Reframing Force-Field Analysis

Ask yourself, "How might I reframe my model of the force field? What are my beliefs and behaviors that may be contributing to resistance in our interaction?"

I think resistance to change is an interpersonal dynamic. But traditional change theory carries an unexamined premise that we coaches/consultants are not part of the problem. Our collaborative behaviors are assumed, and we tend to explain any resistance we encounter as an element within the client and/or the client system.

Lewin's force-field analysis is the most commonly used model to illustrate elements of change and resistance to change:

According to Lewin's model, pressing for change threatens stability and increases the power of forces maintaining the system, so the most effective way to bring about change is to reduce the forces of resistance. Note that Lewin's model, however, implies that resistance exists only on one side of the force field. As coaches and consultants, we see ourselves as "driving forces." Thus theory guides practice when we interpret resistance to change as emanating only from clients ("restraining forces").

In contrast, I believe both change forces and status quo forces exist within the interaction system. And if a system depicts an interaction, both driving and restraining forces must also be depicted as interactive:

This mental model guides us to interpret resistance to change as an interactive variable.  Instead of assuming resistance is something in your clients to 'overcome,' ask yourself, "How might I reframe my model of the force field? What are my beliefs and behaviors that may be contributing to resistance in our interaction?" 

Coniunctio: Accessing Polarities and Becoming Whole

(Ninth and last in the series on alchemy as metaphor for great coaching)

In Anatomy of the Psyche Edward F. Edinger describes alchemical operations as "basic categories by which to understand the life of the psyche" which "illustrate almost the full range of experiences that constitute individuation." He adds that many of the alchemical images overlap, and echoes the Jungian belief that there's no prescribed sequence. 

It's also been my experience that each person I coach has to undergo all aspects of what alchemists refer to as The Great Work, and not necessarily in the same order as others. So the order I've presented is arbitrary. More important, none of the client examples is meant to convey greater or lesser aspects of significant change; only different aspects. 

Coniunctio may seem in its definition to represent a culmination of all the operations:

Coniunctio—bringing together apparent opposites to make a larger whole; for example, uniting conscious and unconscious, balancing masculine and feminine principles, incorporating extroversion and introversion and, later, entering psychological wholeness.

It's important to understand, however, that this symbol includes two processes, first the bringing together of apparent opposites ("the lesser coniunctio"), and then later — perhaps after other processes such as mortificatio — the union of the opposites, which is greater than the sum of its parts ("the greater coniunctio - combines the opposites, mitigates and rectifies all one-sidedness")>

So the balancing of masculine and feminine, for example, is not "a little of this, a little of that." Or in the case of the client quoted below, her efforts to become more assertive did not lead to wholeness as long as she was still polarized between anxiety and confidence. The "two kinds of change" she describes represent her experience of the "lesser" and the "greater" coniunctio:

I've experienced two kinds of change in my life. The first kind, which really helps at the time, is not a major shift but rather becoming more effective at what I've always done. For example, when I was in graduate school I was so nervous presenting papers in class, I wished the earth would open up and swallow me. So I took assertiveness training and then taught assertiveness courses myself. I learned the behaviors that helped me act less nervous in front of a group. I think of that as incremental change, or in simple terms a "Band-Aid." I hadn't changed inside, but I knew how to handle anxiety when it appeared. I still felt a polarity between keeping quiet and girding myself up to speak in public.

The second kind of change is much more significant, a bolt of lightning where I suddenly "get" something about myself, a shift from being asleep to awakening. Relative to assertiveness, I "got" that behind the anxiety was a child who believed nobody was interested in what she had to say. I allowed myself to experience that child and her story fully, then something fundamental shifted inside. The story no longer matters. There is no polarity. I am both quiet and outspoken, both soft and strong.

(See also Calcinatio, Solutio, Solificatio, Nigredo, Separatio, Mortificatio, Sublimatio, Coagulatio)