George: It lets me know I'm still desirable to other women, and makes me feel important.
Every time that I ask them an outcome question, I loosen up the context in which the behavior occurs. That gives me more freedom to move. George probably won't object to her having a sense of security, and she won't object to his feeling important and desirable. What they each object to is the specific behavior, not the outcome.
Now I use this information to formulate a common outcome that they can both agree to. «So am I correct that you both would like to find some mutually agreeable arrangement whereby, Jean, you can have a sense of security and desirability, and George, you will also feel important and desirable.»
If Jean and George both agree to this, I've got a common agreement frame within which to begin negotiations. Now I can work toward finding a specific solution. I can ask Jean, «What other ways could he unequivocally demonstrate to you that you have this kind of security that you desire?» And I can ask George, «What other ways are there for you to feel desirable and important?»
Man: Suppose that she says «No, that's the only way," and he also says «No, that's the only way.»
I have my doubts about that; I believe there is always something else behind the behavior and other ways to accomplish it. But if they both firmly believe that there are no alternatives, I will question the frame around our interaction.
«Look, I don't know of any basis for negotiation right now. Is there a basis for you two to continue together? Let's get explicit about this. I don't want to waste my time, and I don't want to waste your time and money. Are you interested in committing a certain amount of time and energy to finding out if things can be changed in a way that would be exciting and interesting enough for you to be together again? Or have you already committed yourself someplace else?»
If there aren't any positive intentions that they are willing to reveal, it may be that there isn't any basis for negotiation. Suppose she is already madly in love with someone else and carrying on an affair. It's just a question of getting rid of this creep and moving on. That's what's often called a «hidden agenda.» Getting explicit about a basis for negotiation and framing the overall process will smoke out hidden agendas, and that does everybody a favor!
Woman: If that's the case, since your investment is not to keep them together, doesn't she still need to work out the separation with you? Wouldn't she need to work out how to leave him and go to the other man?
Yes, if she's ready. And I've got to help him recover whatever parts of himself he has invested in being with her.
Challenging the negotiation frame usually scares them, and motivates them both to put more effort into finding mutually acceptable solutions. Then I can go for outcomes, or meta–outcomes—the outcome of the outcome.
«Jean, what would knowing that you are secure do for you?' «George, what would knowing that you are attractive to other females do for you?» Both will probably say, in effect, «Well, I'd have a sense of self–worth for myself that I don't really have now.» Now I've got a further loosening of the frame. In order to loosen the frame I can go to outcomes, or meta–outcomes, or meta–meta–outcomes. «Jean, are there any other ways to get self–worth?» Typically if I go that deep into intentions, there will be many behaviors which will satisfy that need. When you get that general, you're going to have to do a lot of experiential testing, because they really won't know at that point if the alternative behaviors will be acceptable.
One of the first things I do is to engage in negotiation to establish a three–month moratorium on sexual activities outside of this relationship during which time he will have a chance to try out some of the new behaviors which will satisfy the needs that he has which monogamy denies at this point. That will also give her three months to engage all her resources in finding ways to discover how she can develop security for herself and in this relationship, so that the notion of his being involved with another woman doesn't threaten her in the way it presently does.
As we mentioned before, I can send them out to find models. I'd ask the wife «Are any of the women that you know and really respect in a non–monogamous relationship? How do they take care of their sense of security?» I'd say to the husband «Do you know any men who you really respect and admire, and who are monogamous and perfectly satisfied with their own desirability? Good, I want you to go hang out with them and find out what they do.»
The search for alternative behaviors can be carried out internally with all their unconscious resources, and also externally by using models around them. Don't be afraid to give them homework. Have them go out and find appropriate models to watch and listen to.
Woman: You said if there's a basis for negotiation, then there's always a frame in which there is a possibility for change.
Those two things are synonymous. By frame or basis for negotiation I mean «Is there some common outcome which you can both agree to? For instance, are you committed to staying with this woman? Are you committed to staying with this man?» That may be the only frame that they can agree on, and of course each of them may have conditions.
Once they have agreed on an outcome frame, then you can negotiate on the way of achieving it. «George, there is some set of behaviors that will satisfy your needs and still be within the frame of your staying with this woman.» «Jean, there are some behaviors that we're going to have to discover for you which will allow you to stay with this man and still have the kind of security that you desire. Our task now is to discover what those behaviors are.»
Man: When you ask the framing question, and one of them responds «I don't know if I want to stay together or not» how do you proceed from there?
Then I negotiate for a trial period of trying out new choices. «George, are you willing to spend three months accepting this constraint of being monogamous which you consider artificial?» Or «Jean, are you willing to spend three months not accepting the constraint that you desire for your security, in order to find out whether there are behaviors that can be discovered which will satisfy you within this framework?»
Being very explicit becomes important at this point. Whenever there is a head–on–head disagreement about a certain piece of behavior within the relationship, then jump out to the outcome frame and find out if there is one that is acceptable. If there is one, you can proceed. If there's not, you may as well be explicit about that and save everybody time.
Finding a common outcome or agreement frame between members of a family, couple, or organization is a very important step that many therapists or consultants miss. They usually attempt to find specific solutions too soon, and then there are objections. I'd like to have you do an exercise in which your primary task is to find a common outcome. If you also have time to identify a workable solution, fine.
Do this in four–person groups. A and B are members of a couple or organization. C is the programmer. D will be the meta–person. I want C to specify the context—business or therapy. A and B will then generate some conflict, and C, the programmer will do the following:
Agreement Frame Exercise
1) Ask A and B what, specifically, they want, and then restate it to their satisfaction as a pace.
2) Ask both A and B what their specific outcome will do for them (their meta–outcome) and restate it.
3) Find a common outcome such that when you state it, both A and B agree it is what they want. «So what you both want is …»
When you are the programmer, I want you to get as general as you need to in order to find an outcome that both partners will agree to. Sometimes all you will be able to get agreement on will be, «So you are both here in order to find some way to continue your relationship to your mutual benefit and satisfaction.»