IN DRAFT comments via our twitter feed please! @AFCambit

Introduction:

Connecting Conversations are what we use the Dis-integration grid to identify and prioritise, and are one of the key ways of Addressing Dis-integration, one of the Core Features of AMBIT.
Here we explain why they are worth pursuing, and how to go about that.

What's the Problem? (What's the point of connecting conversations?)

When two parts of a network are Dis-integrated they could be represented on The AMBIT Pro-Gram as being far apart, and poorly mentalizing of each other. Another way of explaining this refers back to the Dis-integration grid, in that there is misalignment between:

• the EXPLANATIONS ("What's the problem I am trying to help with?")
• the INTERVENTIONS ("What to do about these problems that might help?")
• the SYSTEMIC RESPONSIBILITIES ("Who should be doing what to support the changes that we think will help?")

The impact on a client of this is that:

• they may perceive these people as being unhelpfully in conflict
• they feel that in fulfilling the wishes of one of them, they will inevitably upset the other.
• the interventions are poorly coordinated, and ineffective, so that the honest intentions to be helpful in both of these individuals (this could apply to two workers, as much as it could apply to two parents) are undermined.

The point of a connecting conversation is to bring these two (or more) elements in a network into closer alignment, so that even though it may not be possible to "convert" either to each other's viewpoint, there is more accurate mentalization of each other. In this way the dilemma becomes explicit rather than hidden, and the network as a whole can be invited to rearrange itself in ways that - mindful of the overall intention to help the client - at least reduces the most negative impacts.

Principles

• Dis-integration is inevitable and normal in any multi-agency or multi-professional system: it is the "natural resting state" of our working environment, and should not be seen as requiring professional shame or blame as a response. Mentalizing each other is harder in conditions of stress.
• Managing connecting conversations is not a mechanical process, but diplomacy. Manners, respect, authenticity, humour, creativity... Connecting (and maintaining connection) is a process rather than a single event
• Connecting conversations require Mentalization to be active in order for them to work - which requires that affect should be addressed.
• Connecting conversations might be required around differences (dis-integration) over Explanations, Interventions or Responsibilities (see Dis-integration grid) and being clear about what the misalignment is, and how differently these might need to be addressed is important.
• Take responsibility for your own state of mind in preparing for any connecting conversation.
• Take responsibility for facilitating the meeting so as to give people an experience that they have been thought about:
• I'll organise a room"..."I'll call X or Y to arrange this"...
• Arranging HOSPITALITY is part of the work of creating conditions in which mentalizing is more likely.
• This doesn't necessarily man investing a lot of time or money into providing "luxuries" for the other worker, but in "homemade offerings" that speak of an investment in our relationship
• Holding the Balance: Connecting conversations are often in the territory of balancing the two core AMBIT stance principles of Scaffolding existing relationships and Managing Risk, as well, more generally as Reflection and Action.
• No change is possible if the other people involved do not experience their own position as properly understood.
• We may be misunderstanding this situation as much as anyone else
• It is NOT about convincing other people to change.
• "The hardest thing to change is your own mind"
• Influence (your ambit) is granted by others, rather than "won" - through accurately mentalizing the other, rather than "pulling rank".

Practice

2 questions:

"What don't I know about this situation that is leading me to think about it differently from her/him?"

"What information do I have, that I may not have communicated clearly enough in order to make better sense to people holding these different points of view?"

EXAMPLES:

There may be an escalator of interventions - there is certainly not one way to go about this:

• (i) A letter broadcasting my understanding about the young person's dilemma, circulated to the relevant parties.
• (ii) Direct call to another worker: "Can you give me a hand with X or Y? I'm worried that thing could get worse if we can't find a way forwards..."
• (iii) Visiting a worker, or inviting them to visit - empathy, mentalizing, measures to provide emotional containment/humour/nourishment (cup of tea, etc!)
• (iii) Conducting a group exercise with the relevant parties by co-creating The AMBIT Pro-Gram for that particular client. "There are lots of us who are worried about this young person, and I wonder if it would be helpful if we tried to map out who is relating to him, and how these different relationships are working? How do we use what we have already got as effectively as possible?"
• (iv) Coaching a worker about perspectives and ways to address differences with a third worker.

Naming the worker's (who is trying to intervene to address disintegration) dilemma: "I can't tell these people what to do"

Marking the task:

• Clarify in your own mind who are you working towards connecting with whom, and in relation to what? This should be a purposeful, planned piece of work.
• Ideally a connecting conversation would conclude with efforts on the part of both "positions" to understand (mentalize) the other, to understand the impact of the dis-integration upon the client, and to convey willingness to change one's own state of mind and position to better serve the needs of the client.
• Whether or not the dis-integrated perspectives or interventions are changed, the first effort is towards improving the way each one understands the other.
• Ideally we are inviting people in different positions to ask themselves:

"What don't I know about this situation that is leading me to think about it differently from her/him?"

"What information do I have, that I may not have communicated clearly enough in order to make better sense to people holding these different points of view?"

Remember that to mentalize someone else does not mean the same thing as to agree with everything they say or do - see Individual Differences and Disagreements for a bit more detail on this.

What to do? How to go about connecting other parts of a network?

1. Define what is your ambit:

• Are you clear enough about the TASK you are trying to achieve in thinking about creating a specific connecting conversation?
• Remember your limits: you may be working on the basis of some quite tentative attempts to mentalize other workers, or agencies, and this is not the same as being right!
• Do you have the authority to "demand" a meeting between two parts of the network ("See me in my office!")? - In many cases this is not the case, and a worker will be addressing other parts of the network that have no duty or obligation to listen to what they are saying. You can still look for opportunities to influence, however.
• Other ways of exerting influence: Without a formal (managerial, supervisory) responsibility, there are usually still ways that you can helpfully influence other relationships.

2. Be strategic:

• Think together with other members of your team, or managers: this is vital to ensure that your proposed approach is not likely to disturb other negotiations, processes that you may be unaware of, and "makes sense" to others.
• Use your team: Consider the possibility that there may be another person in your team who would be better placed to take this on. However, your own "strength" is in the fact that you are engaged and close the the client that everyone is trying to help.
• Keep your eye on the overarching TASK: the purpose is not "get worker A back into line" but to help create a network that is experienced as helpful and effective by your client!

3. Start by sharing your own perspective and dilemma

• A helpful starting point is to address this with each of the people involved, individually, and try "asking for help", rather than telling them what's required.
• This might be via a phone call or face to face meeting, but in some cases via email or letter (if there is a high likelihood of misunderstanding, then speaking about these issues tends to be more successful).
• A first strategy might be to try to explain to the key parties what is YOUR OWN dilemma as a worker trying to help. Invite them to help you make sense of what you have observed/experienced:

"Can you help me find the best way to support your work without undermining another worker in Team X, because I am keen to help address a whole range of different needs in our client, and at present it feels as though if I support you, I am actually at risk of undermining worker Z."

• Remember that Features of Successful Mentalizing include tentativeness, acceptance of the limits of one's own knowing ("Minds are Opaque"), self-deprecating humour...

4. Try to mentalize their dilemma

• You are trying to create Epistemic Trust through accurately mentalizing their predicament and response - without this there is limited scope for your own ideas to be perceived as interesting or worth trying out.
• Start from an assumption that they are behaving in the best way possible in an impossible situation, consider the different pressures and demands that they may be subject to (targets, managerial direction, client demands, exhaustion and overwhelm, etc).

5. Use a mentalized account of the client's perspective

• Keep to the primary task by talking about your perception of the impact of the Dis-integration upon the client.

6. Apply the same principles of Active Planning

• See Active Planning: a core process with clients