Who knows better?

Add a Comment

Comment by Coert Visser on April 6, 2009 at 17:32

Hello Hans-Peter and Paolo, thank you for discussing the 4SFC model. I developed this model together with my colleague Gwenda Schlundt Bodien and we have been using it in our training practice for quite some time now. Many the participants in our training programs find it extremely clarifying and helpful, in particular those people who work in roles like line management, HR, project, organizational consulting and project management. Thank you Hans-Peter for your suggestions regarding the terminology. We'll think about that.
Cheers to both of you!
Coert

Comment by Paolo Terni on April 6, 2009 at 16:31

Hi Hans-Peter!!
Thanks for your notes and comments!

I think what you are saying is absolutely on point.
I like your examples.

Regarding the terminology, you should ask Coert.
As I mentioned in my previous comment, the model and the website you linked to are his.

Glad to hear my posting inspired you to do something different... and hopefully better for you and your clients!!

Have a great one,
ciao,
Paolo

Comment by Hans-Peter Korn on April 5, 2009 at 19:14

Thank you, Paolo, for providing your 4SFC-model (four solution-focused competencies model)!

Yes, it is a good "sense making framework" to sort out the differences between Helping / Directing /Training / Instructing out of a SF-view!

A small remark: How would it be for you to change "Helping" to "Facilitating"? "Helping" IMHO sounds a bit too "therapeutic" - "Facilitating" might be more appropriate in the business context. And how would it be to say "Leading" instead or in addition to "Directing"? (Of course - my mother tongue is not English ... maybe this is not a good idea...)

To illustrate the four fields in your framework I associate this field with this "questions" to an imaginative client:

HELPING / FACILITATING:
What are your own goals? What ideas do you have to achieve them based on your own resources?

TRAINING:
What are your own goals? What ideas do you have to achieve them? What do you think to learn from existing solutions and experiences from others?

INSTRUCTING:
What are the goals you are obliged to achieve? What ideas do you have to achieve them? What do you think to learn from existing solutions and experiences from others?

DIRECTING / LEADING:
What are the goals you are obliged to achieve? What ideas do you have to achieve them based on your own resources?


This four fields are also very useful to make clear, how SF "works". I show it as example for "Instructing":

The "Non-SF"-work might be:
This, I read in my contract, are the goals you are obliged to achieve.
And this are proven solutions, experiences from others and best practices I will learn you to apply.

The "SF-work" sounds like this:
What - in your words - are the goals you are obliged to achieve?
What ideas do you have to achieve them?
How would it be for you to see some proven existing solutions and experiences from others and some best practices?
And to think about how to transfer them into your context?

What do you think about this "illustrations"? How far are they "in line" with that how you understand your model?


It is funny: some years ago I used exactly the same "four field grid" and used it at the beginning of my coaching-lessons that way:

I divided the whole room into this four fields and asked the participants all together to step into each of this field and to share, how it is for them
1. as a client and then
2. as a coach or trainer
to stand in this field.

So, your posting, Paolo, inspires me to use it again!

Cheers
Hans-Peter

Comment by Paolo Terni on April 5, 2009 at 14:34

Hello Hans-Peter,
thanks for your comments!

Very interesting question.

I think expertise is very important.
However, it can be used in very different ways to coach an individual or a team.
As the "scrum coaches" you mentioned do, you can use your experience to train the team.
Or you can use your experience to ask the right questions.
For example, if you see the team headed in a direction that, according to your previous experiences, can lead to a bad outcome, you can ask them questions to focus their attention on what lays in that direction - maybe they did not think of it, maybe they thought of it and this time , with this team, there is going to be a different outcome. We don't know yet. But by asking questions, they will try to find an answer "within their own (and unique) game".
As the joke goes: you bring a car that does start up to a car repairman, he looks it over 2 minutes, then grabs the hammer and -bam- one single hit at the right place and the car works. The bill handed to you: 100 euros. You complain: that is a lot for just a hammer strike. He then gets the bill back and rewrites it: for the hammer strike, 1 euro; for knowing where to hit, 99 euros.
Well, I guess the expert scrum coaches can charge that much for asking the right questions at the right time!

Just a few thoughts...
of course there are situations where a more direct approach is called for.
I think it is very useful the grid that Coert Visser developed, here: http://solutionfocusedchange.blogspot.com/2008/10/situational-model-of-solution-focused.html

Thanks again for your comments and your questions,
ciao,
Paolo

Comment by Hans-Peter Korn on April 5, 2009 at 12:41

Thank you, Paolo, for this blog!

Yes, I can share your thoughts!
In the last time I became involved in very engaged and sometimes emotional "looking for the truth" discussions about this statement:
"If a project teams should work in an "agile" manner based on "scrum" it is essential, that the team, which should work in a self organized manner, first has to learn from an experienced "Scrum Coach" or "Scrum Master" how to apply the "given" process, roles, ceremonies, artefacts following the "Scrum schoolbook". And the team can start to modify his manner to work from that time only, when the "Scrum Coach" or "Scrum Master" is sure, that the team is experienced enough to do such modifications in his own competence ."

In this discussion I argued based on the idea, that, using your words, "If we understand the team as a self organizing team - the team is not in need of enlightenment or education. The team is the expert. The team do not need to learn a new game or new rules; the persons forming the team simply got entangled in their own rules. They need only to play with their own rules, within their own game, to disentangle themselves."

And as responses I received:

"We are experienced practitioners in the roles of "Scrum Coaches" or "Scrum Masters" for many, many years ... and we have collected so many "Does and Don't s" how to bring Scrum to work ... the customers are paing us for this experiences!"

And:

"If the persons in a team needs only to play with their own rules, within their own game, to disentangle themselves - what is MY contribution to that as a "Scrum Coach" or "Scrum Master" which is worth enough to be paid??"

So, my questions is, what can we offer such "Scrum Coaches" or "Scrum Masters" to contribute INSTEAD "to train" the team in the role of an "expert"? What are those contributions a customer is very willing to pay EUR 600 or more per day???