互动视角

高德明团队  译编

焦点解决实践的一个重要核心元素是：互动视角（de-Jong/Berg 2002, p.70），通常也被引用为“每一个行为都是相互作用的” (Jackson/McKergow 2002, pp.43)。当明确了目标和解决方法后，关注点就会转移到相关性，如员工和组织环境之间的交互作用。举例来说，如果一个销售人员想要做些不一样的事情，按照焦点解决方法，通常会问：“这样客户会有什么不同？他们会怎么反应？”以这种方式互动，会产生彼此间的匹配。多数文献研究也主要关注人与人之间的匹配，以及人与环境因素之间的相互作用，而这些是一个重要的发展点（从管理角度看特别是企业与外环境之间的匹配）。

若与原则相结合，这种积极差异的倾向可以被描述为一种具体化和挖细节的方法，旨在找出什么是不一样的、什么时候是最适合的（deShazer1994, S 121ff.）。

因此，交互视角就类似于管理研究想要达成的结果：企业获得成功、团队和员工之间形成良好匹配，而对此评估的一个最重要起始点是：“匹配吗？”(Osterloh/Frost 1996, Lueger 1996)。在一个企业中应用的有效性和效果与对这个问题的解答密切相关（Osterloh/Frost 1996, p. 156）。

从员工个人角度上看，工作职位和员工角色的匹配就很重要。世界上不存在坏的员工或不好的职位，只有适合与不适合。甚至当一位员工认为他的不满和工作潜力的降低与外界动态改变相关时，最重要的是意识到这样一个事实，这些动态改变的行为中包含着他自己的个人资源。通常，员工会说是环境导致了问题，而不会意识到“匹配”的重要性。因此，采用“互动视角”方式使人的职位“流动”起来就会显得很有帮助。

对于团队和组织的成功也是如此。不是仅仅依赖团队或环境，而是用“互动视角”（团队成员之间、团队和企业背景之间）。

在企业管理决策和实践角度上说，“匹配吗？”这个问题同样重要。举例讲，如果一个企业遇到了一个危机，这个危机是企业和外环境（通常是市场和客户的期待）之间的不匹配。一旦解决这个危机，之前的不匹配就会作为一种规则被逐渐减弱，一个更好的匹配正逐渐达成（如，改变分配系统或改变产品投入）。

在互动视角下，找到问题和解决方法之间的链接就变得容易，这只是匹配和不匹配之间的问题，就能清楚地看到员工和企业想要的是什么（Schmidt2004）。在商业实践中，管理者和员工所谓的“问题”是一种不匹配（尽管这也仅仅只是一个方面，而且起初易被忽略，比如市场、令人头痛的同事，等等）。而实践中所谓的环境是一种很好的调和剂，尽管这只能减少部分不匹配。

我相信，这只是未来焦点解决实践、管理实践以及管理研究项目之间的一个重要开始。

通常情况下，企业或员工和环境之间的匹配不仅仅涉及双方，而是多向度问题。比如，如果有人认为他/她有问题，那么这通常不仅仅是个人时间管理和工作强度之间的失衡，而且也包括其他方面，如模棱两可、缺少同事支持、与家庭调和等。大多数情况下，这是比较复杂的，任何试图解释本质原因的努力都是徒劳的。焦点解决实践与问题解决模式完全不同。当许多管理概念试图将问题放在中心位置，试图解释为什么以及怎么样时，焦点解决模式则完全把问题放一边，集中构建“方案”以及什么时候好转一些，并尽可能详细地描述不同之处。关键是要理解“方案”，而不是问题（Lueger2006）。

在这种方式下，关键就成了如何收集关于方案的信息，并简单地使另一特质显现。总之，关注什么是起效或怎么样会好过一些，这能够更容易被接受和产生改变意愿。

然而，问题或不匹配仍然是这种方法的主题（成为焦点解决并不意味着“恐惧问题”）。谈论问题的主要目的是与描述这个问题的人产生某种链接，创造一个平台（Jackson/McKergow 2002），以至于创造解决方案不会显得很牵强。如此一来，使用一些特别概念（如，无论何时当职工将自己的失败归因为问题时，可以说“哦，这是不匹配呢”）就是在提供一种信念，因为许多潜在的改变点（人和环境）已被发掘，新的可能性已诞生。

使用不同的语言（语言创造事实），这与焦点解决模式的其他重要原则一致：改变事情而不是改变人。

在企业环境中，一般都会暗示是员工本人需要改变（常常是间接的方式，如“X先生，难道你不想参加这次关于沟通的讨论会？”）与问题相关联，这正代表着“需要改变”的意思。可能的方式应该是多样化的，关注如合作（而非在团队工作的能力）、信息共享（而非沟通行为）、或者诸如过程、效果等类似用词。

这样一来，我们的话题就转到下一个主题：语言、意义和提问，一个企业或其下属机构是如何在关于“做了什么使事情变得更好”上达成一致。

——高德明焦点解决高效教练督导团队译编

附：原文　

The Interactional View

An important core element of solution-focused work is the interactional view (seede- Jong/Berg 2002, p.70), which is expressed in the commonly quoted principlethat “every action is interaction” (Jackson/McKergow 2002, pp.43). When working out objectives and solutions, the focus is always put on interdependencies,i.e. the inter play between employees and the work situation/environment. If, for instance, a sales person considers doing something differently, a common question in the solution- focused approach is "what will the customers dodifferently, how will they react?" In this manner, it is the fit that is always supported, with the literature mainly focusing on the fit between peopleand, in my opinion, focusing on the interdependencies between people and situational factors would be an important development (and from a managementperspective particularly the fit between the enterprise and the relevant environment).

In combination with this principle, the orientation towards positive differences described above turns into an approach which specifically and in detail finds out what is different when it fits better (deShazer 1994, S 121ff.).

This interactional view thus resembles the results of management research: achieving success and satisfaction for enterprises, teams and employees is always the result of a good fit and the most important starting point for measures can befound in the question “does it fit?” (see Osterloh/Frost 1996, Lueger 1996). Efficiency and effectiveness in an enterprise are closely linked with this question (see Osterloh/Frost 1996, p. 156).

On the level of the individual employee, the fit between the workplace and the employee’s characteristics is important. There is no such thing as a gut/bademployee or workplace, but one that fits or does not fit. Even when an employee thinks his dissatisfaction and reduced performance potential are related withthe dynamic changes, it is most often the fact that the dynamic change acts together with his personal resources. Often, employees state that the situationhas caused a problem and are not (fully) aware of the importance of the"fit". Here it is helpful to "liquidify" people’s positionsby adopting an “interactional view”.

At the same time, for the success of a team (see Lueger 1996) and organisational units it is not so much the sole focus on team or environment, but again the“interactional view” (between team members and also between the team and thecontext) that counts.

For the management and control of enterprises on a strategic and operational level, the question "does it fit?" is equally central. If an enterprise, for instance, encounters a crisis, this crisis is a misfit between the enterpriseand the relevant environment (often the market and customers’ expectations). Once the crisis has been overcome, misfits have as a rule been reduced and abetter fit has been achieved (e.g. by changes in the distribution system orproduct launches).

With this interactional view it is also easy to create a link between problem andsolution, between fit and misfit, and I believe it is clear to see what employees and enterprises want to achieve with their solutions (see Schmidt2004). What managers and employees in business practice call a"problem" is, as a rule, a misfit (even though it is commonly only one side of the coin that at first is under scrutiny, such as the market, the difficult colleagues etc.). And what is called a solution in practice, is a better coordination of the relevant aspects, even if it is just a small reduction in misfits.

I believe that this constitutes an important starting point for further projectsof solution-focused work, management practice and also management research.

The fit of enterprise or employee and the context in most cases does not just touch upon two, but many more aspects. If, for instance, someone describes the way he or she organises him/herself as a problem, there is usually not just a misfit between personal time management and work intensity, but there are often agreat number of other relevant aspects, such as ambiguities, a lack of support from colleagues, coordination with the family etc. In most cases, these interdependencies are very complex and any attempts to explain these are, bytheir very nature, incomplete. Solution- focused work approaches the problem-solving process in a very different way. While most management concept stake the question of where and why a problem originates to be central, here the problem is practically left aside. All efforts are focused on construing the"solution" and on describing as many details as possible regarding what is different when it is better. It is essential to understand the solution rather than the problem (see Lueger 2006).

By using this approach, it generally turns out that information regarding the solution is not the opposite of the problem, but simply shows another quality. Above all, however, focusing on what works or should be better results in asignificantly higher willingness to accept change.

Nevertheless, problems or misfits are a topic even with this approach (“to be solution-focused does not mean to be problem-phobic”). Yet making the problem an issue mainly serves to create a connection with the person describing the problem, to create a platform (Jackson/McKergow 2002) and not so much to create a solution. In doing so, the use of particular concepts ("oh, there's a mismatchhere", whenever an employee sees his own failure as the problem) can already provide relief, as the number of potential starting points is raised(person and situation) and new possibilities are created.

The aspect of using a different language (“language creates reality”) by using terms focusing on fits and misfits is also in line with another important principle of solution-focused work: change something not someone”.

Commonly messages in an enterprise are phrased in such a way, as to imply it is the employee who should change (if often indirectly, such as “Mister X, don't youwant to attend a communication seminar?). Making interdependencies an issue isjust one example of “something should change”. The possible applications aremanifold by focusing on e.g. cooperation (instead of the ability to work in ateam), and the flow of information (instead of communicative behaviour) or on things like processes, outcome and the like.

This takes us to the next item, language and meaning and the question, how in an enterprise, or its sub-units, agreement can be achieved on what should be done for things to work better.

学习、练习、实践、反思、督导，是一个SF取向工作者的快速成长之路。敬请期待下期分享。