SF Inspiration #16: How We Create Conflicts In Everyday Life

SF Inspiration #16: How We Create Conflicts In Everyday Life

by | 21/05/2025

 

SF Inspiration #16: How We Create Conflicts In Everyday Life

Dominik Godat & Elfie J. Czerny

“How We Create Conflicts in Everyday Life” – two stick figures showing that “the action is in the interaction,” a key idea in understanding everyday communication.

How We Create Conflicts In Everyday Life

This article first appeared in June 2022 in our monthly magazine Persönlichkeit – Schritt für Schritt entwickeln und entfalten, published by WEKA Business Media AG, under the title “Wie wir Konflikte im Alltag erschaffen”.

How do conflicts arise? While many approaches explore conflicts as seemingly objective events, we argue that conflicts in everyday life are predominantly created through the way we use language. A harmless interaction can quickly turn into a tangible conflict through attribution, generalisation, reinterpretation, reification, and decoupling.

Conflicts seem ever-present. Over the past years, we’ve seen clashes on individual and societal levels—particularly during the Corona pandemic. The news is filled with reports of violence and war. Disagreements erupt in families, schools, and workplaces. Since February 2022, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has dominated public discourse. Clearly, conflicts are part of our reality. Or… aren’t they?

You might ask: “What kind of question is that? Of course, conflicts exist!” Yes—at first glance, that’s undeniable. Armed conflicts continue to occur around the world. And we regularly witness challenging moments in which people argue, express differing views, exclude one another, or even fight.

Different views

Many frameworks aim to explain how conflicts arise. Most focus on what appear to be objective conditions—on what is assumed to “actually” happen. These approaches describe, for instance, that “Conflicts emerge when incompatible goals, interests, needs, or values collide.” Some claim that “Conflict is a permanent feature of human interaction.” Today, this is a widely accepted view of conflict. And when we adopt this view, conflict indeed seems to be everywhere.

But what happens when we examine how we use the word “conflict” in everyday language? Things become less clear-cut. Standard definitions often assume that it is the objective nature of a situation (for example, two people disagreeing) that determines whether we call something a conflict. But there’s a compelling alternative: what matters far more is how we describe and label what is happening.

Conflicts in everyday life are primarily created through language – by labeling what happens as a conflict.

Conflicts are created through our language

A few years ago, we contributed a chapter to a book on conflict management. In writing it, something struck us: conflicts in everyday life are often not observed but produced—through language. While we saw moments in which two people expressed different views, others described those very moments as conflicts.

Thus, we have a choice in how we describe a situation:

  1. Describing interaction or behaviour:
    “I said something, and my colleague expressed a different view.”
    → This describes what each person actually said or did, in the order it happened.
  2. Generalising:
    “My colleague disagreed.”
    → This shifts to a more abstract description that no longer reflects the actual sequence, but still stays close to what happened.
  3. Dramatising:
    “My colleague always disagrees.”
    → This turns a one-time or repeated behaviour into a more exaggerated version.
  4. Attributing traits:
    “My colleague is stubborn.”
    → This no longer refers to specific behaviour or interaction but assigns a personal characteristic to one of the individuals.
  5. Reinterpreting:
    “We had a fight.”
    → This uses a term that doesn’t describe the actual interaction but rather interprets or evaluates the situation in a particular way.
  6. Reifying:
    “We had a dispute.” or “We have a conflict.”
    → This replaces verbs with nouns, linguistically transforming behaviour over time into a “thing” such as a conflict or dispute.
  7. Decoupling:
    “There is a conflict.”
    → This further detaches the linguistically created “thing” from both the people and their actions, making it appear as something that exists independently.

How to talk conflicts into being

While there is no conflict in descriptions 1 through 5, it is in steps 6 and 7 that a conflict is created. The situation itself remains unchanged—but the description is entirely different. What may seem like a subtle shift has far-reaching consequences. Depending on how a situation is described, entirely different lines of thinking and courses of action become relevant:

  1. At Step 1, the person might think about how to phrase things in the next conversation so that their colleague is more likely to agree.
  2. At Step 2, they might consider how to persuade their colleague in this specific case.
  3. At Step 3, a one-time solution no longer seems sufficient. They may feel the need to get to the bottom of why their colleague always disagrees.
  4. At Step 4, they might begin thinking about how to change their colleague.
  5. At Step 5, they may start developing strategies for reconciliation.
  6. From step 6 onward, things become noticeably more difficult. Now they “have” a conflict or a dispute. Simply changing behaviour no longer seems enough. They will likely start thinking about how to resolve the “dispute” or settle the “conflict.”
  7. At Step 7, the situation seems only marginally related to either person. Now, what’s needed are “solutions” to address “the conflict.”

The very same situation can become a different reality—simply through a change in wording. In everyday life, we quite literally create our conflicts through the way we talk about situations. The wording we choose doesn’t just shape how we—and others—experience the reality we construct through language. It also influences how easily and quickly, or how slowly and painfully, a situation seems likely to improve.

If you want to experience fewer conflicts, stay with describing the interaction itself—or the specific behaviours that took place.

In fact, the same event, differently worded, creates a different reality. In everyday life, we literally create conflicts through the way we speak about situations. Our choice of wording doesn’t just shape how we and others perceive reality—it also influences how easily or how arduously change seems possible.

So, if you want to experience fewer conflicts, stay with describing the interaction itself—what people actually do and say together.

Further training on the topic

Join our Microanalysis online course and get to know what really happens in dialogue:

The Authors

Elfie J. Czerny and Dominik Godat are communication and leadership experts, Interactionalists, and passionate advocates of solution-focused practices.

They are co-editors of the magazine Persönlichkeit! and co-founders of SF on Tour. Together, they lead the expert leadership course Fachkurs für Lösungsfokussierte Führung (Expert Course Solution-Focused Leadership) as well as the Certificate of Advanced Studies course CAS Lösungsfokus in Organisationen (Solution-Focus in Organisations) at the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts.

👉 Learn more: www.hslu.ch/loesungsfokus

SF Inspiration #15 Moving Forward Together In Dialogue

SF Inspiration #15 Moving Forward Together In Dialogue

by | 07/05/2025

 

SF Inspiration #15: Moving Forward Together In Dialogue

Elfie J. Czerny & Dominik Godat

Elfie Czerny & Bibiana Moving Forward Together in Dialog

Moving Forward Together in Dialoge

The article “Moving Forward Together in Dialogue” first appeared in May 2024 in our monthly magazine Persönlichkeit – Schritt für Schritt entwickeln und entfalten, published by WEKA Business Media AG, under the title “Im Dialog gemeinsam in Bewegung.”

In face-to-face conversations, we do far more than previously assumed. We are in constant motion together—moment by moment, millisecond by millisecond. Join us in exploring how you can begin to perceive this shared movement in dialogue.

Focus on the Individual

We are trained to observe what each individual does. When we look at conversations this way, we see alternating monologues. One person speaks, the other listens. Then the second person speaks. It appears as though the speaker and the listener are acting independently. From this, we try to draw conclusions about good communication—based on the formula: 1 + 1 = 2 [1].

Dialogue as Alternating Monologue

Imagine you’re in a conversation with a colleague who is assigning a task to you. The goal is for you to understand the assignment well so that you can carry it out effectively. If we observe your colleague (the speaker) and you (the listener) as separate individuals, we are likely to conclude that your colleague independently selects the statements that best convey what she wants to communicate. She then sends these statements to you, the receiver. Your role as the listener is simply to correctly decode her intended message. From this perspective, your colleague speaks as though she were writing to a distant reader [2].

Focus on Interaction

When we shift our focus to what people do together—to their interactions—we begin to notice how much more dynamic dialogue really is. From an interactional viewpoint, conversations are no longer individual performances for an audience. They become coordinated activities—more like a jazz duet than a solo recital.

Referential Communication

Referential communication brings this joint activity into focus. When we talk with one another, we are constantly referencing each other. A successful exchange of information depends not only on the quality of the speaker’s statements but also on the participants’ ability to coordinate and refer to one another effectively.

In the 1980s, American psycholinguist and Stanford professor Herbert Clark, along with colleagues [2] [3], investigated whether conversations are unilateral actions governed by a single speaker—or whether they might, in fact, be collaborative processes shaped by both speaker and listener. Their research convincingly demonstrated that what matters is not one-sided transmission, but dialogue itself. We continually respond to one another—and we do so in ways uniquely co-created with our respective conversation partners [4].

Dialogue as a Joint Process

Recently, we were having lunch with our daughter. She was telling us about school, and I asked her about a classmate whose name I couldn’t recall. In the excerpt below, you’ll see how she and I co-constructed the name of her schoolmate together—in about 30 seconds.

This brief example shows how quickly and efficiently we coordinate in conversation, working together moment by moment to reach a shared understanding.

Transcript of Moving Forward Together In Dialogue

After our daughter asked, “Who?” (line 12), I continued in line 14, “Her birthday is in summer.” She smiled. I added, “And she already gave you the birthday—” and then “invitation before the vacation.” As I began saying “and,” she stopped smiling and her facial expression turned serious.
I continued with “invitation,” and she looked down with a serious face. Her behavior signaled that we hadn’t reached shared understanding yet.

I then added, “Her mom has such big earrings.” My words were accompanied by a gesture—I raised my hands to my ears and pointed to them at “so big” to represent the earrings. As I began speaking, our daughter’s eyes turned toward me and she squinted slightly. Immediately after I finished, she said joyfully, “Ah, Sophia,” just as I widened my eyes and smiled.

 You could read this transcript as if it were composed of alternating monologues—but that would be a misreading. Our contributions overlapped frequently, yet we stayed closely coordinated. Many of our contributions—especially shifts in facial expression—occurred simultaneously. We co-created the dialogue, second by second. And yet, this dynamic is difficult to capture in a transcript.

Movement in Conversation

The degree to which we move together in conversation is difficult to notice in real time. Dialogue partners build and shape their conversation collaboratively, through actions that occur in seconds or even fractions of a second, in the ever-flowing stream of interaction.

This perspective has significantly changed how we think and act. For example:

  • We talk differently about conversations: “You said…” becomes “We talked about…”
  • We pause with intention: In our conversations, we often pause briefly and continue only once we’ve received a signal—like a nod, a “m-hm,” or a “yes”—that we are moving forward in the conversation together.
  • We turn our attention toward the other person: The more attentive and attuned we are in conversation, the more effectively we can create shared understanding.

What might this perspective open up for you?

  • What difference might this perspective make in your conversations?
  • And how might it change the way you talk about what you do when you’re in dialogue?

Further training on the topic

Join our Microanalysis online course and get to know what really happens in dialogue:

[1] Bavelas, Janet B. (2022). Face-to-Face Dialogue. Theory, Research, and Applications. (p. 71) New York: Oxford University Press. 
[2] Clark, Herbert H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1-39.
[3] Schober, Michael F. & Clark, Herbert H. (1989). Asking questions and influencing answers. In Judith M. Tanur (Ed.) Questions about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 15-48). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
[4] Bavelas, Janet B. (2022). Face-to-Face Dialogue. Theory, Research, and Applications. (p. 73-75) New York: Oxford University Press.

The Authors

Elfie Czerny and Dominik Godat are communication and leadership experts, Interactionalists, and passionate advocates of solution-focused practices.

They are co-editors of the magazine Persönlichkeit! and co-founders of SF on Tour. Together, they lead the expert leadership course Fachkurs für Lösungsfokussierte Führung at the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts.

👉 Learn more: www.hslu.ch/loesungsfokus 

SF Inspiration #14: Resistance or Cooperating? – A Matter of Perspective

SF Inspiration #14: Resistance or Cooperating? – A Matter of Perspective

by | 29/04/2025

 

SF Inspiration #14: Resistance or Cooperating: A Matter of Perspective

Dominik Godat & Elfie J. Czerny

Two people working together at a laptop, one looking at each other, illustrating different perspectives on cooperation or resistance.

Photo Credit: Andreas Lattner

 

Restistance or Cooperating: A Matter of Perspective

This article first appeared in May 2024 in our monthly magazine Persönlichkeit – Schritt für Schritt entwickeln und entfalten, published by WEKA Business Media AG, under the title “Widerstand oder Kooperation? – Eine Wahl der Perspektive.”

Resistance is a question of perspective. If we primarily see “us” and “them,” the view of resistance follows logically. However, if we understand ourselves as part of a larger “we,” we see the world as a place of cooperating together. In this view, the concept of resistance dissolves.

Resistance is widely talked about. People who focus on resistance see it in every situation.

But what do we actually mean when we claim that others are in resistance? Ultimately, it means nothing more than: “Others are not doing what we would like them to do.” And we label that as resistance. This is a rather arrogant perspective, one where we view our ideas as more important and better than the ideas of others. What makes us devalue others just because they want something different?

When we adopt the concept of ‘resistance,’ we are often compelled to do something radical: We must break the resistance. We must convince others. We must exclude them. The concept of ‘resistance’ does not invite co-creation. On the contrary, it invites us to divide the world into those who cooperate and those who resist.

However, the idea of resistance is only possible if we separate people into ‘us and them,’ ‘the good and the bad,’ ‘we who want change and they who resist.’ If instead we redefine “us” by including others, it opens up the question of how we might find a shared path. This shift in perspective towards a new “us” took place in 1984.

The Death of Resistance

In the mid-1970s, Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg, and their team at the Brief Family Therapy Center (BFTC) in Milwaukee made a groundbreaking discovery that led Steve de Shazer to write the article “Death of Resistance” in 1978. At the time, like much of the therapy world, they still viewed the family as a system. From this perspective, the therapist was positioned outside the system, attempting to stimulate change through clever interventions. If the family responded positively to the therapist’s ideas, this was seen as a success. If they did not, the family was labelled as resistant. In other words: if the family did what the therapist considered helpful, they were regarded as cooperative; if they acted differently, they were seen as resistant. The therapist’s theories and interventions were treated as more important than what the family itself found meaningful. Only one perspective mattered: that of the therapist.

Gradually, this way of thinking changed. At the BFTC, they stopped viewing the family as a system separate from themselves and instead defined the entire therapy conversation — therapist and family together — as the system. With this radical shift, therapists became part of the system. The ‘I’ (the therapist) and ‘the others’ (the family) were transformed into a new ‘we.’ The family was now seen as a partner in therapy. The goal was no longer for the therapist to define interventions, but to find a shared path forward with the family. The ideas of both the family and the therapist were given equal importance. Families could express what they wanted and determine the next steps they wished to take. They were included — and when they chose a different path, they were no longer seen as ‘resistant.’

Taking People Seriously

The idea of resistance only makes sense if we elevate ourselves above others and regard our own opinions as more important than theirs. In doing so, we devalue not only others but also their ideas. We stop treating different perspectives as equally valid and place ourselves above them. When we fail to take others seriously, the division deepens. However, if we genuinely take others seriously and create a true ‘we,’ the concept of resistance no longer holds meaning.

Cooperating Instead of Resistance

The question then becomes: How can we best cooperate? What can each person contribute to our shared path? Every contribution is important and valued as part of cooperating — even if it differs from what we might currently see as ideal.

If we view resistance through the traditional lens, it feels like a tennis match where we stand on opposite sides of the net, trying to win, defeat the other, and outperform them. But if we create a shared ‘we,’ we are on the same side of the net, playing doubles. We develop joint strategies, support each other, step in when needed, and celebrate our successes together.

Good Reasons Instead of Resistance

If we focus on good reasons instead of resistance, we assume that people are always doing the best they can and are cooperating within their current possibilities. Sometimes, these possibilities align with what we want — and sometimes something else happens. And what happens does not always have to be harmonious. When people want something different, they have good reasons for their opinions and positions.

We do not need to devalue them or label them as resistant. Instead, we can take their views seriously and approach them with curiosity.

Rather than assuming sabotage, obstruction, or resistance, we can ask:

  • What good reasons do they have for their view?
  • What concerns do they have, and what would need to be considered to enable their support for the direction?
  • What legitimate worries are they expressing?
  • What might not yet have been heard?
  • What is important to them?
  • If they don’t want this, what do they want instead?
  • What additional ideas do they have?

Through this lens, people previously labelled as ‘resistant’ become people with good reasons, concerns, or legitimate worries — people who may not yet have been fully heard, who value something important, who may want something different, or who bring other ideas.

By adopting this view, we not only take others seriously but also learn something essential about their values and perspectives. Often, this knowledge enables us to find even better ways to co-create.

Radical Acceptance

Adopting this perspective requires radical acceptance of others and their views. It means recognising that it is valid to see the world differently from how you see it — and that it is legitimate to want something else. If you could fully step into the other person’s world, you would likely make sense of many things in much the same way.

You can still hold a different opinion and advocate for your views. However, you no longer devalue the other person or deny the legitimacy of their perspective — and that is exactly what happens when we claim that others are ‘in resistance.’ Choosing cooperating over resistance means assuming that the other person’s view is just as valid and important as your own.

Resistance as a Choice

Resistance does not objectively exist. Rather, it is a choice of perspective. When others do not act as you would wish, you face a decision: Which perspective do you want to take? With the perspective of resistance, you elevate your viewpoint above others and fight against their ideas. With the perspective of cooperating, you integrate others’ perspectives and pave the way for genuine co-creation.

🌍 Celebrating Solution Focused World Day – May 3rd

Each year on May 3rd, practitioners worldwide celebrate Solution Focused World Day, honouring the spirit of Steve de Shazer’s transformative article “The Death of Resistance.”

Remarkably, before this pioneering work finally appeared in Family Process in March 1984, it was rejected 17 times over a five-year period and underwent six major revisions — without changing its central thesis or title. De Shazer’s article, along with the groundbreaking work of the team at the Brief Family Therapy Center (BFTC) in Milwaukee, fundamentally reshaped therapeutic thinking, shifting the focus from resistance to cooperating.

Today, this shift in perspective remains radical — not only in therapy but also in fields such as organisations, leadership, education, and beyond.

Join us in celebrating Solution Focused World Day together and in promoting collaboration, curiosity, and mutual respect across diverse contexts.

Background Sources:

de Shazer, Steve (1984). The death of resistance. Family Process, 23(1), 11–17.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1984.00011.x
de Shazer, Steve (1989). Resistance revisited. Contemporary Family Therapy, 11(4), 227–233.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00919462

The Authors

Elfie Czerny and Dominik Godat are communication and leadership experts, Interactionalists, and passionate advocates of solution-focused practices.

They are co-editors of the magazine Persönlichkeit! and co-founders of SF on Tour. Together, they lead the expert leadership course Fachkurs für Lösungsfokussierte Führung at the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts.

👉 Learn more: www.hslu.ch/loesungsfokus

SF Inspiration #13: Brilliant Listening

SF Inspiration #13: Brilliant Listening

by | 14/08/2024

 

SF Inspiration #13: Brilliant Listening

by Elfie J. Czerny & Dominik Godat

Picture of grandmother and granddaughter

Brilliant Listening

This article “Brilliant Listening” first appeared in our monthly magazine Persönlichkeit – Schritt für Schritt entwickeln und entfalten, by WEKA Business Media AG. Special thanks to Heather Fiske for her support in editing the English version.

Imagine being in a conversation where you know the person you’re speaking with is listening with full attention to your brilliance. What difference could this make? And how does Brilliant Listening work—how do we truly listen to another person’s brilliance?

Her warm brown eyes are fixed on her five-year-old granddaughter, who is excitedly recounting what she experienced while playing in the forest. She listens attentively. Then she laughs and says in a voice that sounds as if she were also proudly saying it to herself, “I see the rascal looking out of your eyes.” The mischievous twinkle in the eyes of the little girl, who in her liveliness always seems to be up to something, flashes even more.

Forty years later, her granddaughter watches for that twinkle in her 90-year-old grandmother’s eyes as she listens to her stories. Grandma also has that mischievous look, and when it flashes, the granddaughter rejoices, just as she did when she was five. Now she calls out joyfully, “There it is!” and a lively smile is drawn on the faces of both. The grandmother’s progressive dementia changes many things. However, the two celebrate these special moments of closeness with a deep look into each other’s eyes and a loving smile until the last day they spend together. 

The shine of brilliance

When the granddaughter looks back on those moments today, she knows that it wasn’t just the look in the eyes that so connected her grandma and her. It was seeing each other’s brilliance, that glimpse of something that was important to both of them. Discovering these moments in their conversations, addressing them and thus reinforcing them, they both understood. The sparkle in the eyes of one, amplified the sparkle in the eyes of the other and resulted in shared joy.

The word brilliance is derived from the French “briller” – to shine, radiate, sparkle, glow. When a person feels good all around, we can perceive this shine and radiance very clearly and distinctly.

Brilliance shows itself in many facets. We can

  • see brilliance: e.g., in the radiance and sparkle of the eyes, in relaxed facial muscles, in a broad smile on the lips, or in a soft, peaceful gaze.
  • hear brilliance: e.g. in the tone of voice, the melody of speech, the power or clarity of the voice.
  • feel brilliance: e.g., in moments when pleasant goose bumps run down our spines while the other person is talking.

Perceiving and enhancing brilliance

  • How do you notice when brilliance emerges in a conversation with someone?
  • How do you respond when moments of brilliance arise during your interactions with others?
  • In what situations do you find that brilliance is most likely to emerge in a conversation? What actions do you take in those moments to encourage or amplify that brilliance?

People who see the brilliance of their counterparts can reinforce it not only by addressing it, but also by listening to it. In the book Momo [1], Michael Ende writes about a little girl who could listen in such a way “that stupid people suddenly had very clever thoughts. Not because she said or asked something that gave the other person such thoughts, no, she just sat there and listened, with all her attention and sympathy.”

Listening as an active activity

Listening is often understood as passive. However, microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue, which uses video analysis to explore what happens in conversations moment by moment, shows how much we do when we listen:

  • We acknowledge what is being said. We do this in many ways: We nod; We blink our eyes; We smile.; We say “Mhmm”; We look the other person in the eye; We say “okay”; We reinforce with “yes, exactly” or “ah, yes”.
  • If something is unclear, we may frown. We widen our eyes. We keep our eyes open without blinking. We tilt our heads. We raise our fingers.
  • When we are astonished, we may open our mouths and keep our eyes wide open. We may acknowledge with “Wow”.

Attentive listening enables better storytelling

In an experiment, Janet Bavelas, Linda Coates, and Trudy Johnson [2] divided storytellers into two groups. One group was listened to attentively in a face-to-face conversation. For the second group of storytellers, the listeners had to count words that start with the letter “t”. The stories told were recorded on video. The recordings were then shown to an audience, which had to judge who was the better storyteller.

The results are not surprising: when storytellers were listened to attentively, with normal listening reactions, they were encouraged to continue their story. In contrast, distracted listeners displayed their listening less or reacted too late to what the storytellers were saying. Their responses were not timed well with the story. As a result, the storytellers tended to repeat themselves, pause more frequently, or become less fluent. Those who were not listened to attentively were subsequently rated as significantly less effective storytellers.

As listeners, we help shape the story. The quality of storytelling is directly related to our attentive listening. If you want to hear better stories, listen carefully! 

Brilliant with helpful assumptions

In addition to the level of your attention, what you listen for can also enhance or dim the shine and brilliance of those around you. If you want to enhance brilliance, the following assumptions may be helpful:

  • Each person is an expert on her or his own life.
  • Every human experience is unique.

With your attentive listening, you signal to your counterpart “you are important”. If you also appreciate that everyone has different life experiences and has developed unique life and coping strategies, and see the person you are talking to as an expert on their life, you will reinforce brilliance.

Instead of sharing your own ideas, pay attention and be present. You don’t have to prepare your next argument while your counterpart is speaking, and you don’t have to respond as cleverly as possible to what is being said. Instead of meeting your interlocutor in a knowing and judgmental way, you can marvel at all they have achieved and accomplished.

This stance changes your listener responses. You may show that you are touched, excited, fascinated with a smile, “Wow”, “Ahhh” or nod. You may react with a sparkle in your eye when you realize that important insights are emerging. At best, you will return the gleam in your interlocutors’ eyes with an encouraging smile. These kinds of responses invite your counterparts to share even more of what strengthens them.

Brilliant memories

The granddaughter still hears the sound of her grandmother’s voice. The granddaughter is me. And when I think of my grandmother, a warm feeling of gratitude floods my body. From her, I learned to seize moments to notice and consciously respond to the sparkle, and shine of others. I always felt seen and valued by her in a special way. We had developed a common appreciation for the sparkle in our eyes. “The rascal looks out of our eyes,” was a powerful description for us of how we retained something childlike and playful in our lives, something that has carried us both through difficult times. That rascal in our eyes has never been completely lost to us, as we kept rediscovering it in each other.

Further training on the topic

Join our Microanalysis online course and get to know what really happens in dialogue:

[1] Ende, Michael (1973). Momo. Stuttgart: Thienemann Verlag. Published in English in 1974 by Puffin.
[2] Bavelas, Janet B./Coates, Linda/Johnson, Trudy (2000). Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 941–952.

The Authors

This article was written by Elfie Czerny and Dominik Godat, communication and leadership experts, Interactionalists, and promoters of solution-focused practices. They are co-editors of the magazine Persönlichkeit! and co-founders of SF on Tour. Learn more at www.sfontour.com

SF Inspiration #7: The Interactional Advent Calendar 2020

SF Inspiration #7: The Interactional Advent Calendar 2020

by | 27/11/2020

 

SF Inspiration #7: The Interactional Advent Calendar 2020

Elfie Czerny & Dominik Godat


Welcome to our Interactional Advent Calendar 2020!


24
doors
are waiting
for you to enjoy!
24  Interactional SF
inspiration for you to try out!
Have fun!
And Share
your ideas,
learnings,
insights
with us in
the comments section below.

 

Hier kannst du den Adventskalender auf Deutsch erleben.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This