Thank you to provide one of the "very typical and broadly known" - and sometimes misused - SF-"tools" in an animated way! I hope, that such presentations will contribute, to make clearer, that scaling is NOT a mean to "measure a position" or to make "competitions" with other persons BUT a "solvent" for stucked "problem-views". For me, the core benefit of Solution Focus is less looking and finding solutions (which might be very stressful) but to serve a a "solvent". So, the benefit of SF-scaling IMHO is, to make it much easier to think about differences instead about positions.
This leads me to an other question:
What are "signposts", that SF-scaling is appropriate - and when are SF-questions something like a not necessary "over usage" of SF-tools which stands in contrast to the "simplicity" of SF?
I hat the chance to observe a coaching done by Insoo in 2006 at the postconference of the SOL2006. It was (of course!) very impressing an very useful for the client. And - very interesting for me - Insoo didn't use neither scaling- nor miracle questions. I asked her about her intention to let away such questions. Insoo's answer: "It wasn't necessary - the client already worked hard enough towards solutions."
So, I learned from that: The "typical" SF-question are NOT a "must" for SF work - they are an option only to be used as a "solvent" if it is necessary.
So, I am also very sceptical to use "predefined and neutral SF questions" in a "random" way independently how far the client is already on a "solution track".
Hi Hans Peter, I agree. Years ago, i was somewhat surpirsed when I found myself sometimes frequently doing conversations without doing scaling questions and miracle questions at all. I don't agree with those who say that each and every Sf conversation should contain whatever standard SF technique. The interesting thing I found out over the years was that whatever situation you were in with your client(s) there was always an abundance of choices in how to proceed. I got used to the idea that there are always many things you can do at ANY point in a conversation. Asking miracle questions can be done but there are many alternatives which may work just as well, perhaps better.
Having said this I must say that scaling questions are a favorite of mine. I use them often and enjoy how flexible they are and useful they often are. I could turn my statement of just now around and claim that at any point in any conversation a scaling questions can be a good choice.
Thank you for your question and comments. Best wishes,
To this in your comment: The interesting thing I found out over the years was that whatever situation you were in with your client(s) there was always an abundance of choices in how to proceed. I got used to the idea that there are always many things you can do at ANY point in a conversation.
Yes, I think the most important factor in coaching & therapy is the quality of the connection with the client. The "method" seems to be of a quite inferior importance (there are some studies about this). So, what you describe for me shows, that you are together with the client in a co-creative flow... and as long as you can support this flow, it is fine - independent of the questions you are asking, as long as the questions are supporting the motivation and creativity of the client.
With respect to your answer, the following. I think some degree of method is useful (see for instance this way of putting it: http://tinyurl.com/da337p). So I think there is some kind of direction in what you do as a coach or therapist. The method, however may never overshadow the connection or distort the interaction with your client. In Insoo's words: we always work with what comes back to us. But what I discovered is that there are always many equivalent ways of phrasing responses and question.
Thank you Coert for these very useful youtube videos!
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome
ReplyDeleteHi Coert
ReplyDeleteThank you to provide one of the "very typical and broadly known" - and
sometimes misused - SF-"tools" in an animated way!
I hope, that such presentations will contribute, to make clearer, that
scaling is NOT a mean to "measure a position" or to make "competitions"
with other persons BUT a "solvent" for stucked "problem-views".
For me, the core benefit of Solution Focus is less looking and finding
solutions (which might be very stressful) but to serve a a "solvent".
So, the benefit of SF-scaling IMHO is, to make it much easier to think
about differences instead about positions.
This leads me to an other question:
What are "signposts", that SF-scaling is appropriate - and when are
SF-questions something like a not necessary "over usage" of SF-tools
which stands in contrast to the "simplicity" of SF?
I hat the chance to observe a coaching done by Insoo in 2006 at the
postconference of the SOL2006.
It was (of course!) very impressing an very useful for the client. And -
very interesting for me - Insoo didn't use neither scaling- nor miracle
questions. I asked her about her intention to let away such questions.
Insoo's answer: "It wasn't necessary - the client already worked hard
enough towards solutions."
So, I learned from that: The "typical" SF-question are NOT a "must" for
SF work - they are an option only to be used as a "solvent" if it is
necessary.
So, I am also very sceptical to use "predefined and neutral SF
questions" in a "random" way independently how far the client is already
on a "solution track".
What do you think about this?
Cheers
Hans-Peter
Hi Hans Peter, I agree. Years ago, i was somewhat surpirsed when I found myself sometimes frequently doing conversations without doing scaling questions and miracle questions at all. I don't agree with those who say that each and every Sf conversation should contain whatever standard SF technique. The interesting thing I found out over the years was that whatever situation you were in with your client(s) there was always an abundance of choices in how to proceed. I got used to the idea that there are always many things you can do at ANY point in a conversation. Asking miracle questions can be done but there are many alternatives which may work just as well, perhaps better.
ReplyDeleteHaving said this I must say that scaling questions are a favorite of mine. I use them often and enjoy how flexible they are and useful they often are. I could turn my statement of just now around and claim that at any point in any conversation a scaling questions can be a good choice.
Thank you for your question and comments.
Best wishes,
Coert
To this in your comment:
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing I found out over the years was that whatever situation you were in with your client(s) there was always an abundance of choices in how to proceed. I got used to the idea that there are always many things you can do at ANY point in a conversation.
Yes, I think the most important factor in coaching & therapy is the quality of the connection with the client. The "method" seems to be of a quite inferior importance (there are some studies about this).
So, what you describe for me shows, that you are together with the client in a co-creative flow... and as long as you can support this flow, it is fine - independent of the questions you are asking, as long as the questions are supporting the motivation and creativity of the client.
With respect to your answer, the following. I think some degree of method is useful (see for instance this way of putting it: http://tinyurl.com/da337p). So I think there is some kind of direction in what you do as a coach or therapist. The method, however may never overshadow the connection or distort the interaction with your client. In Insoo's words: we always work with what comes back to us. But what I discovered is that there are always many equivalent ways of phrasing responses and question.
ReplyDelete