Author Archive: Mark McKergow

‘Safety II’ – a fascinating development in safety management (and Solution Focus?)

safety iiI was recently contacted by Andy Shone of Southpac, who provide training to the airline and other safety-critical industries from their base on Australia’s Gold Coast.  Andy was initially interested to discuss our work on host leadership, but in a context I hadn’t previously known – ‘Safety II’.  Some of you will know that my pre-consulting background was in the nuclear power business here in the UK, and even after moving on from there I devised and ran safety leadership courses for senior managers in the industry in the 1990s and early 2000s.  What’s more, there seem to me to be some very interesting connections between Safety II and the work we’ve been doing in Solutions Focus over the past 25 years.  What an exciting connection!

One way to start to explore Safety II is to read the White Paper published in 2015 by Erik Hollnagel, Robert Weirs and Jeffrey Braithwaite.  Safety II is described as ‘ensuring that as many things as possible go right’, as opposed to the conventional Safety I view that safety is about ensuring that as few things as possible go wrong.  Whereas Safety I is about preventing accidents, promoting Safety II means knowing more about what makes and keeps things safe, running smoothly and without incident.  This latter is, of course, what happens the vast majority of the time but goes under the radar of most safety professionals.  Here is a key table introducing the differences between these two views taken from the White Paper:

 

Safety I Safety II
Definition of safety

 

That as few things as possible go wrong.

 

That as many things as possible go right.

 

Safety management principle

 

Reactive, respond when something happens or is categorised as an unacceptable risk.

 

Proactive, continuously trying to anticipate developments and events.

 

View of the human factor in safety management Humans are predominantly seen as a liability or hazard. They are a problem to be fixed.

 

Humans are seen as a resource necessary for system flexibility and resilience. They provide flexible solutions to many potential problems.

 

Accident investigation

 

Accidents are caused by failures and malfunctions. The purpose of an investigation is to identify the causes.

 

Things basically happen in the same way, regardless of the outcome. The purpose of an investigation is to understand how things usually go right as a basis for explaining how things occasionally go wrong.

 

Risk assessment

 

Accidents are caused by failures and malfunctions. The purpose of an investigation is to identify causes and contributory factors. To understand the conditions where performance variability can become difficult or impossible to monitor and control.

 

This is a really fascinating development – in the same way as our shift from problem to solution focus, or the shift in software development from ‘waterfall’ to ‘agile’ methodologies.  For starters, here are just three of the things that strike me about this shift in viewpoint.

  1. There is a very strong analogy between the shift to Safety II and Solution Focus. In SF we don’t think that’s what’s wanted is simply the opposite of what’s wrong.  Building solutions is about finding what’s wanted (not what’s not wanted) and then finding ways to notice and build on what’s already working that connects with it (usually by taking small steps).  The various practical tools and approaches developed by SF practitioners over the past 25 years could therefore be useful in building the practice of Safety II (Future Perfect, scaling, appreciation, small steps, noticing vs doing, etc).

 

  1. In Safety II the difference between safe operation and an accident is seen as small. Most things work most of the time, and even in serious accidents many things happen correctly.  There is an important philosophical point about causality wound up with this – Safety I is based on a causal links view whereas Safety II looks from an emergence perspective where the idea of one thing simply and inevitably causing another is seen as misleading and naïve.  Trying to isolate and prevent ‘errors’ and ‘unsafe acts’ is therefore a somewhat fruitless endeavour, since often these are safe acts which are occurring in unusual circumstances and contexts.

 

  1. In the table above, I am struck by the difference in the perceived role of people. In conventional safety, much can be attributed to ‘human error’ and therefore the goal can be to remove people (and the variability they inevitably bring) from the process as far as possible.  Automatic safety systems are therefore seen as the answer.  ‘Making the people follow the procedure’ is the aim. Within Safety II, people are an important source of resilience – they can respond to unforeseen events and bring flexibility and creativity to dangerous situations.  The computerised swimming pool lifeguard is not on the agenda!

No-one is suggesting abandoning Safety I.  However, the advocates of Safety II think that the next level of improvement will come not from more rigorous applications of those ideas, but rather with the arrival and integration of Safety II ideas.  There have been several books on this published over the past five years, and interest is starting to grow around the world.  I wonder how Solutions Focus practitioners might be able to add and strengthen this movement?

The conversation with Andy Shone is progressing and he’s invited me to go to Gold Coast to lead a three-day deep dive into Safety II, host leadership and SF.  Join us on 14-16 November 2018!

Mark IEC (49)Dr Mark McKergow is director of the Centre for Solutions Focus at Work (sfwork), based in Edinburgh, Scotland. He is the co-author of four books on SF in organisational change including the best-selling The Solutions Focus (now in 11 languages).  His latest book is Host: Six New Roles of Engagement (Solutions Books, 2014) about leading as a host, not a hero or servant. 

 

Advertisements

Why is it called ‘Future Perfect’?

futperf2Nearly 20 years ago Paul Z Jackson and I were writing the first business book on using Solution Focused (SF) approaches in management and coaching – published as The Solutions Focus (Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2002, second revised edition 2007) .  We found that, in order to move beyond the therapy context of helper-helpee, we needed to reconceptualise the ideas of SF away from a two-part dialogue into ways in which team leaders, facilitators, managers and others might use the ideas in different settings.  This led to our SIMPLE principles, and our six Solutions Tools – pieces of conversation which were not based simply on a question to be answered but on chunks of conversation around a particular topic.

One of these tools is ‘Future Perfect’ – discussing life with the solution in place, or (in the old pre-SF 2.0 days) the problem vanished.  I had an email last week asking about the origins of the name of this tool, and it’s worth a blog post to expand on why we chose Future Perfect and why I still think it’s a good name.

Future Perfect is, of course, the name we gave to conversations based on the miracle question (or other future-oriented starting points).  The idea is to get descriptions of life ‘the day after the miracle’ – when suddenly the problem is resolved, or the client’s best hopes are realised. This is more than just the miracle question – it’s a whole piece of work with lots of building, details, different perspectives and so on.  It’s a very distinctive piece of work which is not found, in the same way, in other approaches. So, we thought it deserved a name of its own.  It’s not a goal (although to some people it looks like one), so a different name makes the distinction between this future description and a normal goal.

Why did we choose Future Perfect? Several reasons.

  1. It’s a grammatical play on words.  There is a tense in English grammar called the future perfect, characterised by the form “I will have(done something)”. So it’s a past take on the future – “I will have completed my degree by this time next year”. It’s about moving into the future and looking back (as opposed to the simple future tense – “I will complete my degree next year”). This is precisely what the miracle question does – asks the client to ‘beam into the future’ (albeit only to tomorrow) and then look around them for signs of change..  It’s not a perfect (ho ho) match, but there was enough similarity to appeal to the punning funsters that Paul and I are.
  2. It’s not a goal – so if we call it something different, people will not confuse it with a goal. A goal, much used particularly in the business/organisational world, is a target, a result with a timescale.  It is used to measure success – has the goal been met or not?  This is not the purpose of the Future Perfect conversation, which is to discover and enrich descriptions of ‘how would we notice things have improved’.
  3. It is (potentially) about things being ‘perfect’ – at least, the things relating to the Platform or topic of conversation. The thing about a miracle is that it can bring anything at all to pass.  So, the possibility of having a conversation about what ‘perfect’ would look like (or 10 out of 10 on a scale, to put it another way) is very real.  In normal goal setting and organisational talk, the topic is not usually ‘perfect’ but ‘achievable’ – what could we actually aspire to? The Future Perfect cuts through this – it’s not a goal, so there is no worry about being judged against it.
  4. It’s a very incisive tool – you can use it to cut through the fog of the problem and get right to what’s really important. The phrase ‘preferred future’ – used by some SF folk – just doesn’t cut it for me.  A preference is about whether I want sugar in my coffee or not – not a bold leap into a new and emerging future. The phase ‘preferred future’ is still around, and I still think it’s weak and feeble.
  5. We wanted to get away from ‘miracle’ in the title of this tool. The miracle question is of course one way of launching a Future Perfect conversation – but there are others.  A time-quake is one – where time slips and suddenly it’s six months ahead.  Another is a magic wand, or something magical in the coffee.  The key point is that a sudden, unexplained and inexplicable thing happens which somehow causes things to be resolved.  This is asking the client to make a leap of imagination, it’s a creative process.  So, getting past the miracle into a broader concept made sense to us.

This idea of broadening the concepts and tools of SF work was a central part of the book.  So, rather than look simply for ‘exceptions to the problem’, we introduced the idea of Counters – things that count/matter – which includes example of the Future Perfect happening already, useful resources, skills, co-operation and anything else which is connected to movement in a useful direction. There’s another story about why we chose the name Counters for this (hint – it’s nothing to do with the thing shop assistants stand behind), but that’s for another day.

Thanks to Nick Burnett for asking the question and forcing me back in time to revisit all this.

 

 

‘Working WITH change, not against it’ – new video with Mark McKergow

I was very excited to be invited to Bulgaria as the keynote speaker for Reinventing Organizations 2017.  This fascinating and participative one-day event was hosted in Sofia and featured many great speakers from within Bulgaria and further afield.  I set the stage by giving a 20 minute talk on ‘Working WITH change’ – ways to move away from linear approaches which assume that organisations are like machines and can be re-engineered, towards methods like Solutions Focus which assume that change is happening all the time and embrace it.  I talk about ‘five myths of change’ and debunk them to leave instead five ways to work WITH change.

The video is now online – you can watch below.  My talk starts at 12.00 minutes in, and is in English.  Enjoy and let me know what you think.

‘Creating’ the future – or ‘discovering’ the future?

IMG_2828I was lucky enough to be invited last week to a meeting of the Scottish Institute for Business Leaders (SIBL).  Over the past 15 years, Drew Pryde has built this organisation into an extremely valuable mix of leadership development, combining learning from others (using outside speakers) with a flow of action learning and peer group reflection.  (Anyone who joined one of our EDGe groups or SFCT chapter meetings will be familiar with the general idea!)

The speaker on this occasion was Lance Ramsay (pictured with me above), until very recently General Manager of the Bakerloo line on London Underground, who spoke about “Key Insights in Transformation and Leadership”.  Lance has been at the sharp end of a number of transformation programmes with London Transport and TfL, and he was keen to explore the distinctions between ‘change’ and ‘transformation’.

There were various views in the room about this (of course).  Lance came up with a very interesting possibility – that change is motivated by the past, whereas transformation happens from the future, using the energy of a new possibility to create something not just ‘better’ but in some way fresh.  Lance put up this statement:

“Transformation – the business of reinventing an organisation from the perspective of a future point with an aim to change culture, values, beliefs and behaviours, and discover (rather than create) a new way of working.”

My eye was very much caught by the last piece of this definition – ‘discover rather than create’ a new way of working.  I think this is worth a closer look.

In some philosophies of change the future can be ‘created’. This phrase crops up all over the place – I think I might have first seen it in Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline in the early 1990s.  It seems to me to come from a re-engineering perspective, where the future is ours to create in whatever image we wish.  It’s a bold idea, of course, and at least invites us to a position where we have some role in building a future for ourselves rather than it just happening to us.  (This was a dominant view in previous ages – we’re just watching series two of The Crown on Netflix, which is all about ‘doing your duty and making the best of it’ in the 1950s.)

What’s wrong with the idea of ‘creating the future’ – at least from an emergent systems perspective – is that there are so many unknowables and uncertainties along the way.  We can set off with hope in our hearts (very important) and then so many things can happen, out of our control or influence, that set us off track.  Or perhaps they set us onto a different track?  Henry Mintzberg wrote about the difference between ‘designed’ and emergent’ strategy decades ago, and it seems that this distinction is still an important learning point for the new leaders emerging today.

What’s even more interesting here is the use of the alternative verb ‘discover’ the future way of working.  Discovery implies that we don’t know about it beforehand… that there will surprises and unexpectedness, that there may be novel delights and newly significant differences.  This seems to me to be much more in the spirit of emergent change processes in general, and of solution-focused (SF) processes in particular.  In fact, many of our SF conversations are about how might you notice that things are transformed, rather than what will you DO to transform them.  The whole process is one of discovery and iteration – Lance Ramsay was very keen to stress the importance of iterating and keeping going.

Some uses of the word ‘discover’ imply that something was there all the time – we say that Alexander Fleming ‘discovered’ penicillin, which is to say that he was able to find it, notice its properties and make use of them.  Presumably the penicillin mouldy fungus was already around – but not known, seen or identified for what it was.  In the case of organisational transformation, I don’t think it works like this. The new ways of working we discover were always possibilities – albeit outside our mainstream awareness.  In this case, the possibilities emerge into some kind of actuality over time and with iteration, rather like a sculpture emerges from a block of granite or a painting onto a canvas.

The kind of noticing in which I like to engage my clients is a very creative noticing. It’s hard to notice something before we are aware of the possibility of a distinction, and so having language around possible distinctions is a key part of helping this process along.  French scientist Louis Pasteur said ‘In the field of observation, change favours only the prepared mind’, and the twin elements of preparation and observation seem to go hand in hand.  So when we set out to discover the future, knowing which clues to look for is an important component.

It’s well worth thinking more about the possibilities inherent in the ‘discover the future’ paradigm.  What might you discover at work tomorrow? And who might you invite to help you?

Mark IEC (49)Mark McKergow PhD MBA is an international speaker, author, and consultant.  He is director of SFWork, the Centre for Solutions Focus at Work, based in Edinburgh, Scotland.  His latest book is Host: Six new rules roles of engagement for teams, organisations, communities and movements (Solutions Books, 2014). 

 

Solutions Focus is not ‘solution-itis’

My attention was drawn recently to this blog about the issues faced improving professional practice in schools in Australia.  First amongst these issues is the possibility of ‘solution-itis’, a disease afflicting those who wish to implement ‘solutions’ without properly examining the problems.  As the blog puts it:

Solutionitis’ happens when schools are so focused on using ‘evidence’ that they jump to a potential solution without first analysing the students’ learning problem.

My correspondent in Australia, the estimable Nick Burnett from Brisbane, was interested to hear my thoughts.  How does this connect to Solutions Focus (SF)?  Does this mean that SF practitioners are guilty of solution-itis on a regular basis, assuming they are not interested in analysing the students’ learning problem.  This is an interesting question, which I will seek to answer here.

In SF, it’s correct to say that we don’t see much value in analysing problems as a route to producing progress.  We are much more interested in what’s wanted (in the future) and what’s working (in the past and present) that connects with the preferred future.  However, that’s not to say that we are blinkered to the kind of change that’s desired – far from it, the definition of ‘better’ is a key piece of SF work in most cases.

The thing that the blog is objecting to is when over-eager practitioners seize on ‘evidence’ (from some trial or pilot) that a particular intervention will improve results, and then proceed to implement it in their own school without thinking about how it fits, what they are seeking to achieve, and what difference they are hoping it will make (and whether that is a valuable difference).  That sounds like a not-very-good idea to me, although I am always encouraged when I see people inclined to experiment and adapt in their work.

There are two key SF principles in play here.  The first is the importance of ‘building a platform’.  In SF, we usually start by having people consider the current situation and build a platform for the work – what are they seeking to be better, the benefits of that, who is interested to participate, what gains are hoped for.  This is a kind of ‘project definition’, and forms the basis for the work to proceed – after all, if nobody wants anything better (or different, at least), then there is no work to be done!

The difference between SF and more problem-focused alternatives is that we don’t see a necessary connection between what’s wanted (the better future) and the causes of what’s wrong now.  So, a conventional problem analysis is not necessary, and may even make things worse by distracting attention and effort from more fruitful lines of enquiry such as ‘when are these things better already, even slightly’.

The other principle relevant here is that ‘every case is different’.  The fact that something works in one place is not a guarantee that it will work everywhere else.  While we as keen as the next person to try things out, this should be done with paying attention to how well the new thing will ‘fit’ with everything else.  Maybe it could be implemented as-is.  Maybe it needs tweaking to fit better in the new school. Maybe it should be rejected entirely – at least for now (there being either no demand for the anticipated change, or it interferes with other more important priorities for the time being.

So, SF practitioners are not prone to solution-itis.  On the contrary, they are very well equipped indeed to recognise it and to find better and higher-value ways to proceed in improving professional practice – in schools, in businesses, in hospitals, in public service and elsewhere.

Dr Mark McKergow is the director of the Centre for Solutions Focus at Work (sfwork), based in Edinburgh, Scotland.  He works with managers, coaches, consultants, facilitators and change agents to apply SF principles to organisational change and coaching. The benefits of this are working with tough situations in an agile and inclusive way to build progress quickly and efficiently. 

Mark teaches the Solution Focused Business Professional certificate course with the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.  This 16-week online course includes everything from the basics of the SF approach, using the basic tools, applying these tools in various situations and expanding the ideas into leadership, complexity, evaluation and more. It attracts participants from all over the world, ranging from experienced consultants to those new to management.  The next course started 22 October 2017 – click here for details.  

    

 

 

New book chapter ‘Appreciative Leadership’

inspiring-leadershipI am very delighted to announce that there is a new leadership book on the scene!  ‘Inspiring Leadership’ has been written by a group of the Ashridge faculty, taking in different aspects of contemporary leadership thinking and scholarship with particular connection to leading in a VUCA (volative, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) world.  And it includes a chapter on Appreciative Leadership from Mike Brent and me!

This chapter brings together different aspects of appreciative traditions, and includes some very practical ideas about how to stay appreciative in tough times, as well as the benefits of doing so.  The chapter draws on Appreciative Inquiry and Positive Psychology as well as Solutions Focus.  As a taster here is one short extract, about using one single word – “Suppose”:

__________________

Suppose…

This is a very useful word in the leader’s vocabulary.  “Suppose” is a word which invites people into a different world – one where things are a little different.  Exploring this different world can illuminate all kinds of possibilities.  It is a two-syllable gateway to creativity, an invitation to join in a discussion on a different basis to the usual everyday real-world need for facts and accuracy.

Another way to think about this is in terms of using the term, “What if….”

As in saying, for example, What if something was different – what would we do then?  This is a useful thing to do when the way ahead is unclear, and new ideas are needed.

  • “What if… we had double the budget, what would we spend it on?”
  • “What if… we had no money at all next month, how might we keep going?”
  • What if… we found a way to get instant customer feedback?”

These are all invitations to explore an alternative reality, to extend our thinking and to draw people together in a novel way.

Some people worry that by asking “Suppose” or “What if”, they are implying that the thing might (or even must) happen.  This is of course not the case – as long as you make it clear why we are supposing something.

(The next section gives practical down-to-earth tips on how to do this!)

______________

I hope you will want to check out the book, with this chapter as well as many other fascinting contributions.  See the book on Google Books, or check it out on Amazon.  There is a Kindle edition available which also saves money.  Here is the complete contents list:

 

New paper: “Brief Therapy: Focused Description Development

With Chris Iveson of BRIEF, I have published a paper which seeks to set out a new focus for the way solution-focused (SF) practice has developed and will continue to develop.  Here is the abstract:

We present a potential new view of solution focused brief therapy (SFBT), based on the development of descriptions in therapy conversations. This version of SFBT leaves out many accepted aspects of the model, so far, including: tasks, end of session compliments, exceptions to the problem and compliments.  We address the issue of theory in solution focused practice and make a distinction between theory as mechanism and explanation – a ‘scientific’ approach, and more philosophical theory which can act as a useful guide to attention for practitioners. We point to potential connections between this view of SF work and recent developments in the field of enactive cognition and post-Wittgensteinian philosophy of mind, including narrative philosophy.

The paper is published as

Iveson, C. and McKergow, M. (2016). Journal of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy, Vol 2, No 1, 1-17

And what’s more, you can read it online at

https://www.academia.edu/29994029/Brief_Therapy_Focused_Description_Development.

Comments please!

The huge power of small steps

martinrutteLast week I took part in a fascinating online summit.  Canadian colleague Martin Rutte had invited many transformational and inspirational leaders to discuss the topic of ‘Heaven On Earth’ with him.  Those who know me well will know that this kind of overblown (to British ears at least) talk usually doesn’t excite me – but I’ve known Martin for many years and am keen to support his work.

Martin invited me to talk with him about the power of small steps.  What emerged in our 40 minute conversation amazed us both: a clear, insightful and energizing look at exactly HOW a small step can be so powerful.  We covered how small steps work, and I produced a new model of ‘5 Ways To Recognize A Great Small Step’ to help the listeners put together some impactful steps for themselves.

Great news – this recording is now available here for download.  It’s free, and you don’t have to give any details – just download, listen, enjoy and learn.  And if you like it, sign up here for more blogs on the subject of solution-focused (SF) coaching and practice.

Just to let you know, the recording is so great that Peter Szabo (author of Brief Coaching For Lasting Solutions with Insoo Kim Berg herself) emailed me four times WHILE he was listening to it!  So join us now and make some great small steps in your own life.

Update 22 November 2016: You can also download a transcript of the conversation (which will take less time to read than listening to it!).

The small print: This interview is part of the Co-Creating Heaven On Earth Event a free online event featuring innovative luminaries offering insights and practices for creating a true Heaven On Earth. For more information, please visit http://heavenonearthsummit.com/. This recording is a copyright of The Shift Network. All rights
reserved.

 

Solution Focused and dialogic OD – a great partnership

dialogic-od

Dialogic Organization Development: The Theory and Practice of Transformational Change

Gervase R. Bushe and Robert J. Marshak (editors)

Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2015, 496 pages, ISBN 978-1626564046, £45.89 hardback (Kindle edition available)

Review by Mark McKergow

Even though solution-focused (SF) practice has its roots in therapy, it has for some years been increasingly used in the field of coaching, team coaching and organisational development (OD). The first two of these area have been the subject of a lot of attention and several books, many of them reviewed in this journal over the years. The area of OD has received less attention in the SF world.

Even though SF offers both a lens to look at OD (every case is different, focus on language, take small steps, do more of what work whatever that turns out to be) and a way to do OD (using familiar SF tools like scaling, future perfect etc), there have been relatively few reports of large-scale SF organisational change work. The Solutions Focus Working casebook from the SOLWorld community (McKergow and Clarke, 2007) and interviews with Susanne Burgstaller (McKergow, 2015) and John Pelton (Brooker, 2015) show this kind of work in action, and Susanne Burgstaller’s book Lösungsfokus in Organisationen: Zukunftsorientiert beraten und führen (Burgstaller, 2015, still only available in German) is an excellent introduction for those lucky enough to be able to read it.

So why am I telling you all this at the start of a review of another book – Gervase Bushe and Bob Marshak’s excellent and ground-breaking Dialogic OD? Because Bushe and Marshak are both aware of SF work as a dialogic (as opposed to diagnostic) practice, and have produced a remarkable collection of chapters which sets the move from diagnostic to dialogic work into a much bigger OD context. The opening chapter lists some 40 different strands of dialogic OD work, from the familiar (Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space, World Café) through historic (talking stick, Stafford Beer), to the emerging (Art of Hosting, Theory U). And, to my delight, they have included Solution-Focused Dialogue in their list. So many lists of these practices seem to miss our community, and it’s very refreshing to see SF up there with the others.

The 17 chapters in the book range through introductions to dialogic practice (with helpful tables showing distinctions from diagnostic practice), and both theoretical and practical elements. The theory comes from the likes of Frank Barrett (known to me for his work on improvisation and jazz along with Appreciative Inquiry) and Ralph Stacey (whose complex responsive process framework connects well with our idea of turn-taking and turn-making in conversations). All these chapters have a nice ‘starting from first principles’ feel to them. The authors have usually written much before on these topics, but here they start at the beginning without assuming familiarity – which makes the book an exceptional primer. To give an example, this is a juicy and relevant snippet from Frank Barrett’s chapter ‘Social Constructionist Challenge to Representational Knowledge’ about the link between knowledge and action:

Plato and the Enlightenment philosophers held that the highest form of knowledge is contemplation. In that view, we contemplate and then we act. But social constructionists propose that the arrow is reversed. We act into the world, we engage with things we care about, and then reflect or contemplate. Knowledge is an activity rather than an internal representation. (p.70)

What a pithy and relevant statement! The book is crammed with insights and pieces such as these which, while not new, make clear and helpful connections between the thinking behind dialogic work and the way it comes into practice.

The second and longer part of the book is concerned with practice. The chapter by Tova Averbuch on ‘Entering, Readiness and Contracting for Dialogic OD’ is outstandingly useful. Averbuch looks squarely at all the practical difficulties in engaging with clients who may be more accustomed to dialogic work, with greater alleged certainty of process and outcome. She shows different ways to engage with both the situation and the stakeholders, build connection and trust, make contracts and even how to bill when the work appears uncertain and emergent. This is not a cheap book, but for those engaged professionally in OD work this chapter alone provides great value.

I was particulary interested to read Chris Corrigan’s chapter on ‘Hosting and Holding Containers’ with its potential connections to my work on host leadership. Corrigan is a long-term expert on thinking about hosting conversation, but as in the theoretical chapters he too holds this expertise lightly and starts from the beginning. A container in this case is not, of course, a Tupperware box but is rather a combination of topic, group, facilitator/host and boundaries. Careful thinking about how these elements interact can make all the difference between effective work and a complete mess, and Corrigan brings the topic to life with stories connecting to initiating, building stability, supporting inquiry and finally ending a container. One simple tip – “If it’s about us, don’t do it without us” gives a flavour of the work here.

There is not space here to go into all 17 chapters. Each one has its own topic and flavour, and the whole work comes together as a unit with Bushe and Marshak’s careful curating and editing. There is also a website, http://www.dialogicod.net/, with resources, articles and details of the book. If you’re engaged in OD and want to think broadly about your work, this is the most important book to appear for many years – a very bold move in a field which has been emerging for decades and yet seems now to becoming more formed and confident.

References
Brooker, J. (2015). Achieve Tough Targets: John Pelton on using Solution Focus to achieve a tough target and resolve a difficult challenge at HS2. InterAction: The journal of Solution Focus in organisations Vol 7 No 2 pp 97-103
Burgstaller, S. (editor) (2015). Lösungsfokus in Organisationen: Zukunftsorientiert beraten und führen. Heidelberg: Carl Auer
McKergow, M. (2015). From diagnosis to dialogue in Organisational Development: Interview with Susanne Burgstaller. InterAction: The journal of Solution Focus in organisations Vol 7 No 2 pp 104-110
McKergow, M. and Clarke, J. (2007). Solutions Focus Working: 80 real-life lessons for successful organisational change. Cheltenham: Solutions Books

The power of the Future Perfect

futperf2We are in the middle of my new series of SF masterclasses here in London. The first, about ways we can work with the future, was in February, with the next two (working with the past and working with the present) in April and June.  After the masterclass  I received a message from Steve Creffield, an experienced consultant who participated in our online Solution Focused Business Professional course a few years back.  Steve worked with an organisation in 2014, at which point they were in his words “a bit lost, rudderless and very problem focused about their recent past”.

As part of the work, Steve went through a Future Perfect process with them. This is a signature bit of  SF process, where the customers beam themselves forward into the better future they are imagining at the time.  Steve takes up the story:

“…we used a form of the miracle question to develop a shared destination…  the question went like this… “

Suppose…that we were finish our day here and go home…do what we do… and then go to bed… And while we are asleep…a miracle happens… a miracle that transports us forward to the morning of the 10th July 2019… and not only have those years past they have been a tremendous success…but we were asleep so we don’t know that the miracle has happened… When you wake up, what are the first signs that let you know miracle has happened?…. what do you see… what do you notice… what else?… what else… how do others know/notice that things have changed?

The vision that Steve captured for them is below:

The Morning of 10th July 2019
 
You enter our office and it’s a place that is valued and utilised. It’s clear and clean, it is spacious and it has a distinct identity. It has a buzz about it, people are coming and going, it’s both lively and quiet. It’s a place where you want to be and has a sense of real purpose.  There is a CEO who is supported and holding the big picture in mind. The technical team are excellent at spotting opportunities for cross-collaboration, new funding and ways of enhancing our own capacity and that of our partners individually and collectively.
 
The team are working in multiple project groups who are clear about their remit and committed to the new team Purpose. It’s a team where we know what each other is doing and what strengths everyone has. There is opportunity for progression, peer learning and professional development. It’s a team that values social interaction and spending time together.
 
It’s a productive team operating under a clear brand that is aligned to our Purpose of ‘informing a sustainable future’. It is a team that is actively pursuing that purpose by researching, disseminating and teaching. It’s a team that is great at sharing and promoting its work, it uses multiple forums and formats to share knowledge and stories of success. It’s a team ready to make a high-quality submission to REF2020 and also capable of high impact policy-relevant outputs. This team has a voice and uses it well to inform a sustainable future.
 
It’s an organisation that is trusted, rigorous in its approach, sought after and engaged with a wide research and policy network. It is a highly valued ‘independent’ partner, an organisation that has excellent relationships with the University, key donors and clients.
 
It’s a team who are excelling at:
 
Conducting high quality, insightful and impactful research,
Applying innovative and rigorous research designs,
Spotting and creating opportunities,
Engaging in policy and research debates,
Communication – in multiple contexts and via different media,
Collaboration with University colleagues and external partners,
Predicting needs and trends,
Synthesising, assimilating and communicating ideas,
Getting things done, on time.

There are lots of great elements here, and lots of ways in which the group is joining with others.  I might have been tempted to get a few more tiny details about the very first signs that these things were starting to happen.  However, maybe that wasn’t necessary… Steve continues:

What was lovely was going to visit them in their spanking new offices, to meet their new CEO and to hear the news of them winning a host of new contracts that secure their future for some years ahead. I came away feeling both proud of them, pleased with the work, and deeply appreciative for the SF work you and others have done.  Looking forward to what the next masterclass brings.

It’s always excellent to hear of useful and successful work!  This is an excellent example of how a detailed and desirable view of the future can play a huge role in orienting a team – and being part of them creating better futures for themselves and others in an energising and direct way.

 

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: