We see this shifting of attention in full operation when turning back to Mendelsohn. The bigot is focusing on Mendelsohn as the “swine” and is attending from a set of prejudicial and hate-filled assumptions about Jews. Conversely, Mendelsohn is focusing on the bigot as the person about which they are both attending. The bigot is simply introducing himself by giving his name (“swine”) or by sharing his depreciating assignment of a label to himself (as a swine). Mendelsohn is attending from an assumption that he and the bigot are of equal standing and can engaged in a hospitable conversation. Mendelsohn can be gracious even if the bigot is depreciation himself. Their conversation certainly has flipped on its head via a process of reframing.
As in the case of Mendelsohn, attention is often shifted in a reframing process to an area that has been denied, ignored or forgotten. (Bandler and Grinder, 1982, p. 166) It can be denied because it is ugly (such as the prejudice of the bigot). It can also be ignored or forgotten because it relates to some past event that is traumatizing. Sometimes, it is a matter of “good manners.” We do not attend to that from which other people are attending because this would bring up some “ugly” matters to which on one wants to attend. A seemingly naive outsider asks: why isn’t George at the meeting at 7:00 a.m.?
Everyone knows that George has a drinking problem. The outsider brings up this issue. A professional coach often serves this same role. She asks the un-askable question about the forbidden topic. In this case, the un-askable question is: why isn’t George at the meeting and what is this organization going to do about his chronically unreliable scheduling? The coach can couple the challenge of this difficult question with a supportive attitude. Her coaching client soon realizes that he can discuss this issue in a reasonable manner, while keeping George’s welfare in mind. He begins to address the problem of George’s alcoholism, as well as attendant problems, for the first time.
At other times, a topic is broached by a professional coach that previously was simply ignored or not recognized as distinctive and influential in the life of a person or organization. The culture of an organization, for instance, strongly influences the behavior of employees, yet is rarely given much direct attention. Dress codes reinforce status differences. The jargon used by various units in the organization not only defines status differences but also sensitive boundaries and barriers between certain teams. Attention to the dress and language of an individual or organizational unit, and open discussion about the impact of this dress or language, often leads to new cultural insights and changed behavior patterns. In the case of Ralph’s performance as a manager, perhaps the culture of his department (or of the entire organization) encourages a split between the real and the espoused, and places people in conflicted roles with regard to living with short-term pressures without long-term clarity of purpose.
Download Article 1K Club
