Quote below – Steve de Shazer – Clues pp 98

“When possible, extract step-by-step descriptions of any exceptions.

  1. Find out what is working, and/or
  2. find out what has worked, and/or
  3. find out what might work, then
  4. prescribe the easiest.

If some aspects of the exception (or of the complaint) are sort of random, then

  1. include something arbitrary or make allowances for randomness in the task. “

Change that requires people, cannot move in a step-by-step process. It may move from a loosely framed boundaries  of what is working and not working to attract / repel what is working and not working.

Identifying clues and observable descriptions of what happens when the exceptions take place.

When ‘feelings’ are described guide the team or person to describe what, where, how, when those feelings are happening is different about their actions, locations, interactions…

Constructing what change is useful, reasonable and when how where what exceptions (when the complaint does not happen) are noticeable will create a narrative that we can develop small experiments to see how to move closer to what’s working.

This change is using the environment and the organization / team / person resources as they are currently, not attempting to identify some ideal outcome. Using the current environment and resources as good enough (because the team / person created and works that environment) respects the interactive nature of work and may bring change about through a small nudge as opposed to a prescriptive yank.