Focusing on the positive, the solution, and the future facilitates change in the desired direction. Therefore, focus on solution-oriented talk rather than on problem-oriented talk. Focusing on the positive, the solution, and the future facilitates change in the desired direction. Therefore, focus on solution-oriented talk rather than on problem-oriented talk.
This chapter will first describe some rules of thumb that we work by and then how to start out with a solution focus.
Our way of working involves several rules of thumb, some of which we learned from the Milwaukee Group, that guide us in our actions.
In other words, if clients are already doing something that is working for them, stay out of the way. Do not—out of some desire to be helpful or sophisticated—suggest something more.
A man came to us because everyone, including and especially his present girlfriend, told him he had “trouble with commitment.” He and all his friends had all sorts of explanations for his still being a bachelor and his fears of commitment. According to him, his present girlfriend, however, felt that sometimes their relationship was “progressing.” He explained that during these times they both thought he had been open with her and talked to her rather than holding back and keeping to himself. He explained that at those times he “treated her like a friend” and would talk to her about everything, including his doubts and fears about relationships and marriage. This different label of “treating her like a friend” carried with it a very different set of behaviors on his part that encouraged her to think that the relationship was progressing. Clearly, in this relationship, “treating her like a friend” worked. When he thought of her as a friend rather than as someone demanding commitment, he interacted with her in ways that led to further closeness.
In trying to be helpful, and given all the possible explanations or theories about catastrophic fears about commitment, we could have explored all sorts of fears about his commitment. This kind of approach, even though well intended, would have interrupted this man’s way of treating her like a friend. So, if something is already working, do not change it; do more of it. In this case, we suggested that he notice what happens as he continues to “treat her like a friend.”
Even if what you decide to do seems totally illogical or crazy, do something different. Indeed, what you do differently will probably seem crazy. After all, if you have been doing everything you reasonably can think of and nothing seems to work, the only things left to do will be what seem to be the unreasonable or illogical.
A couple came to see us for sexual problems. The issue as they perceived it was that one of the members of the couple wanted sex all the time and the other did not want to have sex at all. The latter member had some physical problems which caused discomfort and therefore stopped her from having any sex. They explained to us that this had been going on for some time and they had tried everything, including therapy.
In exploring this issue, we found that there had been a time recently when they had had sex; at that time she had said to herself, “Oh, why not!” and continued through her physical ailments, while he let himself be vulnerable instead of questioning. We asked how they had decided to do that and they explained they “had to do something different because what we were doing was not working.”
To do something different may seem very obvious. To most of us, the thought of doing something different would seem logical. However, in problem situations, logic seems to go out the window. Instead, we subscribe to that old proverb, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.”
One time, I, John, was working with a man who said he was shy with women and wanted to be more assertive and develop some techniques in making some initial conversation. I had been reading some literature at the time on “paradoxical interventions,” so I designed this task whereby he would go to a bar and announce to any woman there that he was doing a survey for a school project on what women looked for in a self-introduction. I further instructed him that since he was concerned about failure and his fears about failure usually got in his way, he should get the failure out of the way with the first woman. By deliberately failing with the first interview, he could then get on with the job of getting some useful information. This seemed like a great intervention and I was rather pleased with myself until I realized, after the client left the session, that he never went to bars. My highly sophisticated intervention was doomed to failure because I outsophisticated myself. Bars were not now, nor ever, a part of his life.
The following is an example of keeping it simple:
A sergeant in the army stated that he was concerned that he was becoming angrier and more violent with his children. Recently, in anger, he had slapped his 12-year-old boy for talking back to him. He was afraid that his frustration was increasing and that he could really hurt his children. When asked how he wanted to be handling the situation, he stated that he wanted to keep things in perspective and not take his children’s actions so personally. We asked about those times when he could take it personally, but somehow did not. He said there were no times he could think of, but he wanted to be a disciplinarian with his kids in the same way he was with the men under his command. We asked what was different. He stated that when one of his subordinates messed up, he just thought to himself that the messing up was the guy’s problem, (rather than his) and then dealt with the guy accordingly.
To this sergeant this idea that the subordinate was responsible for his own messing up was very different from taking it personally as if he had failed as a supervisor or, in the case of his kids, as a father. To help him out, we suggested that he take notice of how he allowed his subordinates to have responsibility for their actions. We suggested that he also notice how he might already be thinking that his children, too, are responsible for their messing up.
This perspective that individuals are responsible for their actions and the suggested tasks were already within his experience and were very simple to do.
As you adopt this rule, you will become intensely focused, and notice yourself asking what small difference there might be that will help this client leave this session on track to solving his or her problem.
An example that drove this rule home to us is a case in which we were behind an observation mirror as part of a team approach. The client was a young woman who came in about problems in her relationship with her boyfriend. She began to describe how her boyfriend was a long-distance trucker. He owned a truck with a cab with sleeping quarters behind the seats. Together, they made the transcontinental hauls. As we listened further, we realized that this couple had no fixed home, that their home was this semi-tractor trailer. We further realized that we could not predict when they might have a load that would take them near the office again. This might be the only time we would see her, much less schedule an appointment. Our attention became keenly focused on what we and she could do in just this one session.
This rule of thumb is from Bandler and Grinder (1979).
Those of us who are ambitious and want to be helpful have a very difficult time not evaluating our work in terms of success or failure. We all have had the experience of our own feelings getting in the way of our work as we become self-conscious over whether we are succeeding or failing.
There is no one right way, however, or best way to help people. If your task did not seem to work or your question seemed to go nowhere, it does not mean you are a failure. The client response is only feedback and merely means that you need to do something different.
When we first meet our clients we want to set the stage for them and explain what we are doing, and the procedures we will follow. They will know what to expect and they can be confident that there will be few or no surprises.
We typically say:
We would like to talk with you for about 40 minutes about what you want, and about your situation. At the end of that time, I would like to take a break for a few minutes, go behind this viewing mirror, consult with my team, and then come back and share with you our combined feedback or advice if we have any. We work as a team because we believe that two heads are better than one and that this way you will have the benefit of different points of view.
During the break, the members of the team share impressions and points of view and gather our feedback for the client. We usually write out the feedback and the therapist returns to the therapy room and reports the written feedback to the client. Reading the feedback is done in training situations and at times when we want to be precise in our language.
We are not always able, however, to work as a team. Team members may not always be available, nor is a team approach always feasible or cost effective. When we work alone, we still take a break and explain our procedures this way:
I would like to talk with you for about 40 minutes about what you want and about your situation. After that, I will take a break and leave the room for awhile to think over all that you have said and come back with some feedback, some impressions, and some advice if I have some.
You will notice that we state that we want to talk with the client about what she or he may want. We are already setting the stage for a therapy that is goal-oriented and consumer-oriented. We are already suggesting that what they want, their goal, is important to this therapy.
After that brief introduction, we begin.
Our working assumption is that we have rapport from the moment of contact. We do not assume that we have to do something or something different to create rapport or establish a relationship. By assuming we have rapport, we do not have to take time or sessions in building trust. We do believe, however, there are things we can do or say to maintain and facilitate the working relationship. We have probably all received training at some time in our careers in what to do to help the client feel understood and supported. We have probably learned reflective listening and empathic listening, the restating what the client said, with the same affect and tone.
Different therapy models have defined rapport and empathy differently, or stressed different sides of it. The pioneer of the field, Carl Rogers, in his client-centered approach stressed the feeling side of empathy (Rogers, 1951). He stressed how the therapist should verbally and nonverbally reflect how the person feels. His idea was that the clients feeling understood was very often enough to facilitate change.
Bandler and Grinder (1975, 1979) stressed the notion of pacing. To them, gaining rapport meant matching the primary representational system of the client. If the client tended to speak in visual terms, the therapist should match the client in the use of visual terms. If the client used auditory terms, the therapist was to speak in auditory terms. Finally, if the client spoke about feelings or in kinesthetic terms, then the therapist was to do likewise. The rationale was that both conscious and unconscious rapport was established by using the same information processes as the client. Their thinking was that each of us in processing information tends to use one sensory modality primarily over the others. Some of us are constantly making pictures, some of us depend more on language and sounds, some of us process in terms of our feelings.
According to Bandler and Grinder (1979), as therapists our responsibility is to be the flexible member of the interaction and to match or join the client’s way of processing information.
The founders of the Brief Therapy Model of the Mental Research Institute, Paul Watzlawick, John Weakland and Richard Fisch, along with Lynn Segal, stressed the initial support of a client’s position (Fisch, Weakland, & Segal, 1982). This amounted to reflecting and supporting the client’s world view and, more specifically, initial conceptualizing of the problem.
The thrust of all these models seems to be that people are different—different in their emotional responses to their problems, different in the way they process information, and different in their world views in which their thinking and acting take place. The way to maintain rapport with different clients is to match and pace their unique way of thinking and feeling. The procedure for doing this is to use their language, the key words they repeatedly use to reflect their unique way of thinking and their emotional responses to their situation. For example:
Therapist: So you were saying that you want to do something about your weight?
Client: Yes, I am just too overweight, and I hate myself for it. Actually, I think I overeat because I hate myself. I just eat out of control, you know, as if I just do not care how I look. I am trying to work the Overeaters Anonymous program but I just get so discouraged.
Therapist: So you think that your being overweight is due to how you feel about yourself and you have been feeling discouraged and down on yourself, is that right? And when this is no longer a problem for you what will you be doing differently? (The first sentence is said with a tone that matches her sadness. The second one is said with a slightly rising tone to reflect some curiosity and optimism.)
Client: I will be turning this all over to my higher power.
Therapist: So, you will be turning this over and how will you be doing that?
Client: I am not sure. I have a difficult time seeing myself without this problem or weighing what I want.
Therapist: So it is not clear to you yet. (Matching her visual orientation) So, if it were clearer to you, what would you guess you would say?
Client: I think I would be eating and doing things in a “slow busy” way.
Therapist: “Slow busy,” what will that be like?
Client: I will still be busy because I like to accomplish things, but I won’t think it all has to be done yesterday.
In this example, the therapist matches the client’s use of Overeaters Anonymous language, her affect and sad tone, her searching for a solution in visual terms and her unique use of the expression of “slow busy,” and inquires about the future without the problem.
Of course, we do not want to interact with clients by just matching what they say. Furthermore, we really cannot interact with someone without influencing the direction, process, and content of the conversation. The notion of maintaining rapport and supporting a clients world view and emotional responses may sound as if matching is only a responsive action to what the client presents. As we will elaborate more specifically in later chapters, the interaction between therapist and client is circular, with no individual’s actions or words ever being exclusively an initiation or response. Every communication is both a response and an initiation to a newer or different meaning or action. So, although maintaining rapport as a procedure may sound like a passive response to the client, the action is part of a wider concept of conversation (Anderson & Goolishian, 1988). This wider concept includes for us the notion that through the use of presuppositions within our questions and by the direction of our statements, we, as therapists, are already influencing the further evolution of the therapist-client conversation and the construction of the goals and solutions.
The metaphor that seems to apply is that of dancing. When two people dance with one another, an observer might say that one person is leading and another is following. However, on closer examination, one can see that the movements of both dancers are closely matched, calibrated, and mutually influenced. The dancing is a collaborative process, a nonverbal conversation. We would be unfair to evaluate their dancing and to say that it is his dance or her dance, or that it is the result of one or the other’s leading. From an interactional view, the notion of “leading” is an illusion.
So, too, we, as therapists, may think that we are setting the direction with our clients or even creating change. But that kind of linear thinking does not take into account the circular nature of conversation. Any dancer who thinks that she or he can unilaterally determine the dancing, soon finds out that cooperation is interactive.
This does not mean, however, that by acknowledging the circular quality of conversation, we do not assume certain actions as part of “roles.” Based on our assumptions about change and the value of positively-focused conversation, we will introduce a positive direction and more workable, positive framing as soon as possible within the conversation. We are conversational facilitators. Our job is to facilitate a conversation that opens more possibilities for solution.
The rationale for initially using clients’ language and reflecting their emotions is that it provides verbal and nonverbal affirmation. We believe that people are more likely to become more flexible about their beliefs, actions, and even very strongly held beliefs when they perceive their beliefs to be acknowledged. If clients perceive their view as being disqualified or challenged, there is a greater likelihood that the client will withdraw or counter the challenge. Neither withdrawal, defensiveness, or counterchallenges, are responses that we want in our interactions.
Another explanatory principle for the use of the client’s language and our lending nonverbal support is the “yes set” from hypnosis (Erickson, 1980). The hypnotic procedure of the “yes set” assumes that by providing an individual with a series of statements that the individual perceives as true, the individual will literally nod in agreement with each statement and then be more likely to accept a question or suggestion to a statement that is slightly different from what was previously believed or a direction that is different than previously followed.
A hypnotist might make a series of statements as part of an induction, with a suggestion added at the end that leads to a deeper trance or to a direction in trance.
As you are sitting here, facing me, your feet on the floor and your arms on your lap, hearing the sound of my voice, while you’re breathing in and out, (more slowly) in … and … out, you might be noticing the beginnings of a new thought coming to your mind.
The initial statements that are sensory specific are validated by the individual as she or he follows each statement. The experience is as if the client is checking each statement and saying “yes” to each one. As she or he continues to say “yes,” the individual is more likely to give credence to the final, vaguely stated suggestion.
Even if the individual was not consciously thinking of anything new at the time, the mere suggestion at this point that a new thought might be coming to mind is enough to have the client search for the “new” thought. For a further discussion of client searching, see “transderivational phenomena” in Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. (Bandler & Grinder, 1975).
In a parallel fashion, this is the purpose of what we do by adopting our clients’ language and supporting their emotions. We provide a series of experiences in which clients recognize validation and thus are more likely to accept our suggestion for a new direction. Of course, since we value a solution-focus, we would more than likely suggest, through our questions, a more open frame of the problem or a solution and future-oriented direction.
Throughout this book, we discuss the significance of carefully constructed questions. As we discussed in the first chapter, questions contain presuppositions that set the direction of the reply. Questions with different presuppositions invite different classes of answers.
For example, by asking a client “So what is the problem?” we presuppose that there is a problem, that the client knows what it is, and that the client can describe it. By asking the question with a “what,” we will more than likely receive a noun as an answer. The possible answers will all be members of the class, “problem.” The direction will be toward descriptions of problems, toward failures or frustrations. Perhaps, on a more intuitive level in the therapy context, we are also implying that problems are important to therapy.
A more extreme example of the significance of presuppositions is the question, “Are you still beating your wife?” By answering the question, the respondent, even with just a simple “yes” or “no,” acknowledges the presupposition that he at some time beat his wife. If he never did beat his wife, it is impossible to answer the question.
With the knowledge of the significance of presuppositions, we tried for a while to create the perfect initial question which would contain all the solution-focused and future-oriented presuppositions that we wanted. We tried, “What is your goal in coming here?” This question assumed that people had a goal, that we thought goals were important, and that clients could articulate them. Also, the question set the conversation in a positive direction. This question fit for some people but not for others. For those who seemed very bothered by their problems or felt the need to describe for us why they were coming in, the question seemed too abrupt.
We tried, “What brings you in?” This question seemed vague and allowed for someone to specify a complaint or a goal. The question had a somewhat passive quality to it, as if something had dragged the client to the session. The other disadvantage was that clients tended to reply with complaints when we would rather be talking about solutions.
Another question was, “What do you want?” This question also set a positive direction. The question assumed that the client wanted something, could specify it, and could articulate it. It also intimated that what the client wanted was important and focal. However, we hoped we could find a more process-oriented question.
We tried, “How would you like to be acting, when therapy is over?” This seemed to contain most of our assumptions but was too cumbersome.
“How will you know when you do not have to come here anymore?” was very focused and oriented toward a brief therapy. However, it also seemed cumbersome and premature for some clients.
With varied success with each of the questions, we decided that no one question could be perfect or optimal with everyone. We concluded that the interaction was primary, rather than just one question. So, if a very positive question was not the right start for one client who wanted very strongly to talk about the problem first, we could do that and then ask more positive and future-oriented questions as we went along. If a client accepted our positively oriented questions right off, so much the better.
We were reminded of our rule of thumb that “There is no failure, only feedback.” We gave up the search for the perfect question. We now ask, “What is your goal in coming here?” and trust that if the question is too abrupt or not a fit, we will adjust the conversation with succeeding comments and questions. On the other hand, if this positively oriented and goal-oriented question avoids discussion of complaints and problems, so much the better.
QUESTION:
These ideas about carefully designed questions and “yes sets” seem a bit manipulative and underhanded. Do you not think so?
The notions of manipulation and underhandedness seem to imply that one is attempting to do something to someone else with some unstated agenda of one’s own. Of course, our agenda is to help our clients reach what they want—their goal or their solution. If it becomes apparent to us that the client wants something we do not do or cannot provide, then we say so and sometimes end the therapy. If someone asks for intensive, psychoanalytic psychotherapy or states that he or she just wants someone to talk to, we might state that we do not do that and see if we can agree on another acceptable goal.
We also make it very clear that our interest is in helping clients get what they want. We are not interested in tricking people, nor do we feel that “the end justifies the means.” Ours is a consumer-oriented model. Rather than making some diagnostic assessment of what is wrong with the client or the family, we work with them on what they want and only on what they want. We are very upfront and direct about what we are about, which is helping people construct solutions in as short a time as possible.
The notion of manipulation also implies that somehow someone exerts some control over someone else. On a philosophical level, we subscribe to Maturana and Varela’s concept of structured determinism (1987)—that people do what they do and that we, in communication, at most provide the opportunity for their doing what they do. To use a mechanical example, when we turn the key on our car, we do not make the car start. By turning the key, we merely provide the means for the car to do what it does. The car usually starts; on the other hand, we all know from experience that it may not.
So, too, with our interactions with our clients. Although, in our grandiosity, we may occasionally think we changed our clients, the most we do is provide the opportunity and context for them to do what they may do or choose to do in that context.
Because we believe that people change by focusing on what works and on the future, we communicate with them in that way.
Perhaps this notion of manipulation has been perpetuated by the counterbelief that, somehow, we as therapists should be totally neutral and that we can be totally neutral and objective.
Psychoanalysis has attempted to perfect this notion of neutrality and objectivity by removing the analyst’s influences upon the free association process. By remaining out of view of the patient and providing only minimal comments, the analyst hopes to receive pure and uncontaminated information.
However, we subscribe to the communication theory assumption that in interaction one cannot not communicate (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). We are always communicating and interacting. If we are upfront about what we are doing, we should use the tools of our profession—language and communication—in the ways that are most likely to help our clients attain what they want.
QUESTION:
You mentioned the “yes set” of hypnosis. Do you use trance?
No and yes. In the sense that we do not use formal inductions or formal trances, we do not use trance. In the sense that we believe that all conversation is trance-like, we believe that we do use trance. We do not use formal inductions, but we do believe that as we pace the conversation and ask questions that require the client to search inside their experience and memory or to create some new experience for themselves, the client is in trance.
More to the point, we are not sure that the distinction between trance and something else is useful in this domain. If we were to use the distinction of trance and non-trance, we would then have to develop criteria for when to use trance and when not to. We do not think that the distinction or the developing of criteria is useful. It appears to only complicate matters and introduce a distinction that is not necessary.
1. Maintaining rapport. In order to sharpen and enhance your reflecting and rapport-maintaining skills, find someone who will practice with you. Have one of you be the storyteller, the other the designated listener. As one listens and reflects back for the storyteller, the teller should use a graduated thumbs up to indicate when they experience themselves as more understood. This is not an exercise in success or failure, only in what works better with this person. The thumb is to be used only from a position of nine o’clock to 12 o’clock, not a thumbs down. In other words, it only indicates what is working or what is working better. The exercise is to facilitate a positive focus on what works and to experiment with different forms of feedback to see what might work even better.
As the listener, listen carefully for the client’s language and reflect that, even if it is not your own natural language. If the client talks in abstractions and you are used to talking in terms of affect, try abstract talk.
2. Solution talk versus problem talk. Again with a partner, for five minutes try to engage in problem talk. Notice the questions you ask and your feelings as you listen to your partner’s responses about problems. Ask your partner to take note of his or her affective response.
For the next five minutes, concentrate only on solution talk or times when the problem does not happen. Take note of any differences for you in terms of the questions you ask as well as in your own affective response. Ask your partner to take note of his or her affective response and any other differences.
Compare the differences, both for you and your partner, between the problem talk and the solution talk. Some of you may experience a lightness and optimism as you talk about the more positive times as opposed to a heaviness with problem talk. On the other hand, you may feel sadder or more discouraged as you talk about solutions as you are more reminded of the difficulty.
For the listener, take note of the questions you ask. Write them down and later examine the presuppositions you are using.
3. Just one session. With a partner, pretend as the therapist that this is the only session you will have with this client. Take note of any differences in your approach.
4. First questions. Experiment with different questions enumerated in this chapter for starting the first session and notice what response you receive.