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

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

 

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 #7: The Interactional Advent Calendar 2020

SF Inspiration #7: The Interactional Advent Calendar 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.

SF Inspiration #4: Meet Ulf or the absurdity of inner concepts

SF Inspiration #4: Meet Ulf or the absurdity of inner concepts

 

 

 

 

SF Inspiration #4: Meet Ulf or the absurdity of inner concepts

Dominik Godat & Elfie Czerny

Wherever we go we hear about inner concepts. The unconscious, the subconscious, personality structures, the inner child, the ego, and many other inner concepts seem to be everywhere. They have become general knowledge and many people believe in them. And this despite the fact that they are tautological and thus not only highly unlikely but also unscientific. Or would you believe in a little invisible man in you steering you?

Your inner Ulf is nothing more than tautological made up stuff.

%

Inner concepts that are not tautological!

%

Made up stuff with a circular logic!

Meet Ulf or the absurdity of inner concepts

1. Meet Ulf the invisible man in you

A few years ago, I realized that my right shoulder felt heavy. It was then when I discovered that there is a little invisible man in my shoulder steering my behavior. I called him Ulf and realized that Ulf is not only invisible, but also mysterious and inaccessible. He is like a hidden force influencing and steering me. I never know what he is up to next. And I realized that everyone has an Ulf in them. I talked to others about Ulf. Nobody believed me. But since Ulf doesn’t want to get caught, their behavior is a clear proof of the existence of Ulf.

You don’t believe me either?

2. The circular (il)logic of inner concepts

So, how come you believe in inner concepts, like the unconscious, the subconscious, the inner child, personality structures, character, inner team, ego, … or others that work with the same circular (il)logic?

Inner concepts all work in the same way:

  • Your behavior is steered or at least influenced by
  • this hidden “thing” in you, e.g. the unconscious or the ego, that
  • is not accessible by us
  • and since we have no direct access to it our behavior is proof that it is there.

“What’s wrong with that?”, you might ask.

This circular logic – Your behavior is steered by something hidden in you and therefore your behavior is proof of its existence – is exactly how the logic of Ulf works: He steers us, but since he is hidden and not accessible our behavior is proof of his existence.

Somehow, we seem to believe in some tautological concepts, but not in others.

3. Tautologies (logic) and inner concepts

In logic, a tautology is a formula or assertion that is always true, in every possible interpretation. The sentence “The ball is there or not there.” is always true. The sentence is true no matter where the ball is. And even if there were no ball, the sentence would be true. The sentence cannot be denied. And since it cannot be denied, the assertion cannot be proven wrong. It is always true, no matter what.

In modern science however, ever since Karl Popper, an Austrian-British philosopher and professor, we want to be able to empirically test a theory and see if it is right or wrong. And if it is wrong, we then adapt the theory. To be able to do this, a theory needs to be falsifiable. That means that there must be a possibility that it can also be wrong. It does not make sense to test a theory that cannot be wrong to find out if it’s true or false. For Popper what is unfalsifiable is unscientific, and declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience. If an assertion cannot be proven wrong, it is merely a matter of belief. We either believe in it or not.

All inner concepts have a circular logic. They are tautological and can therefore never be proven wrong. Try to falsify inner concepts. It cannot be done, because their logic is built in a way that they cannot be falsified:

  • The unconscious e.g., hidden inside you, steers your behavior, and your behavior is proof of its existence. No matter how you behave, you can never proof that the unconscious is not there. Like Ulf, it’s just a matter of belief.
  • Let’s look e.g. at personality structures. Tests that assess personality structures evaluate your behavior, how you do things or how you fill out the test form, and then they “invent” an inner personality structure, hidden in you, with which they predict your future behavior. When you then behave differently than predicted, they will tell you that your personality structure changed. With this setup it’s impossible to proof that there is no personality structure inside of you.
  • Ego is a great example too. No matter how you behave, this inner hidden thing called ego, is always there. It’s just more or less dominant. There is no way of falsifying this concept. Due to the circular logic it’s impossible to say there is no such thing as an ego inside of us.

Try to falsify other inner concepts like character, your inner child or inner team or others. Or try to falsify Ulf. You will not succeed. They are tautologies. They are all, like the example of Ulf shows, made up stuff with a circular logic. And some people tend to believe in them and others not. Nothing more and nothing less.

4. Probabilities or could Ulf still be there?

“But if they can’t be falsified, that doesn’t mean that they still could be there and work like that?”, you might reply. That’s true. It is however highly unlikely or (nearly) impossible. Imagine how many inner concepts with a circular logic you could come up with. There are infinite possibilities. You could invent limitless other forms of Ulfs or inner structures. And since there are infinite possibilities, the probability of being true is 0, and thus (nearly) impossible. That means that Ulf, the unconscious, ego, or any other inner concept could be there and work like that, but it’s highly unlikely or even more, it’s (nearly)[1] impossible

5. The absurd belief in inner concepts

I made up Ulf, others made up the other inner concepts. They can all never be proven wrong and thus can’t scientifically be tested. It’s just a matter of belief. And since there are infinite possibilities of inner concepts, they have a probability of 0 to be true and are thus (nearly) impossible.

Would you advise someone to bet on an event with 0 probability? Probably not. You might even call it absurd to belief in something, like Ulf, that is made up and can never be proven right or wrong. And it’s the same with every other inner concept.

And still many people let these made up circular inner concepts influence their lives quite a lot. They treat those tautological ideas as if they were real things living in us. And there is a whole armada of professionals who want you to believe in those. However more people believing in inner concepts don’t make them more probable or even true.

In Solution Focus we don’t focus on made up stuff inside of someone. We do something different. We focus on the interaction between people. The interaction you can see. Here you can come up with a theory and test it [2]. And if it’s proven wrong, you can adjust it or come up with another theory. Nothing hidden needed.

 

[1]An event with a probability of 0 could still occur. Therefore I call it (nearly) impossible and not impossible.

[2]Listen e.g. to this episode of our SIMPLY FOCUS Podcast with Janet Bavelas about Microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue.

SF Inspiration #3: “Solution” is where the magic happens!

SF Inspiration #3: “Solution” is where the magic happens!

SF Inspiration #3: Solution is where the magic happens!

Dominik Godat & Elfie Czerny

What do we mean when we use the word solution? Isn’t that clear? No! This ordinary every day term can be used in different ways. And the way we use it in the Solution Focused approach is a special and especially rewarding one. It’s nothing less than the difference between a linear and a magical world. And this difference can make a relevant difference for your application of the Solution Focused approach in your everyday life. 

 

  • Elfie is asking for signs of emerging solutions! 94% 94%
  • Dominik is talking about emerging solutions! 83.5% 83.5%
  • Bibi is letting solutions emerge! 100% 100%

Solution – Looking forward in a magical world

“The meaning of a word is its use in the language.” Ludwig Wittgenstein

We were puzzled! Sometimes people came back after our Solution Focused (SF) workshops and told us that SF didn’t work. When we asked them what they did, they told us that their conversation partners couldn’t even answer their first question: “Ok, now you told me your problem. So, what’s the solution (to your problem)?”. Our first (mostly unspoken) reaction was “That’s not an SF question! How could they misunderstand the approach like that.” For quite some time, we didn’t know how this misunderstanding could happen, until someone said, “You know, I am Solution Focused now and I only focus on the solution with my conversation partners.” And it suddenly became clear that they were talking about a different meaning of the word “solution” than we were. So, our quest began.

 

1. What do we mean with the word “solution”?

Following Wittgenstein the meaning of a word is its use in the language. So let’s check how the word “solution” is used in our language. Compare the two following questions:

  1. What is the solution (to your problem)?
  2. What was the solution (to your problem)?

What can we discover when we look at these two questions? “Not much.”, you might say, “While number 1 is in the present tense, number 2 is in the past tense.”

If we look closer we discover very relevant differences: 

  • Looking forward (in a linear world): When answering question number 1 we are either looking for a) a desired future state that is better than it is now or b) a set of actions that when applied “solves” our problem and thus leads to our desired state. While the first idea seems to be in line with SF at first glance, the second idea – “how do we solve this?” – is a quite linear one. It assumes that we can now at this moment know the effects of our actions in the future in detail and predict what the results will be. What an overwhelming idea in a complex dynamic world with interdependencies where we can’t know exactly what effects our first steps will have.
  • Looking backwards in a magical world: In question number 2 we look backwards and want to know what happened and/or how we reached a certain state. The answer to question number 2 is c) the story of what (e.g. actions) led to what, quasi how the solution emerged. Solution here is something that emerged in real life in the past and that we can only see when we look backwards. When Machado says that “Paths are made by walking.”, in this view solutions are made by doing. And this happens somehow magical. We don’t know what the effects of our first steps will be, we adapt to change, we influence others who influence us, we do something or don’t do it, and somehow the solution emerges. When we look back, we can tell people our story of how it happened. When we look forward however we can’t yet see how this will exactly happen, especially not in our dynamic complex world.
  • Looking forward in a magical world: If we can’t tell how the future will unfold and still want to look forward in this view, we might ask “What solution might be evolving/emerging in the future?”. Solution is then d) something that might emerge in the future in a somehow magical process.

So out of these two questions we can derive at least four meanings of the word solution:

  • a.) Solution as a desired state in the future.
  • b.) Solution as a set of actions that when applied leads to our desired state.
  • c.) Solution as our story of what emerged in the past and led to our desired state.
  • d.) Solution as what might be emerging in the future in a somehow magical process.

In our example that puzzled us at the beginning, we realized that when they used the word solution they either meant a) or b), while we usually mean d).

“Paths are made by walking.” Antonio Machado

 

2. So, what does the word solution mean in the term Solution Focused approach?

If the word solution can be used in different ways in ordinary language, do SF practitioners at least use it coherent? Is there one meaning of the word solution in the term Solution Focused approach? This question was especially intriguing for us, since we were quite often engaged in discussions whether the term “Solution Focus” is well chosen or not. Most SF practitioners that we have met find the term somehow odd, while we like it very much. So, also amongst practitioners there might be different understandings. Therefore, let’s check how the word solution is used in the Solution Focused approach.

If we look at texts of Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg we can find all four and even more different meanings. Let’s look for example at the groundbreaking article de Shazer et al. (1986) “Brief Therapy: Focused Solution Development”. There the word solution is used 55 times and in many different ways. And it’s mostly not clear what they really meant with it. Here are some examples:

a.) Solution as a desired state in the future:

  • “The more alternate futures or alternate solutions are talked about, the stronger the client’s expectations of change will be.”
  • “The task of Brief Therapy is to help clients do something different, by changing their interactive behavior and/or their interpretation of behavior and situations so that a solution (a resolution of their complaint) can be achieved.“

b.) Solution as a set of actions that lead to our desired state: 

  • Solutions are the behavioral and/or perceptual changes that the therapist and client construct to alter the difficulty, the ineffective way of overcoming the difficulty, and/or are the construction of an acceptable, alternative perspective that enables the client to experience the complaint situation differently.”

c.) Solution as what emerged in the past and led to a desired state.

  • “Attempts to build an intervention (…) might not as readily have led toward the eventual solution, which the family itself invented between the first and second sessions.“

d.) Solution as what might be emerging in the future in a somehow magical process:

  • “the solution (that is, change in interaction) needs to “fit” within the constraints of that situation in such a way as to allow a solution to develop.“

 

If the word solution was not used in a coherent way back then, did it become more clear in later years? If you study the articles and books of Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg, you will notice that it didn’t.

The study of texts will not help us to clarify what could be meant with solution in the term Solution Focused approach, looking at practice however could. So, let’s look deductively at the relationship between the above meanings and Solution Focused practice: How do the above four meanings fit to SF practice? If we do that, it becomes obvious that with solution in the term Solution Focus only d) “Solution as what might emerge in the future in a somehow magical process.” can really be meant. 

  • a.) “Solution as a desired state in the future” cannot be meant with Solution Focus. On the one hand because most practitioners have other words for that desired state, e.g. preferred future. That would not be necessary, if solution was the word for this desired state. And on the other hand because most SF practitioners focus on more than this desired state, e.g. signs of progress and what worked in the past. If solution was the word for the desired state, then the term Solution Focus would only cover a part of what SF practitioners are doing.
  • b.) “Solution as a set of actions that lead to our desired state” can also not be meant. Otherwise the focus on small next steps or signs of progress would not make sense. The practitioner would need to engage in how exactly these actions lead to the preferred future. Most SF pracitioners would reject this linear idea.
  • c.) “Solution as what emerged in the past and led to our desired state.” could only be meant after the client reached the desired future and not before or during the session, so that can also not be meant with the term Solution Focus.

Only d makes sense: If “Solution is what might be emerging in the future in a somehow magical process.” then the term Solution Focus means that we focus on aspects that foster the emergence of useful change in the future, like

  • a detailed picture of the (interactions in the) preferred future. As soon as I see how I could behave and how others might react in my desired future in detail, I can start to behave like that and/or might notice instances of this happening much better and thus can react to those instances in a fruitful way in the future, so that useful change can emerge.
  • signs of progress. When I see how it might look like when the solution starts emerging, I might notice those changes, be able to amplify them, and foster useful change in the future much easier.
  • what worked in the past.  When I see what worked in the past, I can try out if this fits this new situation. On the one hand, I know that I was already able to do this and might be able to do it again. And on the other hand, if it worked in the past it might be encouraging to do more of it.

All these aspects foster the emergence of useful change, and thus the emergence of a solution, in the future. We cannot say what will exactly happen in our dynamic and complex world. The research however shows that Solution Focused conversations foster the emergence of useful change very much. Therefore, let’s look forward in a magical world – Solution (Focus) is where the magic happens!

 

 

Three questions to foster a detailed picture of the preferred future:
  • What are your best hopes from coming here?
  • Who could notice that you reached you best hopes? How could they notice? How might they react? And how might you react in response?
  • What other differences could reaching your best hopes make?
Three questions to explore signs of progress:
  • Suppose your best hopes are fulfilled tomorrow: How would you start noticing?
  • What could be first small signs that show you that your are on your way to your best hopes?
  • Who else could notice those small signs? And how? How would the person react? How would you react in reponse?
Three questions to find out what works and do more of it:
  • What has worked in similar situations before? Make a list of 25 things you did back then.
  • What were signs that showed you in your recent past that you are on your way to reach your best hopes?
  • Suppose that you moved one step closer to your best hopes: What would you notice yourself doing of the things that you are already doing now?

 

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This