The Evolution of the Problem-Remedy-Outcome (PRO) Model By James Lawley & Penny Tompkins | Published 22 Feb 2020 | cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/blogs/104/

Penny and James, how long did you work on developing the P.R.O. model? It looks deceptively easy but has so many facets. I’m on my nth iteration of learning P.R.O. and remain hopeful to crack the formula one day (I’m looking forward to InsideClean already)!

Doris Leibold’s question (Doris is a member of our online Symbolic Modelling e-Supervision group) stimulated us to search through our digital archives and walk down memory lane. It was fascinating to look back at the journey we have taken. Following is the history of the evolution of the Problem-Remedy-Outcome (PRO) model with explanatory diagrams created at the time.

And, this is our first blog in three years. Thank you Doris!

1996 - We first presented our ideas on "Problem, Solution, Outcome Thinking in Organisations” during business trainings (without any Clean Language). The definitions were largely based on the work of Robert Fritz (The Path of Least Resistance, 1989). In the following 24 years our thinking about this topic has developed, and yet these basic ideas still influence us today.

The Evolution of the Problem-Remedy-Outcome (PRO) Model James Lawley & Penny Tompkins, 22 Feb 2020, cleanlanguage.co.uk

of 1 7

APPROACHES TO THINKING

Problem-Orientated Thinking

Being able to accurately define the current situation, to downside plan, to learn from past mistakes are all very valuable attributes of problem-orientated thinking. However, if it becomes the dominant way of thinking it leads to a narrowness of viewpoint and a stifling of ideas.

Behavioural indicators of problem-orientated thinking are: The manager who immediately asks, “What’s the problem?”. The student who often comments, “It’s difficult.” The person who tells you what’s wrong with something, why it won’t work, what they don’t like, how it failed in the past, what are the pitfalls.

Solution-Orientated Thinking

Managers are commonly trained to think in terms of defining and solving problems. For many, solving problems is their raison d'être. Problem solving can be exciting. It can give a feeling of importance, of achieving, and of certainty. However, focussing on problem solving alone can lead to a false sense of security and missing the big picture. You know just what you’re supposed to do: find and solve problems. But, if you didn’t have any problems, what would you do?

Outcome-Orientated Thinking

In outcome thinking the most powerful question you can ask yourself is, “What do I/we want?” At any time and in any situation — regardless of the circumstances — you can always ask and answer that question. Whether you think in terms of goals, objectives, results or vision the process starts the same way: 1. Ask, “What do I/we want?”; 2. Consider what you want independent of the process of achieving it; and 3. Separate what you want from issues of possibility, desirability, obligation or correctness – these can come later. Then, orientating your thinking towards your outcome will help you organise your actions, focus on your values and decide what is relevant.

James Lawley, The Developing Company, presentation to BT Forum, 24 Oct 1996

PROBLEM

PROBLEM

OUTCOME 1

OUTCOME 2

2001 - While in France we were training ‘How to cleanly work with outcomes’. During a small-group activity we noticed several participants in the client role were in tears or visibly upset. We wondered, “What on earth is going on here? We told them to develop a desired outcome!”. We checked that the facilitators had asked, ‘And what would you like to have happen?’ and used Clean Language questions … and that’s when we had an ah-ha moment.

We checked how the facilitators were responding to the client’s answers and we realised two things: (a) they were not attending to the client information in the same way we did; and (b) they were not asking questions to invite their client to stay with their desired outcome. And guess what, sooner or later the clients ended up deeply unresourced in a problem state.

2002 - To figure out how we modelled and responded to clients’ information, we took a bunch of our coaching and therapy transcripts and self-modelled the way we facilitated. We called the result the PSO (Problem-Solution-Outcome) model. It identified the precise client language structures which distinguished the three categories. It also provided the relevant Clean Language questions needed to invite the client to attend, or continue to attend, to a desired Outcome of their choosing. Here is our first flowchart of the model:

The Evolution of the Problem-Remedy-Outcome (PRO) Model James Lawley & Penny Tompkins, 22 Feb 2020, cleanlanguage.co.uk

of 2 7

1. Developing a Desired Outcome

And what would you like to havehappen?

SOLUTION

And when [solution],• then what happens?• what happens next?

PROBLEM DESIREDOUTCOME

Questions to DEVELOP

Metaphor for Outcome

And when [problem] ...

Names, addressesand relationships ofSymbols identified?

v2.0 © 2002, Penny Tompkins & James Lawley, The Developing Companywww.cleanlanguage.co.uk

YES

NO

Effects of achievingDesired Outcome

identified?

YES

NO

And when [outcome],• then what happens?• what happens next?

To“2. IDENTIFYING CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR

CHANGE”

Once we had come up with the PSO model, discussions with Phil Swallow and Wendy Sullivan helped us refine it. For example, they helped us see that the model’s primary metaphor is ‘adding to, or reducing, what already exists world’. Here is a simpler, more attractive version of the model drawn on a flip chart by Phil at the time:

The Evolution of the Problem-Remedy-Outcome (PRO) Model James Lawley & Penny Tompkins, 22 Feb 2020, cleanlanguage.co.uk

of 3 7

We also integrated the model into our ‘A Framework for Change' coaching process which we were developing at the time (shown in the following diagram). A comprehensive description of the final 2010 version of this model is available at A Clean Framework for Change.

2004 - In training the PSO model we realised many people’s predetermined ideas of what “solution” meant prevented them modelling the client’s information in the way we did. So we decided to change ’Solution’ to ‘(proposed) Remedy’ to make the distinction easier to grasp – and the Problem-Remedy-Outcome (PRO) was born.

The Evolution of the Problem-Remedy-Outcome (PRO) Model James Lawley & Penny Tompkins, 22 Feb 2020, cleanlanguage.co.uk

of 4 7

2006 - We published the article COACHING FOR P.R.O.’s in Coach the Coach magazine

2007 - PRO covers three key categories of experience. And clearly there are more than three. We extended PRO into REPRO (Resource, Explanation, Problem, Remedy, desired Outcome). The complicated diagram that follows was first unveiled on an advanced module for The Clean Change Company. It attempts to integrate A Framework for Change and the 7 Approaches, (i.e. the ‘6 Approaches’ from Metaphors in Mind plus ‘adjacency’ – see the article Proximity and Meaning)

The Evolution of the Problem-Remedy-Outcome (PRO) Model James Lawley & Penny Tompkins, 22 Feb 2020, cleanlanguage.co.uk

of 5 7

2010 - Eventually REPRO grew into REPROCess. We added ‘Change’ as a separate category (and the ‘ess’ so we had a word that made sense!). We claim these are the six most common types of description not only used by clients, but by everyone.

2012 - We published the model under the title, REPROCess: Modelling Attention.

2011 - An opportunity to write a chapter for a book on innovative methods prompted us to review the Frameworks and we made a major revision, creating Symbolic Modelling Lite (which of course still includes the PRO model). This still forms the basis of our way of working today, and you can download the chapter at: Symbolic Modelling: Emergent change through metaphor and Clean Language.

The Evolution of the Problem-Remedy-Outcome (PRO) Model James Lawley & Penny Tompkins, 22 Feb 2020, cleanlanguage.co.uk

of 6 7

2020 - We have always acknowledged our debt to David Grove as the source of so much of what now constitutes Clean. David introduced us to ‘And what would you like to have happen?’ and although there were periods when he asked this question, he seldom spent much time developing an outcome landscape. As you can see, we developed the above models in parallel with the processes David created in the last seven years of his life (he died in 2008) and we continue to refine these models to this day.

You can find out about our latest thinking on Problems, Remedies, Outcomes and Resources on our online workshop, InsideClean Series 2: The structure of desire.

The Evolution of the Problem-Remedy-Outcome (PRO) Model James Lawley & Penny Tompkins, 22 Feb 2020, cleanlanguage.co.uk

of 7 7