Being very explicit becomes important at this point. Whenever there is a head–on–head disagreement about a certain piece of behavior within the relationship, then jump out to the outcome frame and find out if there is one that is acceptable. If there is one, you can proceed. If there's not, you may as well be explicit about that and save everybody time.
Finding a common outcome or agreement frame between members of a family, couple, or organization is a very important step that many therapists or consultants miss. They usually attempt to find specific solutions too soon, and then there are objections. I'd like to have you do an exercise in which your primary task is to find a common outcome. If you also have time to identify a workable solution, fine.
Do this in four–person groups. A and B are members of a couple or organization. C is the programmer. D will be the meta–person. I want C to specify the context—business or therapy. A and B will then generate some conflict, and C, the programmer will do the following:
Agreement Frame Exercise
1) Ask A and B what, specifically, they want, and then restate it to their satisfaction as a pace.
2) Ask both A and B what their specific outcome will do for them (their meta–outcome) and restate it.
3) Find a common outcome such that when you state it, both A and B agree it is what they want. «So what you both want is …»
When you are the programmer, I want you to get as general as you need to in order to find an outcome that both partners will agree to. Sometimes all you will be able to get agreement on will be, «So you are both here in order to find some way to continue your relationship to your mutual benefit and satisfaction.»
Determining an agreement frame also gives you a way to sort behaviors for relevance during the negotiation process itself. This is particularly important in business meetings and negotiations. Conservatively speaking, eighty percent of all the time spent in meetings is wasted, because what is said is not relevant to the outcome. It goes like this: we're talking about campaign X for product Y and Jim says «Oh, you know what we could do over here with product Z?» It's a great idea, actually. It's wonderfully creative—and wholly irrelevant in the context.
Unless you challenge that first irrelevant remark, you unleash an avalanche of free association which is more appropriate for the psychiatric couch than a board meeting. Later it will take you ten minutes to get people reoriented to the frame within which you are working. If you make the outcome frame explicit at the beginning of the meeting, you have a basis which is explicit and agreed upon for sorting out what's relevant and what's irrelevant. We call this a «relevancy challenge.» When someone becomes irrelevant, you can say «Jim, I don't understand your remark relative to what we've already agreed upon to do here at this meeting. Why don't you bring that up Friday at our product development meeting?» The next time he makes an irrelevant remark, I'll say «Well, I'm not sure how that connects with what we're doing here," and point to the flip chart. Then the next time that he starts to make an irrelevant remark, I'll probably just have to glance over at the chart, and that will be enough to anchor him into stopping.
In corporations in which we have installed these programs, after a few meetings the total meeting time drops by about four–fifths. People look forward to the meetings, because the criteria for relevancy are made very explicit and things get done. The relevancy challenge is not part of the organizational behavior of most business organizations, and it ought to be for purposes of efficiency.
You can see the same process more clearly in an arbitration situation. There are two groups head–on–head; they are just locked together, and they've completely forgotten the context. The outcome frame has been completely forgotten and most of their behavior is irrelevant with respect to it. Most negotiators will tell you that they are always brought in at the worst possible time—when there's a deadlock. I personally think it's the best possible time, because all the issues have been sharply defined and the differences are known clearly. You know exactly what needs to be done.
My first move is to get the two groups away from each other, and then I loosen the frame. I have to reestablish a broad outcome frame— which is the traditional notion of the basis for negotiation. As soon as the outcome frame is established, then I have a basis for relevancy challenges. I can dismiss certain things as being counterproductive, because both sides have already committed themselves publicly to the outcome frame.
At that point I have enough slippage that I can find ways of balancing the two proposals and coming up with a give–and–take. I will insist that the outcome frame contain what both sides should have put there to begin with: items which are not essential, which are «throwaways» for the purpose of barter. I've got to have an equal amount of those on both sides. I've got to create room to move first. If I don't have maneuvering room, then I'm stuck.
Man: Sometimes in my work I have difficulty setting a very explicit outcome frame with people. When I try, they often resist that.
Well, let me give you my frame for establishing a, frame: «Look, I'm a professional. I refuse to engage in random behavior here. I have certain criteria for my own performance, and until we know whether there is a basis for us to proceed here, I'm not willing to spend my time and skill.» I have only had that challenged once, when a man said «Well, I ain't doing that!» and I said «Fine. Goodbye.» I reserve the right to walk out on any transaction, including psychotherapeutic transactions.
By the way, if there is a category of client that you have trouble with, then seek them out. Working with them will provide you with an opportunity for developing your own flexibility. However, once you have demonstrated to your own satisfaction that you are competent to work with that class of clients, if you still don't like them, don't take them. A professional ought to have the option to engage in a business transaction or not, based on her own personal criteria.
However, in the context of professional psychotherapeutic help, I recommend that if you are going to exercise the option of refusing a patient or a client, you have a list of people to whom you can refer them, so that they do have somewhere to go. That is part of your professional responsibility. But there is no need to torture yourself. I worked with heroin addicts for a while until I satisfied myself that I could succeed with them. I don't work with them any more, because I really don't like being around them.
Woman: I'm interested in tuning myself so I can see and hear the patterns that go on between two or more people at one time. I'm trying to be aware of how a family system is interconnected, but I think it's too big a chunk. I want to broaden my ability to do that. Do you have any helpful hints?
Whenever you are learning about sensory experience, you have to chunk it small enough so that you can cope with it. The place I learn the most about multiple–person systems is in restaurants. Go sit down in a restaurant next to a family, and never look at the person who is talking. That way you can see how the others respond to the speaker.
Woman: My question is about validation. How do I differentiate between when I'm actually seeing and hearing something and when I'm hallucinating? When you think you might be hallucinating, do you use somebody else to check what you see?