One party to a conflict, for instance, might identify the absence of the other party at a critical meeting as the point when the conflict started (hence the responsibility of the other party). The second party might punctuate this same series of events quite differently: He did not attend the meeting because of the first party’s abusive behavior at a previous meeting. When did the conflict begin? Who is responsible? This all depends on how the continuous, interrelated stream of events is interpreted. Is Ralph a dreamer because other members of his department can’t get off the ground and refuse to identify ambitious goals? Or are other members of his department highly realistic because Ralph is always out there dreaming of some unattainable goal? Both are probably the case. It all depends on how the sequence of events is punctuated.
Any problem or conflict can be reframed by asking a client to consider alternative punctuation. As a coach, Alicia might ask Susan:
- What if you were to consider point B rather than point A to be the time when Ralph’s performance difficulties began? Would the problem look any different from this vantage point?
- What if we were to go back two months and look at some of the earlier events that might have influenced your perceptions of Ralph’s working relationships and managerial style? What might Ralph’s problem look like if we were to focus just on the events of this past week?
- What would be Ralph’s interpretation of the causes for the problems being experienced in his department right now?
A significant perceptual change can often occur through reframing long before overt change in behavior becomes readily apparent. In many instances, individuals and organizations move through periods of apparent stagnation or dormancy. They may actually be gradually re-examining and reframing their perceptions of the context within which they live and work. A major developmental spurt may follow this period of conceptual reorganization, leading an outsider to conclude that there are sequential stages of stabilization and change. All of this can occur without any Contextual Interlude being established. However, with the establishment of this Interlude and engagement of micro-coaching tactics, the reorganization can take place in a shorter period of time. Furthermore, without any articulate reflection on the interpersonal dynamics that have occurred, the stagnation or dormancy is likely to reappear.
The Reframing of Solutions
The field of creative problem-solving is filled with examples of reframed solutions. We have long known that specific Creative Interludes can be very successful. People generate new and quite different solutions to complex problems through the use of such longstanding think tank techniques as brainstorming, (Clark, 2011) Synectics (Prince, 1970), and conceptual block-busting (Adams, 2019). With regard to ways in which to change human behavior or organizational life, two stand out as being particularly effective.
One of these is paradoxical in nature and is usually labeled ‘prescribing the symptoms.’ (Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson, 1967) The other is in many ways equally paradoxical, for it concerns the use of existing features of the system to create a new system. Both of these approaches begin, as do goal and contextual reframing, by acknowledging the power of existing conditions and the need to work appreciatively with and through these conditions rather than fighting against them.
It should also be noted that both of these approaches are controversial, for they often seem to require that a trick be played on the person or organization that is being changed. While goals and contexts are usually reframed with the full awareness of all participants, solution reframing often seems to take place without that awareness. On the other hand, solution reframing is particularly effective in helping people and organizations move out of situations in which they are “stuck”—for which there appears to be no adequate first-order solutions.
Download Article
