learn the effectiveness of becoming solution focused. I would suggest just following the guidelines and keep it simple!

The most encouraging thing is that when used well, solution focused support groups contribute to an atmosphere in school where bullying is less likely to happen in the first place.

References

Y. & Rees, I. (2001). Solutions in Schools: Creative Applications of Solution Focused Brief Thinking with Young People and Adults. London: BT Press
De Jong P. & Berg I.K. (2008). Interviewing for solutions, 3d ed..Brooks/Cole.
Young, S. (1998). The Support Group Approach to Bullying in Schools. Educational Psychology in Practice Vol 14, No 1, April 1998
Young, S. & Holdorf, G. (2003). Using solution focused brief therapy in individual referrals for bullying. Educational Psychology in Practice, 19(4), 271-282.
Young, S. (2002). Solutions to Bullying. NASEN.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Moving FORWARD with solution-focused change

A results-oriented and appreciative way of making progress

The solution-focused approach

Just before the turn of the millennium, a relatively new approach to psychotherapy began to raise curiosity among some organizational consultants, coaches, and trainers. Articles and books claimed this approach to be quite different from other approaches. They claimed it was simple, positive, and amazingly effective. Around that time, several groups of people in different parts of the world started using the approach in organizational settings. Now, roughly ten years later, these pioneers have made considerable progress. They discovered the solution-focused model is also very useful outside the field of therapy. Coaches, trainers, consultants, and managers have started to apply the approach, or parts of it. This has helped them to be more effective in achieving their goals. Moreover, often, at the same time, it has made their work more enjoyable.

Below follows a description of the solution-focused approach to change. We developed a simple and, hopefully, sticky acronym, FORWARD, to make it easier for you to start applying and to remember the main ingredients of the solution-focused model. Next, some examples will follow on how to apply the solution-focused model in the workplace. We will end the article with possible ways forward.

What is solution-focused change?

Many authors describe the solution-focused approach as a process in which practitioners invite their clients to envision their preferred future. Next, they start asking questions about the clients’ strengths and resources, and about things that have already gone well and then they invite them to take small steps forward. Often in this process, they use techniques like scaling, the miracle question, exception finding questions and coping questions.

The FORWARD-model

A new and different way of explaining the solution-focused approach is through the FORWARD acronym. The letters FORWARD stand for:

Below follows a brief description of each step:

1. Focus on what you want to be different

The first step in the solution-focused change process is usually to focus on what you want to change and why you want to change that. There may be two kinds of desire for change: 1) there is something negative you want to get rid of (a problem) and 2) there is something positive you want more of (an unfulfilled aspiration). In this first step of the solution-focused change process, you ask questions like:

What would you like to be different?
What is it you want to change?
What is the reason you want things to be different?
How is the current situation bothering you?

A remarkable aspect of the solution-focused approach is that you skip problem analysis and diagnosis. Analyzing why the problem exists and who is responsible for causing the problems are not part of the approach (read more). Instead, you take the shortest route to the desired outcomes.

2. Outcomes desired are made specific

Next, you focus your attention on specifying how you want things to be. In other words, what should be the concrete positive results of the change process? An important precondition of making any change process succeed is to know specifically what you want to achieve (read more). When people start formulating how they want things to be different, they often become excited and hopeful. By focusing on specific positive goals, the change process has actually begun. In this step, you ask questions like the following:

How would you like things to be different?
What do you want to achieve?
What will be different when the change has succeeded?
What will you do differently?
How will others notice things have become better?
What advantages will this have?

3. Describe results already realized

The third step is often to look specifically at what is already there. It is like looking at the glass as half full. This often has the following strong positive effects: 1) people involved find new energy and hope (read more). People tend to overlook what has already been achieved. When they rediscover what is already working well, they often become more optimistic and hopeful, 2) they find some practical ideas to hold on to what works well and to make some progress. The following questions are associated with this step:

What is already going well?
Which results have already been achieved?
What helped?
What worked well before?

4. When did success already happen?

The following step is to identify specific situations in the past in which things have already gone better. This might involve: a) an exception to the problem: the current problem was less problematic, or b) an earlier success: the situation you want to achieve was already happening to some extent. When you have identified such a situation, you answer questions like:

What went right in this situation?
What was different in this situation?
What made possible for things to go better?
What was your own role in this success?

5. Action: one small step forward

Then, the attention shifts to taking action by looking at how earlier success is useful for the current situation. This is sometimes called building a bridge between successes in the past to success in the future. You focus on taking one small step forward instead of taking a big leap. Taking small steps has several advantages: 1) it is easy: the required energy, motivation, and trust are minimal, 2) it is safe: if it does not work not much will be lost, 3) it is encouraging: aiming for a small step implies something positive, namely that there is already a lot functioning well as it is, 4) there is a chance of positive snowball effects: the one small step approach has a surprising side effect: it may lead to a snowball effect: one small improvement may unexpectedly bring about more positive change (read more). Associated with this step are questions like:

How is what we talked about relevant for your current situation?
What small step forward could you take?
How would you notice that this small step would work?

6. Results achieved are monitored

After the small step forward has been taken you, focus your attention on what goes better. This purposeful improvement-focus helps you to notice positive changes, even small ones. Noticing that you are moving forward is supportive to making further change. First, is it encouraging to notice you are on the right way. Second, it provides you with a clear sense of what works so that it will become easier to take next steps forward. In this step, the following questions are answered:

What is going better?
What helped?
What did you specifically do that worked?
What else went better?
Etc.

7. Desire for further change is made explicit

A next step is to ask specifically what further change is desired. Doing this allows you check your motivation for further change and to adjust your goals, if necessary. The benefits of frequently asking what further change you want are threefold: 1) motivational: by remembering why you want things to be different you re-inject new motivation for change, 2) fine-tuning: it allows you to fine-tune your goals by taking into account new things that have happened, or new insights you may have gained, 3) efficiency: it keeps you from doing too much. The question may help you to realize that you have already done enough and that you don’t need to make further changes. Questions in this step may be:

What further change do you need?
When will you know you have made enough progress?
Use the FORWARD-model like a recipe

The FORWARD model is a descriptive model, not a prescriptive model. Its intention is to describe what happens during a solution-focused change process. Its purpose is to inspire you, not to confine you. The order in which to use these steps is not mandatory. You may also decide to leave out one or more steps when you apply the model. Think of the model as a recipe. You can freely apply these steps, add your own flavors, and experiment. Can you recognize in the case below how the FORWARD steps are taken?

Case: improving productivity

Charles wants to improve the productivity of his team because it has been far too low the last few months. The team is now performing on 49% productivity while the monthly target is 63%. Charles' short-term goal is to get back on target within three months. That way everybody will clearly see the team is back on the right track. It would mean more job security for everyone within the team. In addition, it would mean that the business unit manager would worry less about the team and get off Charles’ back more. It would also be good for Charles’ reputation. It would prove that he is able to turn a bad-performing team into a well-performing team. Charles thinks of how he has managed before to turn a lesser team performance into a better one. He had organized a team meeting in which he discussed all available information with his team and expressed his worry. He had asked the team to come up with ideas to improve the financial performance. In response to this, several good ideas were brought forward. Charles noticed that the team members made more appointments with customers and that sales increased quickly. Charles realizes that the following things worked well: informing the team fully, sharing his worries, and activating every team member to come up with improvements without telling them specifically what to do. Charles again arranges a team meeting and does the same things. This time too, it leads to a quick recovery of the financial performance. The solutions turned out to be already there within the team but they were not fully utilized. By the intervention Charles made they have become more available so that they could be used to improve the results.

Two meanings of FORWARD

For us, the acronym FORWARD has two meanings. The first meaning refers to the characteristics of the approach. The solution-focused approach enables you to focus constantly on helping people move forward in the desired direction. The second meaning of the word refers to how practitioners have made progress in understanding and applying the solution-focused approach in a wide variety of settings. A first field of application for many was in the context of personal coaching, a setting more or less comparable to psychotherapy.

Advantages of the solution-focused approach

When people start applying the solution-focused approach, it can be challenging. You have to learn new skills, mainly in asking helpful questions. In addition, you have to unlearn some things. You leave certain very familiar things out when you work solution-focused, like analyzing problems, finding out who is to blame, and looking primarily at what is not right. When you manage to learn these new skills, the advantages can be great. Some of the main advantages are:

The solution focused approach works as least as well as other approaches.
The approach can be very broadly applied. It turns out to be useful for dealing with a wide range of problems and goals.
It works much faster than many other approaches.
Clients are more satisfied with themselves and about the change process.
Practitioners who use the model to help others are more satisfied with their work.
New applications of the solution-focused model

These positive effects have encouraged many people to start using the solution-focused model in a broader context. Consultants applying it become more client-focused. They have learned how to help clients formulate their own goals and to find their own solutions by asking the right kinds of questions. They have noticed that clients have become more independent because they found out they could solve their own problems.

Solution-focused change in groups

‘Solutionists’ also began to apply the solution-focused model more and more in group situations. From the time it was invented, the solution-focused model had been applied in group situations, mainly in family therapy. Many people have now found that they can apply it in organizational group settings as well. All the steps in the FORWARD-model can be easily used in groups. You can use the model to formulate goals, to share what is going well, to identify steps forward, and so forth.

Solution-focused management

A particular challenge has been to make the solution-focused model available to managers. Many people were convinced right away that managers could use solution-focused techniques to help their employees. However, we wrestled for quite some time with the question about how to deal with situations in which employees are not performing well. The normal solution-focused steps are specifically aimed at helping people to make progress in the direction of their own choice. However, what should a manager do when an employee is not meeting minimal requirements or when the employee’s behavior is unacceptable because it is harmful to others or to the organization? We realized that in these situations the goals of the manager (and the organization) are the starting point for the conversation. These situations ask primarily for providing direction instead of helping. Thinking and experimenting more with these thoughts, we developed a tool, which we call the goals continuum. We developed ways in which the solution-focused appreciativeness and clarity can be used to direct people. We refer interested readers to this article to learn more about that model.

Further FORWARD

The solution-focused approach is not unique in the sense that it overlaps to some extent with positive change approaches like Appreciative Inquiry, the Positive Deviance initiative, Positive Psychology and Strengths-based management. Will all these approaches merge into one new approach? Or will they develop further more or less independently from each other? Who knows…? One thing seems certain, however. The solution-focused approach will not stay the same. It will develop further.

Insoo Kim Berg once answered the following question: “Do you see the solution-focused approach as a finished approach or do you think it will keep on developing and changing?” She started laughing and answered right away in a don’t-be-silly kind of way:

“Oh no, it’s not finished. For any model to stay alive it will need to constantly keep developing and renewing itself.” She smiled brightly and continued: “So, we need bright young people who will do that.”

We would like to invite you to join us in further developing the solution-focused approach by starting to try out some of the things mentioned in this article and by sharing your experiences. Together we may find small steps forward.

We dedicate this article to the memory of Insoo Kim Berg who taught us many things we use every day and who remains an example and inspiration to us.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Finding Flow (review)

`What is a good life?', is basically the question addressed by Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Well, isn't a good life just about being happy? Ok, but that is not the complete answer. For how do we become and stay happy? Not by watching TV, eating, or relaxing all day! In small doses these things are good and improve your daily life, but the effects are not additive. In other words: a point of diminishing returns is quickly reached. Also you don't become happy by having to do nothing. Csikszentmihalyi's research shows that both intrinsic motivation (wanting to do something) and extrinsic motivation (having to do something) are preferable to not having any kind of goal to focus your attention.

Csikszentmihalyi argues that a life filled with `flow activities' is more worth living than one spent consuming passive entertainment. He says, the point is to be happy while doing things that stretch your goals and skills that help you grow and fulfil your potential. In other words: the content of your experiences over a lifetime determines the quality of your life. Then what exactly ìs `flow'? Is it just some vague new New Age concept? Not at all! It is precisely defined and well-researched. The experience if flow is the sense of effortless action we feel in moments that we see as the best in our lives. In order to have flow experiences you need clear goals/demands, immediate and relevant feedback and a balance between your skills and the demands. Then your attention becomes ordered and fully invested. Because of the total demand on you psychic energy you become completely focused, your self-consciousness disappears, as does your sense of time, yet you feel strong and competent. When in flow, you are not exactly happy, because you are not focused on your inner states (that would take away your attention from the task at hand). But looking back you are happy. Having flow experiences leads to growth and learning and improving your life becomes a question of making flow as much as possible a constant part of your everyday experience.

Csikszentmihalyi describes how you can find flow in several important life domains. One domain is work. Often we short-sightedly spend a lot of energy to take the easy way and cut corners, trying to do as little as possible in our jobs. If we would spend the same amount of energy trying to accomplish more we would probably enjoy our work more and be more successful as well. To improve your work you can try to take the whole context of your job into account. Doing this you can better understand your contribution to the whole and understand and value your role more. This enables you to invest more energy and withdraw more meaning from your work. Further, to use flow at work you can try to establish a situation in which your job (an other people's jobs) provides clear goals, unambiguous feedback, a sense of control, few distractions and challenges that match your skills. Just as much as in work you can create flow in your family and other relationships according to Csikszentmihalyi. He says it is particularly important to give attention to building harmony between participant's goals and to find ways to balance the meaningfulness of the rewards you get from work and relationships.

This book is definitely worth reading. Csikszentmihalyi's answer to the question `What is a good life?' is practical and convincing.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Luxury Fever (review)

This fascinating book describes how a new virus, the luxury fever has Americans seemingly inescapably in its grip: people spend a larger and larger proportion of our money on luxury goods. And, because for most people incomes have remained static or have even declined (in the US and the UK), this extra spending was financed by lower savings and higher debts, making the economy weaker and more vulnerable.

Further, most people work longer and tend to spend less time on important activities such as vacations, being with family, sleeping exercising, etc. To make things worse: Americans spend less on vital public services which leads to a deteriorating infrastructure, to higher crime, to dirty streets and parks, to water pollution, to a deteriorating education system, etc.

And what about health? 40 million Americans currently lack health insurance.... This book explains how there is a competition 1) between different forms of private spending (do we buy luxury or do we spend our money differently?) and 2) between private and public spending. To expand on the latter point: a growing share of the US national income is spent on consumption and spending on vital publics services is increasingly threatened.

Frank explains (on the basis of well-being research and the adaptation-level theory) that the main reason we buy luxury goods is to demonstrate to others that we can afford to thereby trying to distinguish ourselves from them. In doing so we try to achieve happiness by improving our relative status.

The irony is, however, this absolutely doesn't work! The satisfaction we get from luxury spending, which Frank calls conspicuous spending, depends largely on context. The satisfaction we get from luxury spending lasts only shortly.

Two examples:

If we buy an expensive car, this distinguishes us from our neighbour and we feel happy. If, however, next month our neighbour buys an even fancier one, our satisfaction will be largely gone. You can see how this leads to an escalation, an arms race, with no winners.
The satisfaction we get from luxury goods tends to decline steeply over time. We tend to get used quickly to what we have and the favourable features of the luxury good tend to fade into the background rapidly: we no longer notice the fancy features of our expensive car and our satisfaction diminishes.

Bottom line: this increasing conspicuous spending does more harm than good. We have to discourage conspicuous consumption in favour of inconspicuous consumption. Frank explains that no individual or family alone can solve this problem. It has to be solved at a higher level. He proposes a simple but effective measure to discourage conspicuous consumption, a progressive consumption tax levied on consumption rather than income. Frank claims this tax can stimulate radical changes in the ways we lead our lives. Contrary to the believe of many, he convincingly argues, this progressive consumption tax would not cripple the economy but invigorate it. A fascinating book also highly relevant for European countries I think.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The Goals Continuum

Helping, negotiating, directing

The goals continuum is a model reflecting in which situation you can apply which skill. The extreme left of the continuum describes situations in which the goals of the employee are the center of the discussion. In these situations helping (coaching) is the most suitable approach. The extreme right is about situations in which the goals of the manager are central. Between the two extremes on this continuum are situations that require negotiation.

Managing people is not always an easy thing to do. Take a look at this example:

A manager told us recently: “One of the people in my team, Bert, does not perform well. Time and again he does not meet the deadlines. As a consequence the delivery to our customers is frequently delayed. This has to stop! But no matter how much I try to help him, I can’t seem to get through to him. He gets irritated, he tries to avoid me and he dismisses my suggestions. What am I to do?”

Use the right skills in the right situation
In order to constructively achieve your goals as a manager it is important to apply the right skills at the right time. In the above example this did not happen. The manager tries to solve a problem by helping the employee. However, directing the employee is in order in the above example. Therefore, helping or coaching does not work. It seems like the manager and the subordinate are on a different wave length which causes nothing to change.

The goals continuum

The goals continuum is a model which describes which skills to apply in which circumstances. The extreme left of the continuum describes situations in which the goals of the employee are prevails. In these situations, helping (coaching) is the most suitable approach. The extreme right represent situations in which the goals of the manager prevail. Between the two extremes on this continuum are situations that require negotiation. The figure below represents the continuum.

1. Extreme left of the continuum: Helping

On the extreme left of the continuum, the goals of the employee are leading. This is the case when the manager does not feel the need to change the behavior of the employee. In these situations, the employee wants to change something and the manager is all right with these changes and goals. This can be the case for example when the employee is performing well and is looking for new work challenges. Another example is a situation in which an employee is performing well at work and asks his manager for help regarding a personal problem. In help-requiring situations, the manager can use the solution-focused approach about which we have written several articles (see here, here, here and here).

2. Extreme right of the continuum: Directing

On the extreme right of the continuum, the goals of the manager (and the organization) prevail. The right side of the continuum describes situations in which the manager wants to change something in the behavior of the employee. This can involve two kinds of change:

Imposing limits / correcting: when the employee’s behavior is unacceptable because it is harmful to others or to the organization, it is necessary for the manager to draw boundaries and clarify to the employee that the particular behavior has to stop and change.
Clarifying performance expectations: when the employee does not show the minimally required performance, and the manager has to take action to stimulate the employee to perform up to standard.

As a manager it is to be recommended you prepare your conversation with an employee properly. In your preparation you can come up with answers (preferably in writing) to the following questions:

What do I want the employee to do differently? What does he have to start doing or what does he have to stop doing?
To what end do I expect this of him? What are the advantages of what I expect him to do? To whom and from what perspective are these behaviors useful?

Also, it is useful to ponder the following questions: Do I have a mandate to direct the employee in this way? What exactly is my mandate? Do I have the authority to ask this? When it becomes clear that you can’t answer these questions affirmatively maybe it is better to check this first with your manager. If you find out that you don’t have the required authority you can try to enlarge your mandate by starting a discussion about the topic with your colleagues or superiors.

In the conversation itself you can provide direction in a solution-focused way by being clear and friendly at the same time. You can be both firm and inviting by using questions while you lead. A format for questions which often work well is:

How can you ensure that …… (what you expect from the employee)
so that …… (the advantage of the behavior you expect)

In this article you can read more about how to do this and also about how you can respond to different ways in which employees might respond to your attempt to direct them. The interesting thing about this way of directing is that an authoritative or bossy tone can almost always be avoided - making it much less likely that employees will resist your attempt to direct them.

3. Middle part of the continuum: Negotiating

In the center of the continuum, between Helping and Directing, there is negotiating. The center of the continuum describes situations in which the manager has goals and wants to exercise some influence. But you realize it is not an all or nothing situation. You are prepared to give and take a bit with respect to the moment in which the change has to be realized and in the amount of change that has to be made. You may want to use an “if you do this, I’ll do that” approach.

Preparation is also very useful when you want to negotiate. Questions that can be helpful are: What goals do you minimally want to achieve? What is your negotiating space? What do the both of you agree on?

Experiences

We have trained many managers to use the Goals Continuum. In a group of managers in a large hospital many of them were satisfied with the model because it helped them to prepare much better for difficult conversations. It also helped them to approach the conversations with employees with confidence. In another organization, we trained all management-levels in this solution-focused approach. The advantage they experience is felt both on an individual level and on a group level. They are pleased to have found a shared way of managing people which helps them to achieve their goals more easily and which the employees generally find pleasant.

We end this article with an example on the right side of the continuum

Steve, a manager in a factory department, had to engage in a difficult conversation with Richard, an employee who had several times shown intimidating behavior towards his colleagues. A few colleagues had already said they were afraid of him. Steve had once before said to Richard that he would not accept physically aggressive behavior. Richard had responded evasively and had said:”It is very hard for me to control my temper because I was mistreated as a child myself”. This conversation between Steve and Richard did not lead to a clear understanding and agreement. Recently, there had been a new situation of Richard intimidating a co-worker and Steve wanted to talk about it with him. This time, Steve had prepared well for the conversation. He had written down what he expected of Richard and why. In the conversation he said: “Richard, you are a much appreciated person in this department because of your commitment and your readiness to help others. No wonder we would very much like to keep you around. For that, it will be necessary for you to restrain yourself at all times when you feel angry so that your colleagues can feel safe around you at all times. How can you that care of this?” After a few seconds, Richard responded like this: “I understand you ask this of me but it is very hard for me to control my anger when I feel challenged. Steve responded understandingly but firmly “I can imagine that after what you have told me recently. And given that is hard for you …. How can you still take care of it so that people will feel safe and we can keep on employing you here?” During the conversation Steve kept on coming back to the HOW-question. The conversation proceeded constructively and Richard and Steve made an agreement that Richard would at all times control himself when angry. Richard has since found a way to do this.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

The Not-Knowing Posture

This article presents some thoughts about the not-knowing posture. Is it easy? Is it valuable? Is it ethical to charge money for your services while assuming a not-knowing posture? Does the not-knowing posture mean you have to completely discard expertise?

Many who are new to the Solution-Focused practice principles seem to get confused by the concept taking a “not-knowing” posture when facing their clients. The not-knowing posture (Anderson and Goolishian, 1992) means that as practitioners we work from the assumption that each case is different. Therefore we do not know exactly what the situation of the client is and what he should think or do. This is why in order to arrive at a more satisfying outcome, solution-focused practitioners ask lots of what seem like strange questions that activate their minds.

We did not realize for a long time that the “not-knowing posture” was creating some confusion among the newly learning therapists, coaches, consultants, trainers, educators and managers. Several questions are raised by confusion.

Does “not-knowing” imply that it’s easy and that anyone can do this work without training and a solid grasp of the philosophy behind it?
If we take a “not-knowing” posture, how can we ethically charge money for our services?
How can I prove to our clients how valuable my service is to them if I don’t know?
I went through years of education and post-graduate training in order to be an expert and now you are saying I should forget everything I learned?

These are some of the most pressing questions we have come across. Let’s have a look and each of these important questions.

Is it easy?

The phrase ‘not-knowing posture’ might suggest that this is very easy to do and that anyone can do this without much effort. Quite the opposite is true. Taking a not-knowing posture is much more difficult than it might seem, because it seems counter-intuitive at first glance. Both as professionals and human beings we have all kinds of experiences, views and opinions. Actively setting these ideas, knowledge, and skills aside by assuming a “not-knowing” posture is demanding and requires great discipline. Furthermore, applying the solution-building model is a specific expertise in itself. We are not expert in knowing what caused the client’s problem and what he or she should do to solve it. Instead, we are experts on “solution-building conversation,” a process by which clients discover their own most effective ways of achieving their goals. Again, this is not easy: It requires both attention and skills that are quire different from problem analysis.

Is it ethical to charge money for it?

The mere fact that taking a “not-knowing posture” is hard, is not enough justification in itself to charge money for it. Taking a not-knowing posture engages clients in their own solution-building process, thus reading his/her goals much quicker, and with confidence. There is an important difference between telling clients what they should do and helping them to find out for themselves what they should do, instead, clients discover what works for them. Traditional tell-sell approaches to coaching and consultancy are wide-spread but can be problematic. Clients might wonder whether the solution offered by the expert will work in his specific situation. Also, they may wonder whether they will be able to execute the solution effectively without spending additional time and expense. Since the solution-focused approach builds on what has already worked for clients it will therefore not create resistance but energy and confidence. This is probably the main reason why the solution-focused approach works well and efficiently (Gingerich & Eisenhart, 2000; Visser & Butter, 2006). This efficiency and effectiveness adds value for the client.

How will clients accept the not-knowing posture?

Taking a not-knowing posture is demanding and valuable but how will clients be able to recognize and understand this? After all, clients may expect you as a consultant, coach or therapist to tell them what to do and think. So, what will they think of you when you will instead start asking a lot of questions? From our careful observations of client response to our thoughtful questions many clients report how our questions are because they help them to form goals and discover strengths, they usually find this very helpful. There is nothing like a personal experience to discover the benefits of the “not-knowing” posture as be activated and energized to make further progress.

For example, a colleague of ours, Steve Langer was interviewed for a job as a consultant for a prison population. The Director of the prison who interviewed him asked him many questions, and Steve found himself describing what he might do as a consultant to difficult prisoners who are hostile, angry, and uncooperative. Instead of continuing to explain to the Director, he said to the director, he knows his prison population very well and would he mind playing one of the difficult prison that Steve might work with. The Director took on the challenge and played a very tough prisoner who was causing a great deal of difficulty for the staff. Of course Steve used all the solution-building practices and took the “not-knowing” posture and asked many questions. The Director was so impressed with Steve that he got hired immediately on the spot.

Some clients may be confused, however. After all, they may have some experiences with other professionals which use a quite different approach. Sometimes it may be helpful to explain it. A manager who was talking with her coach, suddenly smiled and asked: “You do ask a lot of questions, don’t you?” The coach replied: “That’s right, it helps me to understand your situation better.” The manager responded: “Okay, I did not quite expect that but I think it’s very useful.” On another occasion a client explicitly asked for tips from his coach. The coach replied by answering: “Alright, I will give you some tips. Is it alright if I first ask some questions so that I can focus my tips on your specific situation?” The client said: “Of course, you first need to know more about my situation, I understand. I can see that you are very careful with your suggestions, and I like that.”

What about my expertise?

The not-knowing posture does not mean that you know nothing and that you have no expertise. Being able to conduct a solution-focused conversation requires expertise in itself, in addition to others you have, and keep all the other skills you have acquired over the years and continue to learn. While continuing to engage in solution-building conversations, you take a “not-knowing” posture and you postpone your judgments for a while and approach the client’s situation with great curiosity. Many experienced practitioners find time and again that their curiosity has been more than rewarded. One reason for this is that the client will feel he’s taken very seriously and respect for their own expertise. Another reason is that it will create a conversation in which client and solution-focused practitioner will be able to find tailor-made solutions that will fit perfectly to the situation.

We are not alone in arguing for a not-knowing posture when helping clients. Peter Drucker, the famous management guru, once said: “My greatest strength as a consultant is to be ignorant and ask a few questions."