Systemic intervention | about 35 minutes | free
Separate data from inference and turn an ambiguous request into a discussable commitment.
An original conversation exercise bridging several distinct practices. It does not certify coaching or facilitation skill, and should not be used to compel disclosure of personal or confidential material.
This is original learning material, not a reproduced official course. Mechanical checks have determinate answers within the stated case. Worked comparisons for open judgements show defensible reasoning, not the only possible model. Specialist pedagogical review is not recorded.
Fictional transcript: Sam says 'Could you get the referral picture sorted soon?' Lee replies 'I'll see what I can do.' Three days later Sam says 'You never follow through.' Lee says 'You keep changing what you want.' Sam privately thinks Lee is avoiding responsibility. Lee privately thinks Sam wants a complete service redesign, which Lee cannot authorise. No deadline, output, quality criterion or decision right was agreed.
Use paper, your own drawing tool or the notes below. Attempt each step before opening its comparison. Describe a diagram in words when that is more accessible.
Produce: A two-column observation/inference record.
The quoted statements are supplied observations. Avoidance and an expectation of complete redesign are inferences. 'Never' and 'keep changing' are generalisations not established by this short transcript. Ask for examples without denying the speakers' experience.
Produce: Request, clarification, promise, completion and satisfaction, marking absent stages.
There is an ambiguous request and a non-committal response. Clarification and a firm promise are absent. No agreed completion test exists, so later dissatisfaction cannot fairly be treated as breach of a clearly specified promise. This does not establish that either person has no responsibility; it locates the missing conversation.
Produce: A short replacement exchange.
Sam: 'I expected a one-page map by Friday, but I did not specify that. What did you understand, and what can you commit to?' Lee: 'I understood a redesign. I can map the current referral routes by Friday if the three leads provide examples; I cannot approve changes. Shall we agree that scope?' The repair exposes reasoning and negotiates a feasible commitment.
Produce: One observation and an invitation, without a forced confession.
For example: 'We seem to agree quickly and discover different expectations later. Could we examine one instance and how our authority and workload affect what we promise?' Do not announce that you have diagnosed everyone's hidden motives.
These checks test the supplied case, not your overall competence. Open answers and model variants still need your judgement.
The coach instructs Lee to admit avoidance and labels any disagreement a defensive routine.
Make the coach's interpretation contestable. Return to examples, test alternative explanations and negotiate clearer commitments. A method that makes disagreement proof of its own diagnosis prevents learning.
Lee now promises the one-page map, but a service lead refuses access. What should happen before Friday?
Lee should communicate the changed condition, explain the effect and renegotiate scope, support or timing. Keeping silent until the deadline sustains the same pattern. Sam should address authority and access rather than treating every dependency as Lee's personal failure.
A different model can be defensible when its purpose, assumptions and reasoning are explicit. A contradiction, incorrect unit, invented fact or unacknowledged change of purpose needs repair. Keep both your first attempt and revision.
No sign-in or submission is required. Notes are not sent by this practice tool. Use fictional information, not identifiable client or learner data. Saving stores this page's attempt only in this browser; clearing browser data can remove it. Export a copy to keep it elsewhere.
The complete original case above is free. Links below distinguish exercises from explanations, recordings, software and paid study. Reading a page or drawing in a tool is not itself a model check.
Further reading for each framework row, including the separate references associated with transposing theory.
Public sharing confirmed; approach and theory bibliography inspected. The presence of a reference does not establish that it contains self-check exercises.
Use the cases to examine legitimacy, boundaries, agency and learning partnerships. The original case here provides the checkable rehearsal.
Authors' page, free PDF route and paperback links inspected. It is a related social-learning resource, not identical to every method grouped in the bridge exercise.
Ask for practice with feedback in the named approach, rather than assuming every recording includes assessment.
The page lists coverage including CONAN, INFORMED and multi-methodology. Availability and individual tutor feedback require an enquiry.
Choose another practice area · Task-only version · Worked-answer version