My response to this blog article.

Clean Language
I’m new to ACT and would like to hear more, starting with the basics.
I’ve heard about this article from Maarten and from a Clean Language forum. He has asked how a Clean Language trainer might approach the situation above (I’m not a trainer but have facilitated some groups).
Clean Language uses very open questions and almost no assumptions. Because of this, the facilitator works with the client to model or describe their experience ising their words and their structure (their sense of causation, sequence etc.) Clean Language makes use of metaphors and will accept a metaphor as a real description of a client’s experience.
Clean Language won’t make a group talk. It doesn’t use force, but the quality of listening and the (at least temporary) acceptance of the client’s perception and reality can win many people over.
Also, Clean Language tends to use client words or refer to gestures rather than make observations, but objective observations can be used well with it.
So what might I do with this group?
It might start with an observation or focusing in on a seemingly important comment.
Facilitator: “And there are no questions, and when there are no questions, what’s happening now?”
This is very different to a direct question of “Why don’t you answer?”. There is an enquiry, but not a demand, nor an implicit reference to what the group “should” do.
I will imagine the group says something periphery to the real problem, like ” I think we’ve had enough”.
A facilitator can bring more focus onto the immediate situation with “When you think you’ve had enough, and there are no questions, …what kind of enough is that enough?” or “…what happened just before ‘we’ve had enough’?”
The Clean Language facilitator can be there calmly, waiting for anything the group is willing to share and bring it in to model the situation.
After more group comments, a full recap of the model, which just reflects those comments, may look something like this:
“”When you’ve had enough,
and there are no questions
and this isn’t the right sort of session
and the project will go wrong like it did last time
and you’re always being squeezed
and whatever you do is never enough
what would you like to have happen?”
The Clean Language facilitator will seek to focus attention on a relevant part of the model or situation, according to their role. If the discussion was supposed to be about team meetings, then industrial action or potential law suits may be outside your valid role as facilitator.

A facilitator may start or re-start from other angles:
“And you’re always being squeezed; and what kind of squeezed is that squeezed?”
“Where does squeezed come from?”
“When ‘whatever you do is never enough’, is there anything else about ‘enough’ ? ”
Some questions sound funny, but when we’ve just used a metaphor like “squeezed”, then being asked about it seems natural.

Consider the term “stress-reduction”. If you tell me that’s what I need to do then I have a challenge to take something and remove or reduce it. I might not be good at that sort of solution. Phoebe from “Friends” goes to her “happy place”. She may use a journey metaphor to be happy, but might get very confused if told to reduce something called stress.

Good Clean Language facilitators can understand where the attention of a group is and ask a relvant question that encourages the group to share. They will focus on what the group would like to have happen and find out what needs to happen for that to happen.

Clean Language