学会如何在复杂环境中简单回应(下)

——高德明团队 译编

Mark McKergow & Michael Hjerth

关键词：

简单，练习，高雅，实用主义者，花道，史蒂夫·德·沙泽。

摘要：

简单是史蒂夫·德·沙泽的工作和SF方法中的一个关键要素。然而，将这种理念传递给管理者并不是一件容易的事情。此章节中，Mark  McKergow和 Michael Hjerth将会介绍一些活动，引导大家探讨去开发简单理念在SF过程中的应用，帮助参与者对这一理念有更多的思考，并将这些理念传递给正在学习SF的管理者。

（续上篇）

实用主义观点

实用主义观点中，我们用最少的信息，思考做什么和怎么做简单些。为了传播这一理念，我们会询问管理者，让他们考虑什么是最有用的，之后从这里开始。

量尺的使用很符合这样的例子。使用量尺技术是聚焦相关信息非常简洁的工具。例如,我们可能对事情现在的情况（5分）和略好一点（6分）之间的差异感兴趣。这个5分到6分的不同包含了大量的潜在信息,其中不是所有的都是我们需要的。

从日常工作中举一个例子:很多组织中一个常见的抱怨：大量的会议。我们会频繁地问工作坊的参与者，他们是否不清楚会议的目的。回应通常是像海浪一样的点头。那我们就会知道，让人觉得困惑的部分原因在于会议的目的不明确。

会议的原因描述了是什么导致了会议的产生。 而目的，从另一方面描述，就是我们希望会议将带来什么。如果在会议计划时导出的结果和目的是不明确的，也没有被参会者理解，我们将无法使用奥卡姆剃刀来设置一个有用的议程：讨论只关注以有用的方式来导出结果。议程应该从目的开始制定，而不是原因。

在会议开始前最有用的事情之一是讨论和思考下述四个方面的问题：

目标---这个会议的目的是什么?这是什么类型的事件? 你的期待是什么?

未来导向---你希望会议之后能做什么？至少需要发生什么？你希望得到什么效果，等等。想象一个未来的想要的美好画面，让时间起作用。

寻找资源---你以前什么时候做过类似的事情，那时候你是怎么做到的?

一小步---那你现在需要做什么?

这样的事先工作看起来是额外的工作,但它能使我们做到保持简单,还保持高效。这四个步骤都包含了有用的信息，这可以帮助管理者很快关注在有用的事情上。

保持聚焦在想要的

有人曾说,幸福秘方很简单---找到是什么让你幸福的，然后重复它；发现是什么让你不开心的，停止这样做。我们认为这具有同样的简单性。不仅如此,它可以非常实用。

迈克尔正和他的儿子丹尼尔诉说着，和他一起工作的人喝太多了。他问丹尼尔,“我该拿这些人怎么办?”丹尼尔说,“如果他们喝得太多他们应该停止”。

“是的……但这就是问题所在,他们不知道如何做到这一点。”

“如果他们做些比喝酒更好的事情,他们就不喝酒了。你应该问他们‘什么比喝酒更好?’，然后他们会有别的事情去做。”

“如果他们一直喝…”

“问他们曾经做什么比喝酒感觉好，告诉他们继续那么做。”

“如果他们什么都不记得呢(因为他们都醉的厉害)?”

“问他们有什么可能比喝酒好,然后试一试!如果这件事确实是更好的,他们会做的。”

我们留意到，上面的对话，没有讨论为什么他们现在喝酒。它非常精准的聚焦在重要的问题上，那就是他们想要做什么而不是喝酒。它不会掉进寻找解释，寻求诊断……（此处省略5000字）的等等的陷阱。这和我们建议的是同样的，“另类聪明”。

语言观点

另一种和这个“另类聪明”相通的方式，是通过类似交互视角(MRI在20世纪60年代发明)和社会构建的理念。特别是马克，通过谈论这些话题做了各种尝试来传达这一理念,可没有成功。这些都是复杂的想法,谈论它们很快就变得非常复杂。一些学员甚至抱怨，他们认为SF应该是简单的,而这根本就不简单!

因此,我们得出这样的结论,即实用主义观点提供了一个有用的谈论简单的方法。一旦学会了一些简单的实践应用,它才有可能进入讨论其他的简单的概念,像社会构建。实用主义的隐喻容易被人了解，特别是对那些商业人士，他们更热衷于能够迅速取得进展。也许可信度的提升可以通过借用群体智慧,幸运研究等的一些案例来获得。

我们的工作坊

在工作坊上，Mark McKergow 和Michael Hjerth将回顾，SF中的简单方法的运用，更确切地说，采用此种方法来交流。我们应该跟随沙泽的不妥协路线吗?我们如何能提供其他的回应，当讨论这个方法比这么做更有助益？

工作室将和参与者一起建构，对“简单”理念和实践应用的两个方面的理解。更具体地,我们将探索史蒂夫工作实践的严谨，该方法可以帮助那些试图“保持简单”，处于困境的经理们和顾问们。我们将每天检验SF的工具，看一看它们如何构建简单,以应对生活中不可避免的复杂状况。

培训后，参与者将能够：

● 定义简单的角色,它(我们认为)适用于焦点解决实践。

● 完善自己的焦点解决实践,严格地评估工作的简单性。

● 在实践中建立新的严谨模式,用“更少的”做更多的事。

● 渴望工作和在工作中尝试一些新的简单的应用。

（本文结束）

附：原文

Mark McKergow & Michael Hjerth

Learning how to act simply in complex situations

Keywords:

simplicity, training, elegance, functionalist, ikebana, Steve de Shazer

Summary：

Simplicity is a key aspect of both the work of Steve de Shazer and the SF approach. However, conveying this simplicity to managers is not easy. In this workshop, Mark McKergow and Michael Hjerth will introduce activities and lead discussions to explore the role of simplicity in SF work, to help participants to think more simply about their own practice and to help convey these ideas to managers learning SF.

（continue with）

A functionalist perspective

In the functionalist perspective, we start by thinking about what we are trying to do, and wondering how to do this simply, by using the minimum information. In conveying this, we might ask managers to consider what might be the most useful things to know, and work from there.

The use of scales is a case in point. Using a scale to focus on relevant information is a tool which is very condensed. For example, we may be interested in the difference between where things are now (maybe a five) and slightly better (a six). This difference between five and six contains a lot of potential information, of which we may not need all.

To take an example from everyday life at work: A common complaint in many organizations is the abundance of meetings. We frequently ask workshop participants if they ever find themselves in a meeting the purpose of which they are unsure. The response to this is usually a sea of nodding heads. We would suggest this is partly a result of confusing the reasons for a meeting with the purpose of the meeting.

The reasons for the meeting can be said to describe what has led up to the meeting. The purpose, on the other hand, describes what we hope the meeting will lead to. If the desired outcomes, purposes, of the meeting is not clearly understood among the participants in the planning of the meeting, we will not be able to use Occams’ razor to set a useful agenda: to discuss only matters which contribute to the outcomes in a useful way. The agenda should be formulated from the purpose and not from the reasons.

One of the most useful things to do before or at the start of a meeting is to talk and think about the following 4 groups of questions：

Platform – what is the purpose of this meeting? What kind of event is it? What benefits are you seeking?

Looking Forward – what do you hope to be able to do afterwards, what is the least that needs to happen, what effects are you hoping for, etc Getting an image of the preferred future, using time distortion

Utilising – when have you done similar things before, how do you do them?

Stepping the Scales – so what do you need to do NOW?

This kind of pre-work might seem like extra work, but what it is enable us to do is stay simple, and thus stay efficient. These four steps all contain useful information –allowing the manager to focus very quickly on useful things.

Staying focused on what’s wanted

Someone said that the recipe for happiness is simple – find what makes you happy and do more of it, find out what makes you unhappy and stop doing that. We think this has the same kind of simplicity. Not only that, it can be very practical.

Michael was taking to his son Daniel about his work with people who say they drink too much. He asked Daniel, “What should I do with these people?” Daniel said, “If they drink too much they should stop”.

“Yes...but that's the problem, they don't know how to do that.”

“If they do something that’s better than drinking, then they’re not drinking. You should ask them ‘what’s better than drinking?’. Then they will have something else to do.”

“And if they drink all the time…”

“Ask what they used to do that was better than drinking, and tell the do it again.”

“And if they can’t remember anything (as they are so drunk)?”

“Ask them what COULD be better than drinking, and try it!, and if it is indeed better,they could do that”

Note that none of this is about why they drink now. It focuses right onto the important issue, which is about what they want to do that is not drinking. It doesn’t fall into the traps of looking for explanations, seeking diagnoses, $5000 words and so on. This is the same ‘different kind of cleverness’, we suggest.

A linguistic perspective

Another way into this different kind of cleverness is through ideas like the interactional view (devised by the Mental Research Institute in the 1960s) and social construction. Mark in particular has made various attempts to convey these by talking about them, with apparently little success. These are complex ideas, and talking about them soon becomes very complicated. Some trainees have even complained that they thought that SF was supposed to be about simplicity, and this is not simple at all!

So, we are coming to the conclusion that a functionalist perspective offers a useful way to talk about simplicity. Once some kind of simple practice has been learned, it may be possible to enter into discussions about other concepts of simplicity, like social construction. The functionalist metaphor is easy to get across, particularly to business people who are interested in making progress rapidly. It may be that added credibility can be gained by dropping in references to things like swarm intelligence, luck research and so on.

Our workshop

In the conference workshop Mark McKergow and Michael Hjerth will review both the aspects of simplicity within the SF approach, and more specifically the way in which this is communicated. Should we follow de Shazer's uncompromising line? How can we offer other kinds of response.which may be seen as more helpful when talking about the approach rather than just doing it?

The workshop will build participants’ understanding of ‘simplicity’ in both conceptual and practical terms. Practically, we will explore the rigour with which Steve approached his work, and ways in which that rigour can help hard-pressed managers and consultants as they attempt to ‘stay simple’. We will examine everyday SF tools to see how they are used to build simplicity, in response to the inevitable complexities of life.

After attending your contribution the participants will be able to:

● Define the role of simplicity as it applies (we think) to SF practice.

● Refine their own SF practice, to critically assess the simplicity of their work.

● Build new rigour into their practice, to do even more with even less.

● Be eager to get to work and try out some of their new simplicity in action at work.

（The End）

参考文献 REFERENCES

1. Berg IK (2004): In conversation with MMcK in a workshop, Toronto, Canada, October 2004

2. Jackson P Z/ McKergow M (2002): The Solutions Focus, Nicholas Brealey Publishing

3. de Shazer S (1994): Words Were Originally Magic, WW Norton

Stewart I/Cohen J: Figments of Reality, Cambridge University Press

4. Wiseman R (2004): The Luck Factor; The Scientific Study of the Lucky Mind, Arrow