Thank you Coert for these very useful youtube videos!
Hi CoertThank 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?CheersHans-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.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,Coert
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.
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner