The Reframing of Contexts
As in the case of goal reframing, there are several ways in which a masterful micro-coaching tactic can help her client reframe the context within which he is operating. When establishing a Contextual Interlude, the coach will first encourage her client to re-interpret the so-called facts associated with the context in a different way. Second, she encourages her client to shift his attention from one aspect of the context to another. Third, the coach engages a micro-coaching tactic. She helps her client re-punctuate the events that occur in a particular context, so that the cause and effects associated with each of these events are redefined. I will briefly describe each of these approaches.
Re-interpreting Facts. Any context can readily be interpreted and described in a variety of ways. A second-order change in the prevalent interpretation may have a profound impact on an individual or organization. One can reframe an interpretation of a context by choosing to focus on the strengths and resources inherent in the situation rather than focusing on its weaknesses and deficits. This appreciative perspective can be very effectively employed as a means to enable change. As Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch (1974) noted in their thoughtful analysis of the reframing process:
To reframe . . . means to change the conceptual and/or emotional setting or viewpoint in relation to which a situation is experienced and to place it in another frame which fits the “facts” of the same concrete situation equally well or even better, and thereby changes its entire meaning . . . . What turns out to be changed as a result of reframing is the meaning attributed to the situation, and therefore its consequences, but not its concrete facts—or, as the philosopher Epictetus expressed it as early as the first century A. D.: “It is not the things themselves which trouble us, but the opinions that we have about these things.”
A quite poignant example of the reframing of facts and its potential power is found in a story about Anti-Semitism. The Eighteenth-Century philosopher Moses Mendelssohn, who looked very “Jewish,” was walking down a busy street in Berlin. He accidentally collided with a stout Prussian officer. “Swine!” bellows the officer. “Mendelssohn,” replies the philosopher with a courteous bow. (Novak and Waldoks, 1981, p. 82) In this case, the potential recipient of an insult chose to reframe the context by first shifting the referent of the other person’s insult back onto the person delivering the insult and then cushioning this shift with courtesy.
By reframing the context, Mendelssohn places the responsibility back on the insulter. The Prussian officer may choose to accept the reframe and consider the whole matter to be a misunderstanding that resulted in a sign of courtesy from the person being insulted (a variant on turning the other cheek). Alternatively, the Prussian officer can view the whole thing as a very unsuccessful attempt at delivering an insult that ended up with the other person winning the battle. The latter choice would probably be unacceptable to the proud Prussian, hence leaving him with no option other than the appreciative reframe. A remarkable interaction!
The self-fulfilling prophecy that Robert Rosenthal (1966) made famous (often called the “Pygmalion effect”) further exemplifies this model. A distorting and destructive Diminution Interlude is established. A closed loop, self-fulfilling process is engaged. One person judges another person as stupid or unmotivated. They interact with the other person from that attitude. They talk down to them, withhold information, and offer no encouragement. As a result, the labeled person is likely to end up acting unmotivated and less competent. This occurs whether or not this person initially was so inclined. People inadvertently comply with negative expectations assigned to them because we treat them differently, depending on how we view them. The Diminishing Interlude is all-too-frequently dominant in contemporary organizational setting.
Download Article
