|Posted by:||Todd Sloane|
When I am working with a client I attend to any signals from my unconscious to inform me if I am moving toward/away from my outcome or have/have not achieved my outcome or for any of a number of pre-arranged conditions.
This seems to me "like" calibrating the clients congruency, "but" it is different in that by attending to my unconscious signals I believe that I am working in a broader context than only attending to client sensory based cues.
If you don't already use such a technique you can do so by making arrangements with your unconscious to provide you with a signal to indicate that you are off track or tracking (Kind of like a TOTE check utilizing all the information that your unconscious has access to)
You can make this quite broad, including issues of ecology and safety as well. This can help create outcomes that are "win" across the board. (i.e. for all individuals and relationships involved)
If you have or have access to any frames for setting up trance for yourself ecologically, (like with contextual and out-of-conscious-awareness markers) this could be a place to start building this relationship.
Hope this last comment is clear enough. If not, let me know.
Regarding the comment on 3-ple description, I was thinking of the workplace training that I do. If I talk to one member or member "set" in an organization (i.e. management, direct staff, directors, customers, suppliers, etc...), I've got one perceptual position. If I develop a training or other program based on that and it doesn't stick, then shame on me. Why should it? So one of the ways I think of an organ-ization is as a living entity with various parts that have their own perspective and resources. The more descriptions the more likely I am to understand what is "really" going on and create a program that serves the organization by serving all of its members and the environment in which it operates. Thus ecology.
3-ple description with clients: ask a client to "try on" the perspective of someone outside of the situation they are working with. I usually try to avoid leading here except that, if they are not coming up with ideas, I'll invite them to consider different "roles" (I do this totally differently every time so please consider this just an example) For example, "if you were a composer how would you describe what is happening?" Where they have identified composer. More generally, "if you were a "N" how would you describe this?" There are lots of possibilities here, so please feel free to outframe my example and discover some...
This "move" is extremely useful and clients can and do frequently have some very profound insights as a result. In a way it's "just" new information, but new information changes the map! This maneuver would, in my description be a move to 3rd position. As the client is consulting and "outside expert" (not in original context) with specific filters.
Please note the importance here of the following, (in my map):
1. spatially separating the perceptual positions,
2. "shake and break" between positions for clean seperations,
3. frame the return to first position in some way to preserve learnings from the other position(s),
4. Come back to 1st position to close.
I might utilize this manuever in response to a signal from my unconscious that would be like a "slow down" warning informing me that the client doesn't have enough information to move forward yet ecologically.
Here's a fun thing too...
Forgetting remedial applications and just playing with this stuff.
Pick a "positive" nominalization, a nice big chunk one. You know really vague (i.e beauty, life...)
1. Describe what it means/is/is like
2. Step into another map
3. Describe what it means/is/is like
4. Return to 1st position, incorporate any learnings
5a. Select another map and go to 3 or...
Learn whatever you learn from the experience.
Thanks for asking Jim. This is fun!
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|Full-Time Change Workers Using New Code?||18/09/2003 19:04:11||Brian Mahoney|
|Re:Full-Time Change Workers Using New Code?||20/09/2003 13:04:53||Johnson|
|Re:Re:Full-Time Change Workers Using New Code?||21/09/2003 07:09:00||Jim R|
|Re:Re:Re:Full-Time Change Workers Using New Code?||21/09/2003 15:10:23||Terrence Fullmore|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Full-Time Change Workers Using New Code?||21/09/2003 18:29:30||Jim R|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Full-Time Change Workers Using New Code?||22/09/2003 13:45:07||Doug F|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Full-Time Change Workers Using New Code?||22/09/2003 15:05:01||Stephen Bray|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Full-Time Change Workers Using New Code?||22/09/2003 15:36:33||Jim R|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Full-Time Change Workers Using New Code?||22/09/2003 16:52:13||Doug|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Full-Time Change Workers Using New Code?||23/09/2003 02:38:46||Jim|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Full-Time Change Workers Using New Code?||23/09/2003 13:17:16||Doug|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Full-Time Change Workers Using New Code?||23/09/2003 21:18:02||Jim R|
|Re:Re:Full-Time Change Workers Using New Code?||23/09/2003 00:01:28||Michael Carroll|
|Michael Carroll||23/09/2003 17:10:25||Johnson|
|Re:Michael Carroll||24/09/2003 09:53:55||Stephen Bray|
|Re:Re:Michael Carroll||25/09/2003 15:05:16||Stephen Bray|
|Re:Re:Re:Michael Carroll||26/09/2003 03:01:06||Todd Sloane|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Michael Carroll||26/09/2003 08:03:35||Stephen Bray|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Michael Carroll||26/09/2003 14:42:31||Jim R|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Michael Carroll||27/09/2003 02:51:08||Todd Sloane|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Michael Carroll||28/09/2003 17:08:00||Jim R|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Michael Carroll||28/09/2003 22:06:13||Todd Sloane|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Michael Carroll||29/09/2003 01:18:18||Jim R|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Michael Carroll||30/09/2003 04:38:42||Todd Sloane|
|Re:Full-Time Change Workers Using New Code?||30/09/2003 04:42:43||Todd Sloane|