领导伦理的不确定性——建构焦点解决实践的本源（5） 高德明团队 译编 Griffin(2002)指出，许多讨论组织伦理的行为都会产生一个非此即彼的观点，要么是在不同情境中传统伦理定义的一般道德规范的应用，要么是后现代主义的立场强调与情境相对的道德选择和行为。传统定义假设组织领导者应该有绝对的道德标准。这也掩盖了许多一般道德准则在实际应用中的模糊性和不确定性。或者，后现代方法太过强调情境的模糊性和不确定性以至于认为一般道德规范无关紧要。 复杂反应过程的理论家提供了第三种关于领导伦理的对话基础。他们承认组织领导的许多不确定性，但他们也将一般道德规范作为组织伦理的潜在相关关系。他们通过把领导伦理作为自组织对话的一个方面，把这些独立的主题整合在了一起，也就是说，伦理参与关注的是社会互动和关系的细节。这些细节形成了真实情境中讨论道德准则的相关背景。Giffin(2002:213)解释了领导者和伦理同时在自组织对话中的显现；有效领导往往是那些能够发展更多的自主性和有能力处理那些正在进行的目的和互动任务的人。领导者是那些能够增强团队内成员负责任态度的人。他们能够加强团体内以及团体之间的沟通交流。 焦点解决实践者接受过对话知识和技能的训练，这些知识和技能有助于解决日常生活细节中的伦理问题。复杂反应过程理论家对焦点解决实践者造成的一个困难是，扩大他们对解决伦理方法的知识和技能，而这是在不确定和矛盾情境中的领导力的一个内容。再则，我们回顾组织是如何成为社交互动的点以及焦点解决顾问的责任是通过提升对话技巧和敏锐度来帮助组织成员变成更有效的领导者。 结 论 我已经指出，这篇文章与我在组织中的实践经验有关。这对焦点解决实践者的有用程度与他们的经历相关，也可能与如何看待顾问角色有关。对于隐含在本文中的假设——组织咨询的一个方面是为客户提供感受和处理组织生活中的矛盾、焦虑和困境提供资源，我称之为教学。焦点解决实践者可能会利用复杂反应过程的角度来提高他们教学活动中的两种相关方法。 首先，这是一种扩展实践者和客户词汇的资源。焦点解决实践者早就知道语言远超其所命名的事物，它们只是看到和想象的过去、现在和未来事实的基础。不幸的是，这些实践者有时在焦点解决对话过程中让极简主义的言论所蒙蔽，忽视了对话中关于改变的新词汇。第二种方式，对复杂反应过程的担忧可能增强了焦点解决实践者的教学，包括构建反思的社会背景。这个背景帮助焦点解决实践者和客户从经验中学习。这是Cheryl Mattingly和Maureen Hayes Fleming研究中的一个重要主题，职业治疗师如何能变得更熟练。虽然实践经验很重要，但是，不是所有有经验的治疗师都能产生相同的效果。 Mattingly和Fleming (1994: 30)认为，经验不是从事一些简单的事情，而是指做一些与反思有关或者使事情变得有意义的事。经验是有用的，但不是因为你经历过，而是因为它有意义。本研究与焦点解决实践者和客户的工作以及文章写作有关。如果这篇文章对你形成了一个语境反思，那么我就成功了。 ——高德明焦点解决高效教练督导团队译编 附：原文 Uncertainties of Ethical Leadership Griffin (2002) notes that many discussions about organizational ethics turn on an either/or choice between a traditional definition of ethics as the application of general moral codes to diverse situations and the postmodern stance that emphasizes the situational relativity of ethical choices and behavior. The traditional definition assumes that there are absolute moral standards to which organizational leaders should be held. It also glosses over the many ambiguities and uncertainties associated with applying general moral codes to actual situations. Alternatively, the postmodern approach assumes that the ambiguities and uncertainties of situations are so great that they render general moral codes irrelevant. Theorists of complex response processes offer a third basis for conversations about ethical leadership. The theorists acknowledge the many uncertainties of organizational leadership but they also treat general moral codes as potentially relevant to organizational ethics. They bring these separate themes together by treating ethical leadership as an aspect of self-organizing conversations, that is, an ethics of participation focused on the details of social interaction and relationships. The details form contexts for talking about the relevance of moral codes for actual situations. Griffin (2002: 213) explains that leaders and ethics emerge together in self-organizing conversations; Effective leaders tend to be those who have…developed more spontaneity and ability to deal with the on-going purpose and task of interaction. Leaders are individuals who have enhanced capacity for taking the attitudes of the other members of the group. They enhance communication within and between groups. Solution-focused practitioners are trained in conversational knowledge and skills that are potentially useful in addressing the ethical implications of the small details everyday life. A challenge that theorists of complex response processes pose for solution- focused practitioners is to extend their knowledge and skills to explicitly address ethics as an aspect of leadership in uncertain and paradoxical situations Once again, we come back to how organizations are sites of social interaction and to solution-focused consultants’ responsibility to help organization members become more effective leaders by enhancing their conversational skills and sensibilities. Conclusions I have already stated that this essay is connected to my practical experiences in organizations. It’s usefulness for solution-focused practitioners will probably vary based on their experiences. It is also likely to be related to how they think about their roles as consultants. Implicit in this essay is the assumption that one aspect of organizational consultation is providing clients with interpretive resources for making sense of and dealing with the paradoxes, anxieties and dilemmas of organizational life. I call this teaching. Solution-focused practitioners might use the complex response processes perspective to enhance their teaching activities in two interrelated ways. First, it is a resource for expanding practitioners’ and clients’ vocabularies. Solution- focused practitioners have long known that words are more than labels for naming things, they are standpoints for seeing and imagining past, present and future realities. It is unfortunate that these practitioners sometimes allow the rhetoric of minimalism in solution-focused discourse to blind them to the magic of new words in conversations about change. The second way that concern for complex response processes might enhance solution-focused practitioners’ teaching involves building social contexts of reflection. The contexts assist solution-focused practitioners and clients in learning from their experiences. This is a major theme in Cheryl Mattingly and Maureen Hayes Fleming’s6 study of how occupational therapists become more proficient. While practical experience is important, all experienced therapists are not equally effective. Mattingly and Fleming (1994: 30) explain that Experience is not simply doing something. It is doing something combined with reflecting on, or making meaning of, the event. Experience is useful, not because one has lived through it, but because one has made meaning of it. This research is also relevant to the work of solution-focused practitioners, their clients and to the writing of this essay. I have succeeded if this essay has formed a context of reflection for you. 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。
控制的矛盾性——焦点解决实践的本源4 高德明团队 译编 控制的矛盾性回答了这样一个问题：“谁负责”。 传统的答案是管理者负责。管理者是解决问题的专家，也是让人们一起工作来实现组织目标的人。这就是为什么他们被称为管理者。传统的答案还定义了管理者作为领导比其他人更了解组织的需要。作为领导，还需要了解员工的绩效以及决策的伦理规范。这是一个自上而下的组织社会控制观点。 那些把组织当作可行的自我组织节点的管理者和顾问，对“谁负责”的问题给出了不同的解答。他们认为，虽然看起来管理者在管理整个组织，然而他们的管理处在一个自组织对话的情境当中，事实上并没有任何人完全“说了算”。管理者并非在传统方式上领导别人。他们必须要接受这样的矛盾：对组织运营未来的规划是必不可少的，然而在实践中，计划可能永远没能得到实现，或者他们可能产生意想不到的后果。 Streatfield认为：对我来说，管理意味着接受控制矛盾性的两个极端。这也就是说我们可能会对结果有一个期待，同时知道很有可能无法实现，需要我们对于任何可能发生的结果做好准备。包括寻找有效的方法来控制“未知”的焦虑。 控制的矛盾性概念在焦点解决的实践和假设方面契合的很好，例如解决一个问题不需要全面了解这个问题的想法。意识到控制的矛盾性也扩展了焦点解决的使用范围，例如应对组织员工尚未处理好的焦虑和担心。控制的矛盾性也是复杂性对话过程中的一个概念，可以帮助组织成员理解他们的担忧和焦虑。我们也可以以此为起点来探讨管理者是否是“足够好”的领导者，以及他们责任的限制。这种方法将管理者看作是有责任的，同时也是自组织对话的参与者，并非永远对组织中的问题有正确答案。换句话说，控制的矛盾性是谈论管理领导和伦理的起点， 然而焦点解决实践和训练中仅仅略有涉及。 ——高德明焦点解决高效教练督导团队译编 附：原文 Paradox of Control The paradox of control answers the question, “Who is in charge?”5 The traditional answer to this question is that managers are in charge. Managers are experts at problem-solving and getting people to work together to achieve organizational goals. That is why they are called managers. The traditional answer also defines managers as leaders who understand their organizations’ needs better than others who follow the policies set by managers. As leaders, managers are also accountable for the performances of the people that they lead and for the ethical propriety of their decisions and actions. This is a top-down view of social control in organizations. Managers and consultants who treat organizations as sites of ongoing self-organizing conversations answer the question of “Who is in charge?” differently. They explain that while managers appear to be in control of their organizational units, their control is exercised within the context of self-organizing conversations in which no one is fully in control. Managers lead by not managing others in traditional ways. They also lead by accepting the paradox that planning for the future is essential to organizational operations and that the plans may never be realized in practice or that they may produce unintended consequences. As Streatfield (2001: 7) states, For me, management has come to mean living with both sides of the control paradox at the same time. This means acting on the basis of an expectation of an outcome, knowing full well that it is unlikely to materialize, requiring me to be ready to handle the consequences whatever they may be. It involves developing effective ways of handling the anxiety of “not knowing.” The concept of the paradox of control fits well with aspects of solution-focused practices and assumptions, such as the belief that it is not necessary to fully understand a problem in order to move past it. Awareness of the paradox of control also expands solution-focused practices by orienting them to the anxieties and concerns that organization members may have difficulty stating in direct ways. The paradox of control is one concept within the vocabulary of complex response processes that may be useful to organization members in understanding and articulating their concerns and anxieties. It is also a beginning point for conversations about whether managers are “good enough” leaders and about the limits of their accountability. This approach treats managers as accountable for their facilitation of and participation in self-organizing conversations, not for always having the right answers to organizational problems. Put differently, the paradox of control is a starting point for talking about managerial leadership and ethics, an issue that is at best only implied in solution- focused training and practice. 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。
授权与约束的矛盾——焦点解决实践的本源3 高德明团队 译编 自组织谈话的概念引导我们关注社会互动，包括谈话中的话轮转换。通过这种方式，交谈者会考虑到对方的存在，并建立对话关系。对话可以被设想为一个双人舞，与搭档一起做动作。有时一方引导，另一方跟随，有时则相反；有时搭档离开，同时继续把对方考虑在内；有时互相密切协调动作。舞蹈／对话伙伴还可以根据公认的规则或脚本前后移动，并通过他们正在进行的活动和社交关系中即兴“改变”规则。 讲话者所具有的多种行动的可能性定义了授权与约束的矛盾。矛盾的焦点集中在每个合作伙伴的行动如何限制其他人可能会说或做什么，然而这些限制措施也使他们有创造新的对话的可能性。再一次，我们看到复杂的反应过程如何破坏或构建社会交往和人际关系。它还指出了焦点解决实践者很少谈论的对话的可能性。其中一个就是权力，权力通常仅仅意味着约束，但其实还包括了授权的可能性。权力代表了个人主体性的要求。通过他们的权力行使，组织成员产生了变化从而为他人和自己进行制约和授权。 这种权力的指向符合焦点解决实践中的许多问句。问句的设计是为了鼓励客户谈论通过个人主体性使问题发生改变的可能性。焦点解决实践者经常把授权的问题，与要求客户评价不同行动方针可能带来的结果的问题相结合。这些提问邀请客户去想象未来，包括权力的决断可能产生的约束。通过这种方式，焦点解决实践者培养深思熟虑的计划和决策的能力。 毫无疑问，许多焦点解决实践者认为持续问这些问题就足够了。然而，对我来说，把这些问题放在一个更广泛的语境中是很有用的，包括授权约束的概念。在使用这一概念时我提醒我自己和我对话的伙伴，复杂性与我们之间简单的关系是相关的。我们作为主体，在情境中使用权利，并且是未来的建造者，包括那些非意愿的约束。谈论授权的约束并不能大大增加我们控制未来的能力。相对的，它有助于预期未来的不可预测性，看到将来约束得到授权的可能性。 ——高德明焦点解决高效教练督导团队译编 附：原文 Paradox of Enabling Constraint The concept of self-organizing conversation directs our attention to how social interaction involves making and taking turns at talk. In this way, conversationalists take account of each others’ presence and build conversational relationships. Conversation might be envisioned as a dance-like activity in which the partners move together. Sometimes one partner leads and the other partner follows but other times this pattern is reversed. Sometimes dance/conversational partners move apart while continuing to take account of each other and other times they closely coordinate their moves. Partners in dance and conversation may also move back and forth between following recognized rules or scripts and “bending” rules by improvising within their ongoing activities and relationships. The various moves available to speakers (and dancers) define the paradox of enabling constraint. The paradox turns on how each partner’s actions set limits on what others might say or do, but these constraining actions are also enabling because they create new possibilities for conversation. Once again, we see how the complex response processes perspective undermines either/or constructions of social interaction and relationships. It also points to conversational possibilities that solution-focused practitioners seldom talk about. One such issue is power, which is often defined as only constraint but it also involves enabling possibilities. Power is enabling because it is the assertion of personal agency. Through their exercise of power, organization members create changes that constrain and enable others and themselves. This orientation to power fits with many of the questions asked by solution-focused practitioners. The questions are designed to encourage clients to talk about the possibilities for asserting personal agency to change problematic situations. Solution- focused practitioners also often combine their enabling questions with questions asking clients to assess the probable consequences of different courses of action. The questions invite clients to imagine the future, including the constraints that their assertions of power might create. In this way, solution-focused practitioners foster thoughtful planning and decision-making. No doubt, many solution-focused practitioners will decide that it is sufficient to continue to ask only these questions. For me, however, it is useful to put these questions in a broader context that includes the concept of enabling constraint. In using this concept, I remind myself and my conversational partners of the complexities associated with our otherwise simple interactions. We are simultaneously agents asserting power within situations and constructors of future conditions that include unintended constraints. Talking about enabling constraints probably does not greatly increase our control over the future. Rather, it helps in anticipating the unpredictability of the future and in seeing the enabling possibilities in constraints encountered in the future. 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。
复杂的反应过程——焦点解决实践的本源（2） 高德明团队 译编 “复杂的反应过程”这一术语指的是很容易观察到和经历的简单活动。它涉及人们如何在社会互动中构建未来。这是一个永无止境的过程，是通过社会互动而改变的潜在源动力。 复杂反应过程的观点是一种将人和知识都视作社交和人际关系中偶然出现的一种社会学现象。它挑战了占主导地位的人与人之间独立且分开的西方心理学概念。这个观点的支持者同样也挑战了其他流行的观点。例如，他们拒绝接受知识是一种存在于个人头脑里的“事物”的想法。相反，这些理论家把知识当作一种社会建构和社交互动的共享。 这些挑战都与理论家所拒绝的组织是系统的观点有关。相对的，他们定义组织为自组织会话的节点。该术语呼吁重视为什么会谈是组织人群、活动和意图的一个过程(Shaw, 2002)。自组织对话无法被任何一个人、团体或组织的计划所控制。他们总是有可能开始变化，尽管这可能并不总是在实践中发生。参与者和观察者可能会感觉体验自我组织的对话有点乱，因为没有人准确的知道他们要去哪里，同时他们经常产生无法预料的意义。 在这个环境中，组织成员和顾问可以控制组织生活和社会关系的矛盾。我已经提到了其中之一，那就是简单的对话涉及复杂反应过程的解释和协商。交谈者创建意外的意义，可能引导决策和行为，然后产生意想不到的后果，这样的可能使社会互动的复杂性增加。尽管简单的对话有风险，但是组织成员无法避免。他们是许多组织成员所做的工作中的一个必要特征，并且是成员试图影响未来的一个重要途径。 在本章节的剩余部分将通过讨论受约束的矛盾，矛盾的控制和在组织中伦理领导的不确定性，将使复杂的反应过程显露出来。 ——高德明焦点解决高效教练督导团队译编 附：原文 Complex response processes The term “complex response processes” refers to activities that are easily observable and are often experienced as simple. It deals with how people in social interaction construct the future. This is a never ending process that is always a potential source of change through social interaction. The perspective of complex response processes is a sociological view that treats persons and their knowledge as emergent in social interactions and relationships. It challenges the dominant Western psychological concept of the person as separate and distinct from others. Proponents of this perspective also challenge other popular ideas. For example, they reject the idea that knowledge is a “thing” that individuals possess in their heads. Rather, these theorists treat knowledge as socially constructed and shared within social interactions. These challenges are related to the theorists’ rejection of the idea that organizations are systems. Instead, they define organizations as sites of self-organizing conversations. This term calls attention to how conversing is a process of organizing people, activities and meanings (Shaw, 2002) Self-organizing conversations cannot be controlled by any single person, group or organizational plan. They always have the potential of initiating change, although this possibility is not always realized in practice. Participants and observers may experience self-organizing conversations as somewhat disorderly because no one knows exactly where they are going and they often produce unanticipated meanings. It is within this environment that organization members and consultants can engage the paradoxes of organizational life and relationships. I have already mentioned one of them. It is that simple conversations involve complex response processes of interpretation and negotiation. The complexity of social interaction is increased by the possibility that conversationalists will construct unanticipated meanings that may lead to decisions and actions that then produce unintended consequences. Despite the perils of simple conversations, organization members cannot avoid them. They are a necessary feature of the work done by many organization members and are a major way in which members attempt to influence the future. I develop the complex response processes perspective in the rest of this section by discussing the paradox of enabling constraint, paradox of control and the uncertainties of ethical leadership in organizations. 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。
用“两者皆是”的方法欣赏矛盾和不确定性 ——建构焦点解决实践的本源（1） 高德明团队 译编 本文建立在一个树状结构的比喻上，其中包括树干、树枝和树根。树干是树的中心，它连接树的分支及树根。树干和树枝很容易被路过的人观察到，而树根通常是隐藏在地下。当然，我们可以通过挖掘树根来观察根部，但这样做的风险是损坏树木。所以，大部分时候我们通过自己的想象来想树的根看起来像什么，根部是如何连接树的。本文就是这样一个富有想象力的项目。我将讨论焦点解决的想法和做法，以及相关的方式来形成变化。 不提供任何证据证明我的说法。那怎么可能？我在写的是我从来没有见过的连接，并且在我的想象中才存在的东西。尽管如此，我认为这是一个有意义的方法，其讨论作为焦点解决方案的思路和做法，不管是以前还是以后，这是与过去和现在都不同的有效途径。我盘问焦点解决方案的实践者认真对待自己的假设，改变的是人生永远存在的方面。正如这些实践者鼓励来访者在生活中积极和富有想象力地去向明确的方向改变，所以我鼓励实践者们自己去做同样的事情。 我用这篇文章来赞颂Steve de Shazer的成就和其他焦点解决方案的创造者们，其中许多人是该组织的成员。我承认我的颂扬方式与其他方式不同，主要集中在观察焦点解决的做法及想法的分支。该分支与维特根斯坦哲学，艾瑞克森和策略治疗和早期解决方案为重点的治疗师的工作的影响相连接。我把该焦点解决的方法当作在特定的历史环境，一个早期焦点解决观点治疗师与在世界各地的相关项目的其他人共享想法。焦点解决方法是与其他方法同时发现的，也是挑战20世纪末和21世纪初的传统观念。这些发现都是我的焦点解决的做法的根源。 成为一个“两者皆是”的实践者 焦点解决的一个重要的主题是，将其他治疗方法看作是单独的、独特的、不可调和的概念，选择和行动连接起来。焦点解决的实践者通常将这个主题看作是对“两者皆是”方法的采用，与他们形成对比的是“非此即彼”方法。这些实践者进一步解释“两者皆是”方法，即在构建解决方案、增强客户的创造力、开始改变等方面允许更大范围的可能性。这一主题在焦点解决实践者的教学和写作方面特别明显，注重交互性技术以帮助客户在生活中采用“两者皆是”方法。 然而，“两者皆是”方法的另一个层面很大程度上被焦点解决的实践者忽视了。包括“两者皆是”方法发展以及欣赏社会生活和人际关系的矛盾与不确定性的能力。“两者皆是”方法承认生活在终极意义上来说存在无法解决的矛盾以及未来是不可预知的。尽管如此,我们仍然需要去影响我们生活的方向。“两者皆是”方法鼓励我们学习和欣赏适应生活的矛盾和不确定性。 我认为焦点解决顾问忽视“两者皆是”方法的这个方面是很遗憾的。它限制了从业者和组织客户之间的对话未知的可能。例如，我在与取代我作为我们大学部门领导人的对话中注意到了这个限制。这种中层管理职位在所有大学等级结构中都充满了矛盾和不确定性。我们发现我们的谈话技巧和策略不足以满足我们的想法。我们还需要一个理论背景来解释矛盾和不确定的情况。 我意识到许多实践者对于“理论”持怀疑态度，尽管许多人拥护维特根斯坦的理论和社会建构论。在我看来,问题在于焦点解决的实践者是以非常受限制的方式来使用“理论”这个词的。他们用它来描述结构的方法，分析背后的原因和问题的条件，但是这个词同时也适用于共享的理论、语言以及导向。如果这样定义理论，焦点解决的实践是具有理论依据的。 这个定义还指出了焦点解决的实践者如何使用词语理论构建“非此即彼”方法，也就是去选择究竟是焦点解决实践者还是理论家。成为“两者皆是”实践者需要放弃这种社会建构，并用一种新的东西取而代之。这就是为什么其他观点在组织生活中对焦点解决实施者是有用的。对我来说, Ralph Stacey (2001) 及其合作者 (José Fonseca (2002), Douglas Griffin (2002), Patricia Shaw (2002), Philip J. Streatfield (2001))的著作在复杂的反应过程中形成一个有用的开始，以讨论“两者皆是”方法和欣赏矛盾和不确定性的影响。 ——高德明焦点解决高效教练督导团队译编 附：原文 Gale Miller Constructing the Roots of Solution-Focused Practices This essay builds on the metaphor of a tree, which includes a trunk, branches and roots. The trunk is the center of the tree and it connects the tree’s branches with its roots. The trunk and branches are easily observable to passers by, whereas the roots are usually hidden below the ground. We could, of course, observe the roots by digging up the tree but that risks doing damage to the tree. So, most of the time we content ourselves with only imagining what trees’ roots look like and what the roots connect trees to. This essay is such an imaginative project. I discuss some possible connections between solution-focused ideas and practices, and a related approach to organizational change. I offer no evidence for my claims. How could I? I am writing about connections that I have never seen and that may only exist in my imagination. Nonetheless, I see this exercise as a useful way of moving discussions of solution-focused ideas and practices away from the past and toward the future that will be different than the past and present. I challenge solution-focused practitioners to take seriously their assumption that change is an ever present aspect of life. Just as these practitioners encourage their clients to actively and imaginatively shape the direction of change in the clients’ lives, so I encourage the practitioners to do the same for themselves. I use this essay to celebrate the accomplishments of Steve de Shazer and other creators of the solution-focused approach, many of whom are members of this organization. I admit that my way of celebrating is different than other approaches that focus on the observable branches of solution-focused practices and ideas. The branches connect with Wittgensteinian philosophy, Ericksonian and strategic therapies and other recognized influences on the work of early solution-focused brief therapists. I treat the solution-focused approach as a social invention occurring within a particular historical environment, one that early solution-focused brief therapists shared with other people working on related projects around the world. The solution-focused approach is a simultaneous invention with the other complementary inventions that also challenged conventional wisdom in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. These inventions are the roots of solution-focused practices for me. Becoming a both/and practitioner An important theme within solution-focused discourse involves linking concepts, choices and actions that others treat as separate, distinct and irreconcilable. Solution-focused practitioners often characterize this theme as adopting a “both/and” orientation and they contrast it with an “either/or” approach. These practitioners further explain that the both/and approach allows for a wider range of possibilities in constructing solutions and enhances clients’ creativity in initiating change. This theme is especially evident in the teachings and writings of solution-focused practitioners that focus on interactional techniques intended to help clients adopt both/and orientations to their lives. But there is another side to the both/and orientation that is largely ignored by solution-focused practitioners. It involves the potential of developing a both/and orientation that takes account and even appreciates the paradoxes and uncertainties of social life and relationships. This side of the both/and orientation acknowledges that life includes contradictions that are not resolvable in any final sense and that the future is unknowable. Nonetheless, we must still try to influence the direction of our lives. This side of the both/and orientation encourages people to become comfortable with the paradoxes and uncertainties of life by learning to live with and appreciate them. I believe that solution-focused consultants neglect of this aspect of the both/and theme is unfortunate. It limits what is possible in conversations between the practitioners and their organizational clients. For example, I noticed this limitation in my conversations with the person who replaced me as head of my department at my university. This mid-level administrative position is filled with paradox and uncertainties created at all levels of the university hierarchy. We found that our conversations about techniques and strategies were inadequate for our purposes. We also needed a theoretical context for interpreting paradoxical and uncertain situations. I realize that many solution-focused practitioners are skeptical about theories, even though many embrace Wittgensteinian theory and social constructionism. As I see it, the problem is that solution-focused practitioners tend to use the word theory in a very restricted way. They use it to characterize structural approaches that analyze the hidden underlying causes and conditions of problems. But this word is also used to refer to shared assumptions, shared use of language, and shared orientations. Using this definition of theory, solution-focused practice is informed by theory. This definition also points to how solution-focused practitioners use the word theory to construct either/or situations in which they must choose between being solution- focused or being theorists. One aspect of becoming a both/and practitioner, then, involves rejecting this social construction and replacing it with something new. This is where other perspectives on organizational life can be useful to solution-focused practitioners. For me, the writings of Ralph Stacey (2001) and his collaborators (Jose Fonseca (2002), Douglas Griffin (2002), Patricia Shaw (2002), Philip J. Streatfield (2001)) on complex responses processes form a useful starting point for talking about the implications of a both/and orientation that takes account of and appreciates paradox and uncertainty. 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。
---高德明团队编译 我第一次见到Steve是在1994年的加利福尼亚州、帕洛阿尔托的交流会议上。 虽然当时我并不知道，那次会议在互动和系统观发展中具有里程碑意义，而且那也是为数不多的由Steve de Shazer 和Insoo Kim Berg亲自发起的会议。 我再次遇到Steve是在1995年的伦敦，我的同事Harry Norman邀请他接受一次访问。起初并不顺利，Steve并不想接受邀请。 Steve是一个狂热的啤酒酿造师和啤酒爱好者，Harry想法设法吸引Steve，品尝了正宗酿造的中世纪啤酒。而这可能就是我们最终能成功邀请到他的关键! 访问前一周，Steve带领了一次大型焦点解决治疗培训。大概有100多人参加了此次培训。 Steve手拿麦克风从舞台上缓步走来，像他以前经常做的一样他深深地呼气，然后说：“你们最好问我一些问题”。 一阵骚动在房间蔓延开来。 他才是专家，我们希望被教导该如何去做，但是现在，他却拒绝告诉我们。 现场出现一阵沉默。 “它对治疗酗酒者有用吗?”台下学员提了一个问题。“我不知道。下一个问题。” “它对治疗人格障碍有效吗?”“我不知道。下一个问题。” 更多的疾病诊断名称被提及，而每次答案都相同——“我不知道”。 我感到惊讶和迷惑。 我渴望找出更多SFBT对改变有用的信息，而这位名人却告诉我，他不知道是否对酗酒者有用。发生什么了？ 我的不适感显然其他观众也有。 过了一会，一些人开始离开现场。 “你能给我们示范问一个奇迹问题吗?”有人提问。 史蒂夫明显兴奋起来。“啊！当然可以，我相信我能做到这一点。谢谢你能这么问。” 我们放松了一些，至少他开始要做些什么了。 随着会话继续，我陷入对史蒂夫“我不知道”回答的沉思中。 这种方法可适用于各种各样的病人？难道没有研究想要证明这一点？我突然意识到，史蒂夫当然知道这一切。 事实上，那一刻他在给我们示范如何进行焦点解决治疗，而从那一刻开始，我称呼他为“与众不同的智者”。 为了回答这个看似简单的问题“对治疗酗酒者有用吗？”，其实必须要接受两个前提。 首先，存在酗酒者。其次，这种（提问中的治疗方案）方法是任何人都可以复制和使用的。 让我们来看第一个前提，存在酗酒者吗？ 显然，这个名词曾被多次使用，就好像真的存在这样一种人，但是焦点解决的实践并不是基于诊断——客户的抱怨与他们想要的（焦点解决中的解决）及已发生的次数并不是相关的。 史蒂夫的工作是，在任何情况下，甚至在有准确评估的情况下，质疑诊断的价值。 每个人都想要有些不一样——这使得每个案例的治疗过程都是不同的，因此考虑客户是否是一个'酒鬼'是没有价值的。他的“我不知道”是对类似这种术语的拒绝。 另一个前提是：“是否有效”。“是否有效？”暗含着“它”可以是有效的，而非某个人通过某种技巧使之发生。 我们可能会问这架钢琴：“它是有用的吗？”——如果有人按键，就会出现一些声音。不论是谁在弹奏，声音都会出现。 在SF实践中，解决方案在对话中建构。这即是一门艺术，也是一门科学。因此提问SF治疗是否有效，类似于质疑钢琴是没用的，而非提问钢琴演奏是否有效。 这不是一个合理的问题——通过熟练的技巧练习可以使钢琴发出优美的声音，而某些没有接受过训练的人却声称弹钢琴是没有用的——原因只在于：他们还不够熟练。 如果这样提问或许就能从史蒂夫那得到一个较好的回答：“你是否曾经成功地使那些想要少喝酒的客户少喝一些酒？” 这种情况下提问的问题是关于他自己的经历，并且是根据他们想要什么来定义客户。这与“是否对酗酒者有用？”之间的区别，对我而言，是SF实践的核心。 或许，史蒂夫对我们的馈赠是：停止尝试回答泛泛的问题，转而关注构建解决之道的微观对话。 附：原文 Mark McKergow Steve de Shazer - a Different Kind of Cleverness I first met Steve in 1994 at the Interaction View conference in Palo Alto, California. Although I did not know it at the time, this was a milestone event in the development of interactional and systemic ideas - one of the few times where the Mental Research Institute group (Paul Watzlawick, John Weakland and Dick Fisch amongst them) came together with the Solution-Focused therapy crowd led by Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg. Steve and Insoo had trained at MRI two decades earlier, and had introduced new subtleties and simplicity into the MRI model - improvements, as they saw it. However, the link between the two centres was maintained by Steve’s relationship with John Weakland, his supervisor and mentor. I next met Steve in London. My colleague Harry Norman had approached him for an interview, which we finally managed to do in London in 1995. I only discovered later that he was noted for not giving interviews, and that this was a great privilege. Steve was a keen brewer and beer drinker, and Harry had managed to interest him in sampling some ‘medieval beer’, brewed in tiny quantities to authentic recipes. This may have been the key to our success! In the week before the interview Steve was leading a training in Solution-Focused Therapy, with a large audience (well over 100 people). Steve ambled onto the stage with a microphone, exhaled deeply as he always did before starting, and said…”So.. you’d better ask me some questions”. A shiver went around the room. Surely he was the expert, and we wanted to be told what to do. Yet here he was, refusing to tell us. There was a silence. “Does it work with alcoholics?”, came a question from the floor. “I don’t know. Next question.” “Does it work with personality disorders?” “I don’t know. Next question.” Several more diagnoses were mentioned, and each time the answer was the same - “I don’t know”. I was amazed and disturbed. Here I was, keen to find out more about this fantastic approach to change, and the star performer was telling me he didn’t know if it worked with alcoholics. What was going on? My discomfort was clearly shared by other audience members - after a while, some started to leave. “Can I see you ask the Miracle Question?” asked someone. Steve brightened up visibly. “Ah! Yes, I’m sure I can do that. Thanks for asking.” We relaxed a little - at least he was going to do something. As the session went on, I reflected on Steve’s remarks of “I don’t know”. Surely this approach did work with many kinds of patient? Were there not studies to prove it? I came to realise that Steve, of course, knew all this perfectly well. Actually, he was showing us how to do Solution-Focused therapy in that moment, engaging what I have to come call his ‘different kind of cleverness’. In order to answer the apparently simple question “Does it work with alcoholics?”, one must accept two presuppositions. Firstly, there is such a thing as an alcoholic. And secondly, that it (the treatment in question) is replicable by anyone who applies it. Let’s look at the first one first - is there such a thing as an alcoholic? Clearly the word is used as if there was, but SF work is not based on diagnosis - the client’s complaint is not relevant in determining what they want (the ‘solution’ in Solution Focus) and times when that happens already. Steve’s work was part of the tradition that questions the value of diagnosis in any case, and even if an accurate assessment of the condition could be made, each one would want something different - leading to a course for treatment which would vary in each case. There was therefore no value in even considering whether the client was an ‘alcoholic’ or not. Part of his ‘I don’t know’ was a rejection of this as a relevant term in his work. The other presupposition is in the ‘Does it work’ element. ‘Does it work?’ implies that ‘it’ is working, rather than someone is acting skilfully to make something happen. We might say of a piano, ‘Does it work?’ - meaning that if someone hits the notes, then the relevant sounds will emerge. It doesn’t matter who is hitting the notes, the sounds will emerge. In SF work, solutions are constructed in conversation, which is an art as well as a science. To ask if SF therapy works is therefore to ask not if the piano works, but instead to ask if piano-playing ‘works’. This is not a sensible question - pianos can be made to sound beautiful with skill, but someone without the skill could scarcely claim that playing the piano didn’t work - just that they were not yet individually skilful enough. A question which may have had a better reaction from Steve was “Have you got successful outcomes with clients who want to drink less?” In this case, the question is about his own experience, and related to a client group defined in terms of what they wanted. The distinctions between this and ‘Does it work with alcoholics?’ are, for me, at the heart of SF practice. Maybe Steve’s legacy to us is to stop trying to answer big questions and focus instead on the tiny micro-construction of conversations which build solutions. 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。
标签: 爱语焦点
