SOLWorld2024-03-29T09:23:16ZHans-Peter Kornhttp://solworld.ning.com/profile/HansPeterKornhttp://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/357565860?profile=RESIZE_48X48&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1http://solworld.ning.com/group/sfclues/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=1i2zz31uxes8n&feed=yes&xn_auth=noClues - first draft for commentstag:solworld.ning.com,2008-09-24:2102269:Topic:76242008-09-24T13:04:55.668ZHans-Peter Kornhttp://solworld.ning.com/profile/HansPeterKorn
Hi everyone,<br />
<br />
Thanks for your patience. Here is a first draft produced by Kirsten, Ingrid and me. I will paste it here and also attach the same thing as a word.doc.<br />
<br />
<b>SF Clues</b><br />
<br />
<b><i>How do we NOTICE that a piece of work is using the SF approach?</i></b><br />
<br />
First draft by Kirsten Dierolf, Ingrid Reisch, Mark McKergow<br />
<br />
This document is a starting point to be used in developing the SFCT reviewing process. We wish to open a wide discussion about the many different ways of noticing that someone…
Hi everyone,<br />
<br />
Thanks for your patience. Here is a first draft produced by Kirsten, Ingrid and me. I will paste it here and also attach the same thing as a word.doc.<br />
<br />
<b>SF Clues</b><br />
<br />
<b><i>How do we NOTICE that a piece of work is using the SF approach?</i></b><br />
<br />
First draft by Kirsten Dierolf, Ingrid Reisch, Mark McKergow<br />
<br />
This document is a starting point to be used in developing the SFCT reviewing process. We wish to open a wide discussion about the many different ways of noticing that someone is using the SF approach, and comments and additions are both sought and welcomed.<br />
<br />
Readers will note that this is not, and does not seek or claim to be, a complete description of what SF is or is not. We seek a kind of ‘family resemblance’, with traits that might be visible signs of an SF approach. This is a list of ways that we might notice the SF approach in action. Of course, not all of these needs to be present, but these are all signs that might be noted.<br />
<br />
<b>Background / bigger picture</b><br />
<br />
• Reference to Insoo Kim Berg, Steve de Shazer and colleagues, and possibly wider environment / history – e.g. Milton Erickson, MRI etc. Clear honouring of these roots. (Claims that it was created or is ‘owned’ by any individual are therefore clear signs that what is being done is something else.)<br />
• The basic unit of our work is a person and their interactions with others. (A person is taken in the sense defined by Rom Harré “the embodied, publicly identifiable and individuatable and unanalysable being around which the human form of life revolves” -- “a point on an experienced trajectory in space and time”). Much of the work would therefore be in ‘person’ grammar (as opposed to molecular grammar or spiritual grammer or whatever).<br />
<br />
<b>Basic position of the practitioner</b><br />
<br />
• Change is happening all the time – our role is to find useful change and amplify it<br />
• Taking an interactional view (inbetween not “inside” a person)<br />
• Resource orientation rather then deficit orientation<br />
• Taking a ‘not knowing’ stance: having as few assumptions about the customer as possible, and the customer is the expert on their own lives and desires<br />
• Taking a respectful, non-blaming and co-operative stance<br />
• Working towards their customer’s goals from within their customers’ frames of reference, while keeping their own (external) perspective<br />
• Treating each case as different and develop the process according to the customers rather than their possible fit into a theoretical or conceptual framework (e.g. “diagnosing the customer system from outside”) – therefore the process emerges differently each time based on what the customers say/do/want, to fit the situation<br />
<br />
<b>Tools / “What it tends to look like”</b><br />
<br />
<i>Remember, this is not a check-list – not all of these need to be observed.</i><br />
<br />
• Building the conversation on the basis of the customer’s language, metaphors, stories and behaviour<br />
• Using simple, concrete language, “staying at the surface”, avoiding mentalistic language in favour of interactional language<br />
• Promoting descriptions in specific, small, interactional and positive (presence of solutions rather than absence of problems, start of something new rather than stopping something) terms<br />
• Seeking useful change and positive difference in all phases of the process, from before the first session, between sessions and afterwards<br />
• Helping the customers build a description of their own “preferred future” using the miracle question and other “future perfect” oriented questions<br />
• Establishing elements of the “preferred future” which are already happening using scaling questions, exception questions, coping questions, counters questions and other methods<br />
• Identifying and commenting on users’ resources, offering compliments and tasks appropriately<br />
• Seeking and amplifying instances of useful change and/or positive difference between sessions in ways which build the customer’s role, agency, efficacy and choice in participating in such change<br />
• Helping the customer identify and take small constructive steps in the direction of the desired change<br />
• Working from question to question, from instance to instance (“I don’t know what question I asked until I hear what the customer answers”). The practitioner’s next actions depend on the last helpful answers of the customer. Stop it .. and try something very different....tag:solworld.ning.com,2008-09-24:2102269:Topic:76212008-09-24T10:09:00.654ZHans-Peter Kornhttp://solworld.ning.com/profile/HansPeterKorn
Hi all<br />
<br />
Starting on 13.09.2008 with Kirsten's posting kin the SOLUTIONS-List "A voice for sf in organisations -- announcing sfct" a very engaged discussion emerged in this list.<br />
<br />
From an "helicopter view" in my impression the postings from the persons not being engaged in the SFCT showed, that this "SFCT mission" seems not to be supported (text taken from Kirsten's posting):<br />
<br />
>> ... we have observed a growing feeling that the community does need a voice and a focal point, supporting,…
Hi all<br />
<br />
Starting on 13.09.2008 with Kirsten's posting kin the SOLUTIONS-List "A voice for sf in organisations -- announcing sfct" a very engaged discussion emerged in this list.<br />
<br />
From an "helicopter view" in my impression the postings from the persons not being engaged in the SFCT showed, that this "SFCT mission" seems not to be supported (text taken from Kirsten's posting):<br />
<br />
>> ... we have observed a growing feeling that the community does need a voice and a focal point, supporting, promoting and<br />
disseminating research and the exchange of knowledge, information and good practice in SF in organisations. At the same time, we have heard many expressions of a need to be able to say something about the quality of SF practice.<br />
In response to this, we have set up the Association for the Quality Development of SF Consulting & Training (SFCT), a legal entity, registered in Germany...<br />
As founding members of the SFCT, we have funded the start-up activities. ...<br />
At present, these include marketing the SF approach, marketing members, and providing an information centre for research, case histories, book reviews, event listings - and certification.<br />
We have taken the initiative in something which we hope will be useful to the community. <<<br />
<br />
And in a posting from 17.09.2008 sent by Petra this questions stayed unanswered:<br />
<br />
>> dear all, we are very interested in your views on the following:<br />
- What are first good signs that the idea SFCT is going in a useful and reasonable direction?<br />
- What are your best wishes for a good relationship between Sol communitiy and SFCT?<br />
- And how could SFCT provide benefits for you and the sol community?<br />
<br />
And in this sol.ning in the "SF Clues"-group (created 16.09.2008) no discussion started until now.<br />
<br />
<br />
So, for me, it seems that this what SFCT wants to offer the SOL-community does not fit to the community.<br />
<br />
If I experience in a coaching setting that a solution I am offering the client (which - maybe - is not in line with an "orthodox" understanding of SF...) is not accepted by the client, then I have to stop to try to convince the client again and again to accept my solution. In such a situation I stop offering this or other solutions and I start to do something very different. Maybe asking the client:<br />
"Hm.... I see... ... ... ... Well: I am sure, you have good reasons to dislike this offering. So: What are for you some important criteria which a useful offer should fulfil?"<br />
<br />
Of course, this is working in a situation, when the client came to me with a personal concern or request. And it is not working so fine if the client was sent to me by his superior or by an authority.<br />
<br />
Transferring this to the SOL-community and SFCT I propose:<br />
<br />
1.:<br />
Stop making offers from SFCT to the SOL-community. It seems, that they don't work.<br />
<br />
2.:<br />
As the SOL-community let's think about, if we have a request or a concern in this sense:<br />
<br />
a.) We need a voice and a focal point, supporting, promoting and disseminating research and the exchange of knowledge, information and good practice in SF in organisations which is working in a different way than the SOL-communtty until now.<br />
<br />
b.) We need to have specific means to be able to say something about the quality of SF practice.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now I am wondering, if this two questions will be answered.<br />
If no: Well, then also this questions are not very helpful....<br />
<br />
<br />
Cheers<br />
Hans-Peter