The concept of circular interaction structures in systemic therapy and coaching

The systemic approach to therapy and coaching has been increasingly influential in Central Europe in the last two decades (cf. Königswieser 2011). The intellectual sources of this paradigm are, for instance, “Cybernetics, Information Theory, Communication Theory, Game Theory, General Systems Theory, Chaos Theory and Radical Constructivism” (von Schlippe

and Schweitzer 2003: 12). According to the systemic view of therapy and coaching, advisory communication should focus on the social systems of which an advisee is part, rather than on intrapsychological problems. Social systems, in turn, are formed by persons who

communicate with each other and who continuously interpret these communications as part of their subjective perceptions of realitiy (cf. Bateson 1972).

A seminal work on which systemic approaches draw in this regard is Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson’s title Pragmatics of Human Communication (1967). Famously,

Watzlawick et al. (1967) interpret the relational dynamic between the characters Martha and George in the play Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf by Edward Albee. As the authors argue, Martha and George have co-constructed an interactional dynamic that is characterised by enmity and the shared wish to outrival the other participant. Yet Watzlawick et al. (1967: 148) also claim:

(…) in its more general aspects, it appears to be collaborative conflict, or conflictive collaboration: there may be some “upper limit” to their escalation, and there are shared rules, as already implied, on how the game is played.

Thus, George and Martha participate in a dyadic social system constituted by stable

interactive patterns reinforced by means of feedback loops. A notable aspect of Watzlawick et al.’s approach is their suggestion that the individual communicative patterns displayed by the participants cannot be understood in isolation from the overarching interactional structure in which they emerged. Nevertheless, Watzlawick et al. argue that from the perspective of the individuals, interactional patterns are not perceived as circular, but as linear in the sense that the other interactant is considered as having initiated a pattern, “whereas the individual concerned conceives of himself only as reacting to, but not as provoking, those attitudes”

(Watzlawick et al. 1967: 99).

Up to the time at which this thesis was written, the circular view of interactional patterns represents a cornerstone of the systemic theory of therapy and coaching. König and Volmer (2000: 202-210) summarise the characteristics of interactional structures as follows:

(1) Interactional structures are recurring behavioral patterns of the participants.

(2) Interactional structures emerge on the basis of subjective interpretations of the participants: The other participant’s behaviour is interpreted negatively; one’s own behaviour is interpreted as an reaction to the other participant’s

behaviour.

(3) Interactional structures are influenced by rules.

(4) Interactional structures do not have an actual cause, but they emerge in the course of feedback processes within social systems.

(5) Dysfunctional interactional structures obstruct the development of social

systems.

Naturally, a perspective influenced by the goals of therapy and coaching tends to focus on pathological and problematic aspects of interactional patterns, as patients and clients enter advisory settings in order to solve problems. In consequence to this view, a vital part of communicative analyses within systemic therapy and coaching revolve around the question of how dysfunctional interactional structures may be altered into more viable ones. For instance, König and Volmer (2000: 210ff) mention the options of reframing interpretations, creating distance, avoiding to repeat solutions, and metacommunication.

In line with the concept of interactional structures, Schulz von Thun (1989b) introduces eight ‘styles of personality and relationships’: First, the needy-dependent style, second, the helping style, third, the self-less style, fourth, the aggressive-devaluating style, fifth, the overly assertive style, sixth, the dominating-controlling style, seventh, the distanced style, and eighth, the talkative-dramatising style.³⁸ According to Schulz von Thun,

interactants with complementary communicative styles may enter into dysfunctional interactional structures which represent vicious circles. For instance, figure 5.2 depicts the vicious circle that may emerge between an interactant adhering to a needy-dependent style (A) and an interactant following a distanced style (B). As A feels miserable and unloved he/she behaves accordingly, appealing to B that he/she should come to help. B, however, feels disturbed and is afraid he/she might become exhausted. Thus, he/she behaves accordingly and distances himself/herself from A, which further reinforces the vicious circle.

Figure 5.2: Vicious circle between needy-dependent style and distanced style (cf. Schulz von Thun 1989b: 69;

translations mine)

A further insight which is particularly relevant to this thesis is concerned with the fact that dysfunctional interactional patterns may not merely be talked about in therapy or coaching

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

38A related influential categorisation of communicative patterns is Satir’s (1972) distinction between ‘placating’,

‘blaming’, ‘computing’, and ‘distracting’ styles, all of which are described as coping reactions to feelings of low self-worth.

A: Feels miserable, lonely, left alone,

unloved.

A: Appealing to other "Help me, do not leave

me alone!"

B: Feels bothered, is afraid of becoming

exhausted B: Distancing himself/

herself from other

"Leave me alone, you must deal with this

yourself!"

sessions, but they may also emerge between the advisors and the advisees themselves.

Following De Shazer (1985), von Schlippe and Schweitzer (2003: 37) relate this

phenomenon to three different types of ‘contractual offers’ on the part of the advisees: Some advisees present themselves as ‘visitors’, who do not actually have explicit problems, and who do not really authorise the advisee to initiate change: “In this case, the interactions merely exchange compliments and positive interpretations of previous solutions, but no therapy and no tasks are offered”. The second category of contractual offer is made by

‘complainants’. While this type of advisee discusses problems, he/she expects that the solutions should be provided by others, whereas he/she is not willing to change anything about his/her own behaviour. Only the third type of contractual offer allows for a successful solution-finding process: ‘Customers’ do discuss problems, but they are also willing to make an active contribution to alter them. Thus, they are willing to commit themselves to a ‘contract of change’.

In contrast, if therapy or coaching interactions are conducted in a setting in which no actual contract of change exists, interactional structures in advisory systems may turn into dysfunctional patterns, such as, for example:

• The advisor makes suggestions; the client rejects them with the phrase “yes-but”.

• The advisor is attacked and defends himself/herself.

• The advisor introduces rules which are not observed (König and Volmer 2000: 220)

Thus, there is a common understanding in therapy and coaching literature that advisory talk can be conceived of on different levels: While interactions may display cooperative patterns at first sight (i.e. the client asks for help, and the therapist or coach provides advice), underlying motives may steer the process into circular interactional patterns that follow a completely different logic. In the following section, a particularly influential approach to the