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. Her husband doesn't talk 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 just 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:

1. Focus on observable behaviors in the interaction (vs. only the behavior of the other person).

2. 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 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 them 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.)