The RSA in London have just released another of their wonderful RSA Animate videos – short talks by key researchers set to customised animations drawn apparently in real time by the ‘hairy hand’. The latest features Carol Dweck speaking on ‘How to help every child fulfil their potential’.
Dweck is well-know for her work on the difference between treating intelligence with a ‘fixed mindset’ (intelligence is fixed at birth) or a ‘growth mindset’ (intelligence develops and changes). This video gives an excellent summary of her ideas and research.
Towards the end of the video, Dweck speaks about the power of the word ‘yet…’. One of the schools she mentioned doesn’t give ‘failing’ students a ‘Fail’ grade – instead they get a ‘Not Yet’ grade. I’ve been teaching this in my accelerated learning workshops since the 1990s, and there is a very solution-focused flavour to the idea.
I think it’s about presuppositions. ‘You’ve failed’ sounds like a statement of fact, once and for all. ‘You haven’t passed yet…’ is much more grounded in the now, and has the presupposition that you might and indeed will pass – in the future. The same phrase can then lead into a conversation about what will happen in between now and passing. It’s so simple to try, and can make such a difference.
Now enjoy the RSA Animate film of Carol Dweck:
I have just started the sixth running of my Solution Focused Business Professional course with the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. In the first week, a very interesting question came up from a participant about root cause analysis and what would SF do instead. I thought you might be interested to read it.
I have a question about SF not focusing on root causes of problems (or please correct me if I am mistaken). In intervention research we often look at root causes of problems in order to develop interventions to alleviate social ills. So – if I look at organizations, sometimes there may be a root cause of a problem – such as a mentally unstable leader that leads to significant issues (I know of an organization where the unstable leader would sometimes be rude to major clients in meetings). With SF, I would imagine folks would think of ways to address how to win the clients back, rather than look at the root cause of the problem – i.e., the leader. Likewise, the staff would be creating a lot of extra work having to regain the relationships with clients on an ongoing basis as long as the leader was in his/her position.
Might you speak to how SF would approach the above situation? Thanks so much.
Excellent question! There are a number of points to be made.
1. We are sceptical of the whole idea of a ‘root cause’ in complex/social systems. While this idea works well in mechanical systems, the many inter-relating interactions and dependancies in a complex system mean that trying to find a single cause is a doomed effort – there is so much going on, and it changes all the time so what’s the case today may well be different tomorrow.
2. Even if you think you’ve found such a root cause, it brings with it an element of blame and accusation. In your example it’s all the rude leader’s fault. While this may certainly be a part of the situation, it leads us down a route to thinking that this is the sole cause and that therefore we have to focus on getting the leader to stop being rude. This then appears to be a ‘magic bullet’. Two practical problems – firstly, the rude leader may well not appreciate this attention (and will probably get ruder, especially towards staff members bringing them this news). Second and much worse, it takes our attention away from other possibilities, other people and other routes.
3. SF embraces the ideas of complex systems and emergence – so there are no magic bullets, things emerge a step at a time, and focus on what everyone WANTS as opposed to what is wrong. So, while there may be a rude leader, what do they and everyone else want? This takes the inquiry down a completely different line. So the first step of an SF inquiry on your example would be to gently ask the various people want they want from these client meetings. It would be very interesting to hear what everyone including the rude leader said! Then we can go from there.
4. As we will see in week 4, the idea of a Platform and a ‘customer for change’ is crucial here. Who wants something different? If the ‘rude leader’ wants something different we can work with them. If they don’t but others do (such as the staff who have to do extra work) then we work with them. If the latter, then we start to look at when they get the thing they want (even a little) and what helps to do that. So, it may be that someone notices that the rude leader is more polite in the afternoons (let’s say) – in which case a small step might be to start to hold more of these meetings in the afternoon and see what happens.
As part of my work with the HESIAN research hub at the University of Hertfordshire (http://herts.ac.uk/hesian) I compile a list of recent research into Solution-Focused therapy, theory and practice (link). Part of this involves keeping an eye on what comes up in Google Scholar under the search term ‘solution-focused’.
I’ve been monitoring this quite closely one way and another over the past year or so. One thing I am seeing more and more is the term ‘solution-focused’ used (with a small s and f) as a general term relating to coaching, social work and other caring practices. For example, the definition of coaching offered by the Association for Coaching in 2005:
“Coaching is a collaborative, solution focused, result-orientated and systematic process in which the coach facilitates the enhancement of work performance, life experience, self-directed learning and person growth of the coachee.”
Now, this is not a bad definition of coaching at all. However, there is no indication (and I think no intention) to point to Solution-Focused work as developed by Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg and many others around BFTC Milwaukee. To be fair to them, Steve always insisted that his field was called Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT for short), as the ‘Solution-Focused’ was an adjective qualifying the noun ‘brief therapy’. However, as the reach of BFTC’s thinking has extended over the past two decades to include the helping professions, coaching, teaching, managing and so on, it has become more common to refer to such work as Solution Focused coaching or whatever. I myself can take a share of the blame for this, having co-authored a book entitled The Solutions Focus in an attempt to draw attention to the more general applications of these ideas.
Recent years have also seen editorial style moving away from using Initial Capital Letters in written prose. The Guardian newspaper’s style guide, a common reference point and a surprisingly fun read, now recommends that terms like prime minister are now rendered in lower case. This is in part because using too many Initial Capitals is Often the Sign Of A Madman writing in Green Ink. (The initial capital is supposed to suggest to the reader that some special meaning of the word is in use, but any more than a few of these is a clear sign of someone attempting to redefine the English language. English, by the way, should still be spelled using a capital E.)
Under these circumstances, it would be no surprise if enthusiasts for BFTC-rooted SF work started writing it as solution-focused. However, this potentially gets confused with the more general solution-focused described above. Other forms of work such as CBT have an advantage here – even if cognitive behavioural is written in lower case, the term is unlikely to be used in a general sense.
Chris Iveson of BRIEF started a discussion recently about whether people referred to themselves as solution-focused or Solution-Focused. I was shocked to see some very experienced practitioners from the SF world being reluctant to identify themselves as Solution-Focused, not wishing to tie themselves to any particular approach. Presumably, they so much wish to help their clients that they are prepared to do anything to achieve that.
I find it quite shocking that there are those in the SF community who are reluctant to identify themselves – possibly skilful mavericks, possibly people who just do whatever they think is right, possibly people who are seriously misguided as to their abilities. If you just do anything, then whatever you do must be right. And this again muddies the waters around what people might expect when seeing a ‘solution-focused’ practitioner.
I am concerned that there is a risk that we may lose sight of the huge progress produced by Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg and their colleagues. In my view, they have shown us a new way forward. Now we have to find a way to build on it without either dissolving into a not-knowing mush or forming bands of brothers/old comrades who are unchallengeable and gnomically diffident. Thoughts please?
Today’s the day! After eleven years of work, interviews, workshops, discussions and writing sessions, my host leadership book is published. The book, written with Helen Bailey, presents a fascinating and practical exploration of leading as a host, leading up to our six new roles (not rules) of engagement.
“A genuinely new view of leadership – practical and profound.” – Jack Canfield
Join us both for our live tweet chat this evening Monday 6 October at 7pm-8pm UK time, #HostLeaderHour. And also follow us @thehostleader.
Our first online course in Host Leadership starts Wednesday 5 November for seven weeks – more news about that soon. In the meantime please enjoy the book and share your thoughts with the Host Leadership community at http://hostleadership.ning.com.
This is a great short (six minutes) TED talk about how change is happening all the time; my favourite way of summing up solution focused work. Enjoy and comment please.
Many readers of this blog will know my good friend and colleague Bjorn Johansson, who runs the Clues centre in Karlstad, Sweden with his partner Eva Persson. I visited Björn and Eva in Karlstad yesterday. Some of you may know that Björn has not been well in recent months. What was originally thought to be disc pain in the back has turned out after many weeks of agony to be cancerous tumours of the type adeno carcinoma. For the last 80 days Björn has been in hospital, and Eva has been living there too during the past weeks to help and care for him.
Now at last Björn is showing signs of responding to new medication. We are hoping that he may get strong enough to return home for the summer. This could also mean the possibility of chemotherapy treatment, which his immune system is currently too weak to take. There is no guarantee that even this will help. Bjorn cannot even walk at the moment – months in bed means that his leg muscles have wasted away, though he is starting physiotherapy to regain strength and is being very well cared for.
There is no recovery prognosis. Björn has somewhere between two and six months to live, at best. He is 48 years old. He is lucky to have a wonderful family who have found ways to put their lives on hold to be with him. Their joint goal is now to make the coming months ‘the best summer of all’ for Björn.
How could you contribute to this? Send an email or even an old fashioned card to Björn with some words of appreciation, support and fellowship. What stands out for you – his contributions to SOLWorld from the very start (and even before), his hundreds of workshops, his work across Sweden and around the world, the exciting Karlstad group meetings, the SF summit, the Swedish SFCT chapter, the mop-scaling process set out in the Solutions Focus Working case book, even the classic ‘Björn’ exercise in threes (“Out of all the things you’re doing at work at the moment…”)… he and Eva have of course stepped back from organising the SOLWorld 2014 conference. If he gets home there may be possibilities to visit if you can.
You may want to reply here, and I urge you to send something personal too. Please do not expect an instant reply – Björn has not been strong enough to even read email, but Eva will help to pass on your messages. Send things by email to firstname.lastname@example.org, or by mail to
Update 7 June 2014: I received this update yesterday from Eva at the hospital
Dear Mark / Jenny
We are still at the hospital and it has been both up and downs since last time. New infections, more than 2 liter in on of the lung again, and the tumor on the left kidney grows so the kidney is not working at all. BUT he has been out of the bed, tried to take some small steps around the bed : ) AND they plan to start chemotherapy next week, if no more complications will come., in order to try to reduce pain and tumors. So that is very very good news! We still dont now when he can come home, but i hope and think it will bee in two weeks time ( I have said that a couple of times now so this time I think it will happened). It still comes a lot of nice e-mails and post cards!!! we are so grateful and thanks Mark for pass on our greetings. We have put all the e-mails and cards on the wall so it reminds us that we have a lot of friends out there waiting for Bjorn. He have a plan to respond to everyone when he have the strength! We would like you to say something about that: how much we appreciate the response and it keep us buzzy to read all those good stories how to make the best summer ever that so many have shared! So even if we now are not able to answer we are following whats is going on and it makes a different for us!
Update 30 June 2014: Message sent to SOLUTIONS-L and SFT-L lists
I am very sorry to have to let you know that Björn Johansson died at 5.30am yesterday, Sunday 29 June 2014. He was 48 years old. Eva was with him at his bedside.
Eva has asked me to let you know that the both appreciated all the cards, emails and love which came in so many ways. A humanist funeral is being arranged for Thursday 17 July in Karlstad, followed by a gathering at the Clues centre. For those would would like to send something to Eva and the family, the address is Långmyrsgatan 8, 65469 Karlstad, Sweden
I started drafting this email to say that ‘Björn is no longer with us’. Except, of course, that he is – in his work, his writing, his ideas, his developments, his family and in all his interactions. Ken Gergen wrote (in his paper in InterAction Vol 5 No 1) that we carry everyone we have every met as a sort of potential – ‘relational residuals’. Some we use more than others. I am proud to carry Björn with me.
I am just about to start the fifth Solutions Focus Business Professional online course with the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. UWM was the place where Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg ran online courses, and I was very honoured indeed to be invited to join the team there to present at 16 week online course aimed at managers, coaches and consultant.
One of the participants on the last course was one Lucy McKergow… (full disclosure, yes, she is related!), who works in New Zealand helping farmers with water policy and other issues. As part of the course we looked at Solution Focused evaluation and performance reviews. Lucy posted this summary of the differences between a normal review and an SF one:
|After the event – focused on the past||Can be used before (future), during (present) or after (past) an event|
|Typically asks about content or the trainer’s competency||Focus is participant evaluating their own progress|
|Asks for general comments – often left blank||Focused on ‘what’s better’|
|Might ask what participants didn’t like about the training||Always solution focused|
|Might not include time or space for reflection||Grounded in reflection and elements of conversation – comments, stories, metaphors|
|Seen as a drag or an after-thought||Motivational, energising – it’s about the participant’s individual progress|
|Learning finishes with course||Learning loop entered during course and continues after the course through noticing progress|
|Criteria set by trainer||Criteria set by participants during conversation (or questionnaire with participants setting criteria)|
|Typically uses a Likert-type scale to assess feelings about criteria (as set out by trainer)||Uses ‘what’s better’ or scaling to measure progress|
That’s an outstanding summary of what makes SF reviews both effective – in terms of building better future performance – and engaging for the participants. Great work, Lucy!
For more details of the online course including topics, how it works and quotes from past participants, click here.
I have just finished running the fourth online Solution Focused Business Professional course with the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. The course attracts a group of 10-20 people each time, and as part of the agenda of readings, online discussions, activities, coaching practice and project work we also have fortnightly telecalls to discuss the learning and share questions.
During a recent telecall David Downing from Long Beach CA was relating a story about acting solution-focused in a negative meeting. He said, “Be the ripple in the room!”. What a marvellous phrase. For me, it connected back to discussions I had some years ago with people from the SOLWorld community (www.solworld.org) about ‘guerrilla SF’ – how to act solution focused when you weren’t in the position of a facilitator, manager or meeting chair who could set the agenda, but nonetheless wanted to steer the conversation in a productive, positive and resourceful direction.
I remembered some work done by Mike Goran and Karen Wishart from Toronto, as part of a session at one of the SOLWorld Summer Universities. Mike and Karen did some excellent thinking about what exactly one might do in this situation. I discovered that I still had their handout, and noticed that it hadn’t seen the light of day for some time. It’s very good and well worth a read – which you can now do here at Guerilla SF. By the way, the next SF Business Professional course starts 13 April 2014.
SF tip #6: How to add some positivity in difficult times
by Steve Onyett
These are undeniably difficult times for people working in health and social care. In our coaching work we hear stories of being asked to do more with less in a context of increasing demand and busy-ness. This is a context where working with a Solutions Focus has most to offer.
A previous tip gave guidance on how to avoid sounding “Pollyanna-ish” and a bit naïve. In addition to this we would add the following.
Work with what you have, not with what you haven’t.
This key SF principle has most power in a context of austerity where people are talking mainly of deficit and abundance. We are always where we are at any given point and to make the best of what you have it is crucial to bring your best assets into consciousness.
I was working with a senior manager on one occasion and after getting a vivid description of his “Future Perfect” as an the most effective and confident leader her could imagine I asked him to scale where he felt he was now on the journey towards that future from zero (not a glimmer in anyone’s eye) to 10 (the full realization of his vision).
Looking somewhat downcast he said “Maybe about one?” with complete conviction.
We then explored the “Know how” aspect of the OSKAR model by exploring why he was not at zero. How had he managed to get to one?
We spent a full hour exploring in detail the very many things that he was already doing that was a bit like his vision and the many and various contexts in which this was happening. The conversation ended with him confidently asserting the small steps he planned to take making the best use of those talents that he most trusted to take him into the future.
Recognise the power of appreciation and give it voice
It is one thing to recognize assets and what works in the context of a coaching session. When done in your everyday work it transforms cultures. As Tony Suchman said, “We are creating the organisation anew in each moment by what we are saying about it and how we are relating to each other as we carry out its work” . Many research studies has highlighted how the most powerful influence on people’s morale at work is their relationship with their immediate line manager . What an opportunity this presents to transform experience at work by showing appreciation for others in your daily work as a manager. Among peers, the ratio of positive to negative comments in teams has been shown to be an enormously powerful predictor of team effectiveness, four times more than any other factor .
Recognise the cynicism trap
In difficult times the seductive power of cynicism is enormous. It is so tempting to bolster our esteem by denigrating those people over there with easy stereotypes. Cynicism can be comforting, bonding, creates a sense of being credible and aware, and is also sometimes just plan hilarious. At the same time when it becomes the dominant way of being it can drain the spirit out of organizational life in a way that stifles the energy and creativity needed to serve our clients and help ourselves to retain a sense of meaning in our work. Ben Zander observed that “A cynic, after all is a passionate person who does not want to be disappointed again” . SF recognises that the things we talk about get bigger. So we seek to talk to the passion rather than the disappointment.
Don’t try too hard
Finally, echoing Mark’s earlier tip, if it feels too difficult to be positive in difficult times- then don’t! Your affirmations and sense of the positive need to come from the heart and the lived experience of what you see. If it doesn’t it will just sound like “blah blah blah”. So don’t force it. SF is not about being “problem phobic” or “solutions forced”. Effective host leadership [www.hostleadership.com] is about giving people space to be everything they need to be in order to shine authentically from the best that they can be in the moment.
Steve Onyett is a facilitator, consultant, coach and researcher. He currently heads Onyett Entero, is a member of the sfwork team, Associate Professor at Exeter University and Visiting Professor at the University of the West of England and University of Central Lancashire.
Coming up with SFWork:
Solution Focused Business Professional: 16 week online course for coaches, consultants and managers with Mark himself starts 13 April 2014. Early bird discount – save $300 before 15 March.
Accelerated Learning for Trainers: 14-16 May 2014, Missenden Abbey, the only chance this year to catch Mark’s outstanding course for trainers & facilitators of all kinds. Rework a whole course for engagement, learning and energy during the training.
There are times when we are burning to offer advice to a coachee but reluctant to do so because of the notion that giving advice is just not done. And yet ….. how crazy is it to have a good idea and NOT pass it on? The question is how to maximise the chances of fair consideration and minimise the chances of rejection – when and how to offer advice? This is a particularly important question for managers adopting a coaching style: the manager does have an agenda and does sometimes have cause to make his or her views known.
Let’s think first about timing: when is it a good time to offer advice? The obvious answer is “when it’s asked for” but actually it’s not quite as simple as this! Even in this case, it’s better to explore the coachee’s own thoughts, experience and know-how first. If you don’t do this, in the context of what he or she wants, your ideas may well be greeted with a response like “I’ve tried that. It didn’t work” or “That wouldn’t work” or “I haven’t got time for that” …. However, if your exploration hasn’t yielded useful any ideas, this is probably the right time to provide some ideas of your own.
So now, the question is how to go about offering advice and here it’s worth first asking permission to do so: “would you like a suggestion?” Having received a definite yes, think about how to package your ideas. Here are a few possibilities:
- Be direct: this has the advantage of being quick and unambiguous
- Tell a story from your own experience. Putting the advice in story form makes it personal and vivid and so more compelling
- Offer the ideas as if from a third party – “I knew someone who always tackled this kind of thing like this ….” This has the advantage that the ideas can be rejected more easily if the third party isn’t in the room
- Offer the ideas as from an even more remote source – “x has written many articles on this kind of thing and his suggestion would probably be …” This gives the idea expert credibility and yet can still be easily rejected if it doesn’t fit.
The SF trainer, supervisor and consultant John Wheeler makes a useful distinction between the different tasks a manager may have, calling the roles gatekeeper, guru and guide. When the manager is being a gatekeeper – ie has standards or duties which have to be fulfilled in a particular way – than it is legitimate to be direct and specific in telling someone what to do. This isn’t giving advice, it’s giving instructions! But even in the role of guru – ie when the manager is an acknowledged expert in the topic – it may be less useful to be as direct as this in giving advice, and some of the other suggestions above may offer more acceptable ways of being helpful. Of course the role of guide – or coach – is one where one is indeed cautious about offering advice in any form.