Paradoxical Problem
Solving
(For a full description of this approach
read The Tactics of Change by Fisch, Weakland, and Segal)
Sometimes clients report
relationship problems. Often they conclude it's the
other person who's "touchy,"
"unreliable," "critical," etc.
Operating from this premise, your client may have unwittingly attempted
solutions that continue or even exaggerate the perceived problem.
Let's say a
One sees her
Nine husband as not hands-on enough
in their family business – she thinks he gives employees too much autonomy.
She questions her
husband frequently and in detail.
As a consequence, he doesn't
tell her about what he
does that's hands-on because he believes "She'll just nit-pick anyway."
This confirms the One's belief
that the Nine isn't paying enough attention to details, which leads her to
follow up more frequently.
Her husband responds
by retreating even more, leading her to check in even more, and so on.
In
contrast, you can reframe the
situation as an interaction problem. A fundamental premise of this
approach is that problems in relationships persist only if they are
maintained by both people – not only the one
identified as having the problem:
-
Problems that occur between people are
situational difficulties
–
both
are doing something to maintain the problem.
-
It's normal and
appropriate to resist attempts by another to "fix" us; such so-called
resistance
is more usefully labeled as a source of energy with positive potential if
you can find a way to use it.
-
It may seem
paradoxical, but going with the other person's energy is much
more likely to make a difference than lecturing, advising, or scolding.
Even when you don't have
both partners as clients, you can coach the one who works with you to shift
focus from what's wrong with the other person to how they both contribute to
a problem and create a self-fulfilling circle. To do this requires two
critical skills:
-
Focus on observable behaviors
in
the interaction (vs. only the behavior of the
other person).
-
Do something to
alter the
interaction (as opposed to trying to change the other person).
This doesn't take hugely
different behavior. Sometimes it's enough to reframe or change how the behavior is
labeled. For example, instead of saying the husband is "not hands-on enough"
his wife could describe him as "very trusting of employees."
Paradoxically,
changes we seek in other people are more likely to occur if we first accept
those people
as they are. A particularly interesting application of this concept relies
on the paradox of going with a behavior in order to change it. Following this premise,
the One could release the positive potential of the Nine's energy by saying
something like this: "I like the idea of not having to be so hands-on, of
being able to trust our employees to do their jobs well. Let's talk about
how we can help them be more autonomous."
This is a win-win
situation:
-
If the Nine "resists"
the One's suggestion, he becomes more "hands-on," eliminating the One's
basis for criticism.
-
If they work out
standards that ensure employees will do their jobs without frequent
follow-up, the One will no longer feel the need to criticize the Nine
for not being hands-on enough.
Paradoxical strategies can
be used with individual clients as well. As described in the "Donald
Duck Cure," my client was convinced he
couldn't
change his behavior. So I went with his energy, encouraging him to keep
doing what he'd been doing, but adding a small piece of behavior from our common
frame of reference (cartoons) I knew would stay with him. (Underlying this
suggestion was the presupposition that he could change
his behavior – by taking a nanosecond to picture quacking like Donald Duck
before making critical comments. When
he did this, even mentally, his negative
belief lost its psychic support. That's why he was able to change so
immediately.)
More on the Paradoxical Approach to Problem-Solving
