57. Putting the unique power of POSITIVE difference to work
In a complex system, what makes things better is not simply the opposite of what makes things worse.
In the previous two pieces I have been writing about the value of difference. Firstly we looked at the scandalous way that the voting system for London Mayor and other metro mayors has been changed without consent of those involved to be first-past-the-post rather than preference, which eliminates possibilities for voters to express difference. Then last time I looked at performance appraisal and management systems, where most of the time difference (a useful element, as we will see again this time) is removed, which leads to dramatically sub-optimal conversations for both manager and worker.
This piece, the last in this short series about difference, is about what makes positive difference so useful, and negative difference mainly irrelevant. This is a key element of Solution Focused (SF) working. Indeed, it’s the thing that makes SF so practical, rapid and productive. And yet lots of people, even in the SF world, aren’t really aware of it.
Problem solving logic
Problem solving logic is so hard-wired into us that we barely see it or question it. It goes something like this: to solve the problem, we have to understand and analyse the problem. By understanding the problem and taking action, we can remove the problem and therefore whatever adverse impact it’s having will go away. This might be represented graphically by an axis like this:
The solution is the opposite of the problem, and the problem is the opposite of the solution. So if we reduce or remove the problem, we get the solution. That’s it. The problem and solution are intimately connected; they are on the same ‘axis’, as we can see in the picture. Movement away from one equals movement towards the other.
This kind of logic works pretty well when things are very stable, and particularly when the way you talk to/something doesn’t change it. So if your washing machine or motor car isn’t working, you probably need to do problem-solving or (more usually) find someone who understands this kind of thing and get them to do it. Because, dear reader, in this kind of work expertise about the system is valuable and important. If you want to build a power station or farm pigs, best to learn from someone who knows how to do it and has done it before.
The key thing to note here is that the ‘solution’ is defined as the absence of the problem. This means that movement towards the solution is always defined as movement away from the problem. They are opposites. So, it makes more sense to dig into the problem (which is already there) than dig into the solution (which isn’t).
And, of course, this is the medical model. Diagnose the condition, then treat the condition and the patient will get better. Note that the term ‘patient’ is no accident; it’s what the person being treated has to be, while the medics do their thing. No (or not much) active involvement required apart from following the treatment plan, taking the tablets or whatever.
Solution-Focused (SF) logic
The genius move by Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg and their colleagues in the 1980s was to wonder what happened if the problem and solution are NOT closely connected. Their work involved trying to do as little as possible to help their therapy clients improve, and had noticed that conversations about change seemed to help produce more change, while conversations about stuckness (in the problem) seemed to be static. So they gradually developed a way of working that steered around problem diagnosis completely and instead started with a different question: “What do you want to achieve from our work together?” (there are many variations along the same lines.)
What they had done, serendipitously (they said later), was to turn the one problem-solution axis into two: a problem axis (which isn’t so much use) and a solution axis (which is). Here is that framework (slightly updated from the second edition of 2007) as set out in the new Third edition of The Solutions Focus (2024).
The problem axis consists of a problematic past and a ‘dreaded future’ – what will transpire if the problem continues. The solution axis, on the other hand, has both the better future of the ‘solution’, and also the ‘Solution-Focused (resourceful) past. The main way of working is to talk about a better future with the client’s hopes realised (the ‘Future Perfect’ in the jargon), what elements in the past and present are already connected to this, and relatively small steps to be taken quickly, which might include noticing when things are better and tiny experiments. That’s what is signified by the shaded areas on the solution axis. The problem axis is completely separate and independent; it’s about a whole range of other things which don’t have any bearing on progress at all.
One example I often give is the way we set out for the supermarket to do the shopping. Do we carry a list of things we don’t want (related to the problem)? No! We carry a list of things we DO want, which is much more useful when we get to the shop. Imagine arriving with a list saying ‘No bread, no eggs, no apples…”. OK, it’s very slightly useful to know we don’t want those things. But the shop has 50,000 other items to choose from! Knowing what we do want is clearly a better strategy for a quick and effective shopping experience.
Positive difference
Now that the stage is set, we can look at how positive difference is not just the opposite of negative difference. Remember that last time we had this chart of someone’s performance over the last year.
The idea was to learn from the ‘green’ areas and then (if necessary) apply that learning to the ‘red’ areas. That’s SF. Actually, most of the useful learning comes from applying the green to itself. If we examine the red areas directly we run a risk of being problem-focused. We can look at this in terms of positive difference (green arrows) and negative difference (red arrows).
It looks at first glance as if the red arrows are just the opposite of the green arrows. But wait! Remember back to the two-axis picture. Even though the arrows appear to be pointing in opposite directions, they are on different axes. So they are about different things. It’s like trying to compare apples with poison ivy. They’re not at all the same in terms of usefulness.
We want to use the positive differences to learn – about how to raise performance, make life better etc. We do NOT really want to use the negative differences so much; it might be fun (if a bit sadistic) to know how to make other people’s live worse, but it’s neither desirable nor ethical to set out to do that. The lesson – examine, learn about and use the positive differences, and leave the negative differences alone.
The road to Mishnory
The late great science fantasy author Ursula Le Guin wrote many novels about other worlds, including her Earthsea and Hainish series. The Left Hand Of Darkness is from the latter, written in 1970 and still seen as a classic, perhaps the most notable exploration of androgyny in the speculative fiction canon.
One of the main cities in the novel in Mishnory. At one point a character announces:
To oppose something is to maintain it. They say here all roads lead to Mishnory. To be sure, if you turn your back on Mishnory and walk away from it, you are still on the Mishnory road. To oppose vulgarity is inevitably to be vulgar. You must go somewhere else; you must have another goal; then you walk a different road.
There’s a close parallel with SF working here. To make it clear, Mishnory is like the problem. If we oppose something, we maintain it and are still under its influence. To turn our back on the problem and walk away is still to be on the problem road. We must find another goal, a different road to somewhere else. That’s what SF does. Valuing negative differences is to still be on the problem road. To value positive differences, we must be on another road to somewhere else.
Conclusions
The usual approach to problem solving starts with what’s wrong. SF jumps over this and starts with what’s right and what do you want. We are not omitting a piece of process by doing this – we are simply not doing what isn’t necessary.
Dates and mates
It’s just over a week until SF24, the annual online global festival of Solution Focus on Friday 3rd May 2024. The event is hosted in Australasia, Asia, Europe/Africa and the Americas as the sunlight sweeps around the planet, so there is something for everyone. I am doing a session with Paul Z Jackson on the new third edition of The Solutions Focus book (now available for pre-order) at 1pm-2pm UK time.
I am also leading sessions about the Journal of Solution Focused Practices, who we are, what we do, how to write for the journal, and answering any questions. These are at (all UK times):
5.30-6am: Australasian section (with Andreea Zak, research editor)
3-4pm: Europe/Africa section (with Anton Stellamans, conceptual article editor)
7-7.30pm: Americas section (with Cecil Walker, opinion piece editor)
The great thing about SF24 is that you only have to register once, and you get access for any or all sessions right around the clock. And it’s FREE! To register go to:
https://www.solutionfocus24.com/
