- Allgemein (14)
- 6.7.2010: Talking about SF?
- 14.8.2009: Let them eat cake!
- 26.7.2009: The pursuit of happiness
- 12.7.2009: How do we know that what we do works?
- 13.6.2009: Is SF about always looking at the bright side?
- 14.1.2009: Inductive / Deductive / Instructive / Destructive?
- 13.1.2009: Christmas present(ation)
- 5.12.2007: Long time no blog... what I have been up to
- 3.4.2007: Betty Alice Erickson in Amsterdam
- 2.3.2007: "More Women into Top-Management Positions"
Is SF about always looking at the bright side?
The movie “The life of Brian” ends with a very cynical scene which is often quoted by SF practitioners: Brian (a Jesus spoof) and other people have been nailed to crosses to die a painful death over 3 days. Instead of doing something to save them, they and their followers start singing a happy song with the refrain: “Always look at the bright side of life”. As funny as this scene may be, it is quite ironic that this statement (and the song) are much en vogue in the SF community. However “always look at the bright side of life” is taken literally meaning that “Yes, whatever the situation, we should look at the bright side of life – SF is about identifying the good things, isn’t it?” and not “don’t gloss over what is an unacceptable situation – change something!”
SF is often criticized as an approach which does not take “the problem” seriously. We are seen as naively appreciating any effort and only looking at what works, ignoring serious quality issues and other undesired behavior. In the first session, managers in my SF coaching courses sometimes ask how they can possibly manage when it seems forbidden to notice what is going wrong or mention what can be improved (and I quickly dissuade them of that notion).
For me, SF is a method of helping people become unstuck, a method to move forward when you have a problem or when you want to improve something: it is not a way of life. When someone asked Steve in a workshop whether he uses SF with his family or friends, he always said “no” and advised against it. In fact, Steve seemed to many quite a grumpy old man. SF is a very special language game with a special setting: Someone wants to move forward and gives someone else the mandate to help him or her figure it out. In this setting it makes sense to mainly notice what gives you confidence that the client can reach his or her goals (note: not wildly complimenting anything that can possibly be complimented about the client).
Outside of this setting, there is “normal life” with “normal life” language games. If somebody does something you don’t like, it is a quite customary language game to tell them and ask them to do something else instead. This is very important in business life: If someone performs less than a manager expects, they can expect be alerted to the fact. If someone is an unhappy customer they can point out the problems of the product or the service. In none of these situations does it make sense to only look at the positive side of things and keep silent about what is not working. If you only say the things that you appreciate like in the old advice for Southern Belles: “If you can’t say something nice, say nothing at all” and think the rest – people in more direct cultures (like most business cultures) might interpret it as dishonesty or at least patronizing behavior.
We know from our experience with SF coaching that it is easier for people to change when they feel appreciated and taken seriously, so we might use this strategy in our communication in situations where we feel we need to point out a problem. Instead of leaving the hotel or restaurant when we are not getting the service we expect, we might opt to talk to the hotel manager in a friendly way, assume that he or she is trying to do a good job and ask what it is that they can do to help us be a happy customer. If we don’t mention it, the hotel manager has no chance to improve his service. In my view, it is not useful to ignore problems or make them look less bad than they are.
“The good is the enemy of the better” – this old saying seems to go against the SF tenet of “if something ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. In my understanding, “don’t fix what ain’t broken” mainly warns us against creating more problems for our clients than they came with: In therapy, the therapist has no business whatsoever to discuss with a client what could be better than “good enough”. It is the client who defines what is broken and what he or she wants fixed. In business coaching there are very different definitions of “broken”. High performers do not aim for “good enough” but for “top of class” and this means that they challenge things that are already working in some way but can be improved. Our clients’ goal is to be “top of class”, and they want us to help them get there. Of course, we still don’t create more problems for them than they came with – our business clients define what is “broken” and not we. Where in therapy we are in danger of finding more things in our clients’ lives that are broken than the clients themselves, we run the risk of appeasing a client to accept as “whole” what in fact is “broken” when coaching high performers in business. In my view, SF is about helping to create positive change in the desired direction of my clients whether it is a perceived “deficit” or a perceived “opportunity for even better performance”.
“Always looking at the bright side of life” is not an SF technique. But even in “normal life” ignoring what is broken has strange consequences for your language use. Let’s say you go to a workshop which is not well designed, the facilitator is boring, the participants are not engaged, you don’t think the argumentation of the speaker is very sound. If you are a believer in positive thinking, you will go out saying “what a nice workshop, there was good coffee!” – just like our Southern Belle who does not say anything if she cannot say anything nice. People who don’t know you might think you liked the workshop. If they do know you and how you communicate, they will realize what you are not saying: you are not commenting on the great content, the superb presentation etc. – the message lies in what you are not saying. Now imagine that a whole group of people agrees to “see and comment on the positive only” – what you get is a closed circle of people who communicate by what is not said. In intercultural terminology this would be called “high-context culture” which is very confusing to outsiders. Only commenting on the positive makes you somewhat incompatible to people who don’t know that this is what you are doing, especially to the world of business where open criticism and helpful feedback are widely spread.
Suppose you take your business client to the above mentioned horrible workshop. You consciously strive to “always look at the bright side” and see and mention only the positive. You have also often complimented your client on a lot of things: you mentioned how wonderfully they present, how smart they are etc. Now after this workshop which to your client was clearly sub-standard, you start conversations on how wonderful this was, how great and that you very much appreciated it. Imagine the cold shower for your client. Since the meaning of our words is in their use, the client suddenly realizes what you use the word “wonderful” for: a terrible performance.
Personally, I find creating an “inside” and an “outside” language dangerous – I’ve had my share of experience with Christian fundamentalists, and I saw similar distinctions of “insiders” and “outsiders” by way of inaudible and non-transparent subtexts to their communication. Those who are farther up in the “unspoken hierarchy” (because we are all children of Christ, aren’t we, there are no differences) use “love-bombing” (a term coined by Mr. Moon, the founder of the Unification Church) to attract and retain new members. Newcomers are not contradicted even if they say things that are not in line with the church’s teachings, everything they do and say is complimented indiscriminately. Soon the newcomer is integrated into the church, uses their language and becomes funny to the rest of his friends, who stop contact. The effect of this is that it becomes psychologically more and more difficult for the newcomer to dissent: if they disagree with the church’s teachings, they don’t simply disagree in one point and keep their friends – they lose their entire social network and have little hope of making new friends quickly since their “grammar” is quite incompatible with anyone else’s out there.
SF therapy and coaching as I understand it is much closer to the business culture than to the lovebombing, positive thinking culture. When SF coaches give “compliments” at the end of a session, they are not complimenting anything that comes to mind. They don’t generally appreciate clients in an overdone way – they comment on what they think will increase their clients confidence that they will reach their goals. It is not even about what the coach believes: it is about stating what the client said about him- or herself in his or her own words. When SF coaches are engaging in resource gossip, they are noticing the skills and resources that point to the fact that the client can reach his or her target. Lavishing clients with general appreciation on anything and everything is not effective: The coach looses credibility and his or her compliments loose their power.
I prefer to stay in the “every day language game mode” for every day things. I have learned a lot by people telling me I was wrong. I learned a lot by debates and heated discussions with my colleagues about who is “right” (knowing, of course, that from their perspective, they are as “right” as I am from my perspective). I would have become a real asshole if it weren’t for my friends who confronted me with my mistakes, told me what they would like me to do instead or helped me think about what to do better next time. I am very grateful for their helpful honesty.
13.6.2009 bei 20:27
Hi Kirsten, I agree with you that ‘SF’ is method to move forward when you have a problem or when you want to improve something instead of a way of life in which you always look try to see the good side of anything. In the 7 step approach which I made with Gwenda, step 1 is clarifying your desire for change. Very often the starting point of a change process, in my experience is your dissatisfaction with a status quo. Never once will I try to convince a client to look positively. Although I do believe that a positive outlook on life is wise and works, I think this intervention usually will not work and is not part of SF. The interesting thing is, using the SF approach, may very well lead to the client viewing things more positively, constructively, realisticly, etc.
Having worked for years as a manager, I have spent years thinking about how to apply SF in management. I have (again, with Gwenda) developed an approach to solution-focused directing which is clear and respectful. Insoo was a very important inspiration. Having talked with her a lot about this and having seen her manage from up close helped so much in developing this approach. The interesting thing is, ANYTHING can be addressed (for instance dysfuntioning) but hardly ever does this have to be done in negative or bossy terms.
There is a difference in acknowledging that something is wrong and talking negatively. If SF is positive it is not - I think- in the sense that it neglects problems but in the sense that the way of communicating with people is respectful, constructive, mild, etc.
My view on the topic of complimenting also has change a lot. I have written a lot about this so I’ll keep it brief here. I agree with steve that many SF’ers overcompliment. Further I have become convinced that process compliments (preferably in the form of an activating question) work much better than person (or trait compliments).
I agree with you about how SF resembles business thinking a lot. Again Insoo has been a great inspiration and teacher for me here. Once, in a workshop a participant ask Insoo: “Solution-focused is not the same as results-oriented is it?” Insoo calmly and in an unapologetic way, replied: “yes it is the same, solution-focused is results-oriented.”
Hope this is useful
Cheers,
Coert
13.6.2009 bei 21:22
I loved this:
For me, SF is a method of helping people become unstuck, a method to move forward when you have a problem or when you want to improve something: it is not a way of life. When someone asked Steve in a workshop whether he uses SF with his family or friends, he always said “no” and advised against it. In fact, Steve seemed to many quite a grumpy old man. SF is a very special language game with a special setting: Someone wants to move forward and gives someone else the mandate to help him or her figure it out. In this setting it makes sense to mainly notice what gives you confidence that the client can reach his or her goals (note: not wildly complimenting anything that can possibly be complimented about the client).
Too tired tonight to comment further, but I must say we are on the same wavelenght: I meant something similar when I made a distinction between specific SF protocols (language games) and SF as a “way of life”. I know you’d rather someone to disagree with you
but I am afraid I do agree with you!
14.6.2009 bei 11:12
hello Kirsten,
I like your thoughts, and I don’t mean that as a compliment but they trigger my own thinking about SF. Please allow me to agree and disagree.
Agree: If ‘looking at the bright side of life’ means ‘and neglecting the dark side of life’, than I don’t think it has anything to do with SF, as you say. It bothers me hugely, when people understand SF that way. SF helps us and our clients to deal with reality (problems and successes) in any way that it is useful. Useful meaning: helping to accept or overcome difficulties, (which starts with an acknowledgement of the problem) change, make it better. It is the contrary to running away, hide or neglect the problem and only look at the bright side.
Disagree: You say “For me, SF is a method of helping people become unstuck, a method to move forward when you have a problem or when you want to improve something: it is not a way of life”.In my opinion that’s a personal choice. I personally don’t see SF as a method that you only use when you want change and outside this setting you do the contrary like disrespecting (the same) people or you criticize their behavior in an unthoughtful manner. You can say what you miss or didn’t appreciate in a very SF respectful way too, at the same time showing concern and recognition for the efforts they put in it and the limitations they had to tackle. I personally believe it’s hard to just build relation and use SF techniques when you want to improve things (like when you are a coach or manager in a professional setting or when you are a mum wanting to help your kids become unstuck) if for the rest, you do the opposite like blaming, discouraging and waking up the limbic brain (with the same people).
But again, it is a personal choice, I don’t think that there is a truth about SF having been invented just for change with clients and not as a way of life.( Insoo also said that she is not usually SF with Steve.) For me, SF is something in between those two extremes: use it all the time (yek…) and use it only when you want people to make progress. When SF people take a ‘not knowing’ stance and make compliments all the time, it puts me off terribly. I do like a well expressed passionate complaint or critical statement and an unsalted well built personal ‘I DO know’ opinion (if it is respectful and useful to do so), much better than an always polished and untruthful ‘everyone is nice and good’, ‘great coffee’ and ‘I don’t know’ stance. There is so much more to learn as you say.
There is a thin line between being supportive and encouraging and just compliment endlessly and e.g. even compliment a workshop when you haven’t appreciated it at all.
I feel very uncomfortable when complimenting is used as a technique. In the case of the workshop you mentioned, my question is who is asking your feedback? Do they want to improve their workshop or not? Do they have a chance to improve it or is it a one time event? Is feedback useful or not? And for who? If everyone else in the workshop liked it, what is the use of convincing the other participants it is really bad (to your standards)? Even with bad presenters, good interactions between the participants can make it a great workshop for people. If there is a next time, and they ask for feedback, than I would tell them what I would like more of next time or I would stay away. And I would certainly not say to my client it is superb if I didn’t mean it. Then your critic is useful: it says something about your professionalism and standards and the truthfulness of your feedback in general. Sorry if this is not very well structured, it’s Sunday morning (-:
14.6.2009 bei 13:04
Hi all!
Thank you so much for this fruitful discussion! And again — thank you for disagreeing, Liselotte!
It is a fine line indeed — and I must admit that working in an sf way has influenced my behavior and thoughts in my private life, also, and mostly in a positive way.
There seem to be two misunderstandings that result from overusing a wrong (in my mind) interpretation of sf in one’s daily life: appreciating everything (or at least pretend that you do) and adopting a not knowing stance.
Overusing the “not knowing stance” I find even more difficult than overusing the “appreciative stance”. In German there is a saying: “Der Klügere gibt nach” — “The smarter person gives in”. But when they always do, the world will be ruled by the fools. I’ve always liked to benefit from the knowledge of others. I love learning, reading books, finding out what other people think. If they all stood back and told me: “Well, Kirsten, you have to find it out for yourself” my lifetime would not be long enough to learn what I want to learn (it isn’t anyway
) So sharing what one knows is a great thing outside of coaching and therapy (and even IN coaching — if the client misses information, asks for it and I have it: I TELL him or her).
The “appreciative stance” now seems to me somehow linked to “usefulness”. You say that convincing others that something they enjoyed was really not so good is not a good thing — and I tend to agree (although I am sometimes too grumpy to live by that — my usual strategy is to leave before I get too upset). When people ask for feedback and there is a chance to do it better next time (so when there is a good use of “negative” or “constructive” feedback) it is much more useful to mention what they could do better. An overall appreciative stance that makes no distinctions is not useful (I think).
THANK YOU for helping me think!
Kirsten
15.6.2009 bei 09:05
[…] agree with Kirsten Dierolf and with Coert Visser that there is some confusion about what Solution-Focus is. As Bion would […]
15.6.2009 bei 11:03
Kirsten, thank you for a helpful, “unsticking” post. It felt like you were giving me permission to acknowledge ‘reality’ - even the personally constructed ones.
Jim
16.6.2009 bei 16:05
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
19.6.2009 bei 11:51
[…] SF therapy and coaching as I understand it is much closer to the business culture than to the lovebombing, positive thinking culture. When SF coaches give “compliments” at the end of a session, they are not complimenting anything that comes to mind. They don’t generally appreciate clients in an overdone way – they comment on what they think will increase their clients confidence that they will reach their goals. It is not even about what the coach believes: it is about stating what the client said about him- or herself in his or her own words. - Kirsten Dierolf […]