The Affirmative Model for Coaching Storytellers by Liz Warren

We have used an affirmative coaching model in our classes since the beginning of the South Mountain Community College Storytelling Institute. We learned the model from the work of Doug Lipman at National Storytelling Network conferences in the late 1990s. It is similar to the well-known Critical Response Theory developed by McArthur Awardee Liz Lerman.

The first director of the Storytelling Institute, Lorraine Calbow, was the person most responsible for us adopting this approach. As a counselor, she was very aware of the prevalence of criticism in our culture and our classes, and the destructive impact it often had on students. She was adamant that a feedback model based in critique, on what was "wrong," was out of alignment with the goals of the Storytelling Institute.

The affirmative coaching model is based in just that – affirmation.

Once someone tells a story, the first thing they are told is what the listeners noticed that the teller did well and what they liked about the story. Any subsequent feedback is at the complete discretion of the teller.  The facilitator will ask the teller if they have questions for the listeners. If they do, they ask and get responses from the listeners. The facilitator will then ask if the teller would like questions from the listeners, and if they do the teller then responds to those questions. Suggestions are not the focus of the model, but if the facilitator deems it relevant, they will ask the teller if they want some suggestions. If the teller says no at any stage after the affirmations, the facilitator accepts that and moves on.

Lipman says that tellers know somewhere in themselves what the story needs, and that through the questions and dialogue about the story, whatever needs to be addressed will come to light. And over time, as the tellers become more experienced, they get better at troubleshooting their own stories and asking for what they need. 

The affirmative coaching model is meant to insure that the power and authority for the story remains with the teller. This can be challenging initially, as instructors are socialized that it is their job to be the authority and provide instruction and correction. It can be frustrating for students, too, who are used to being told what to do. I’ve often been asked at the beginning of a class, “How am I going to get better if you don’t tell me what I’m doing wrong?”

Having used this model for years, I can attest to its power and effectiveness. Here are the main reasons it works:

• The affirmations: People hear what they did well. They know to keep those elements in their stories. They begin to see patterns in the feedback, and that leads to an understanding of their style and its strengths. Receiving affirmations from others also helps strengthen the bonds between tellers.
• The questions to and from the teller: This is where any growth points can be specifically addressed. If, for example, the teller asks if a certain part of the story was clear, and it wasn’t, the listeners have the opportunity (and the obligation) to respond honestly, politely, and in the spirit of collaboration.  Similarly, if a listener asks the teller about a part of the story that was unclear, or that they wanted more information about, the teller can reflect on that as they continue to hone the story.
• Teaching tellers to maintain their authority in the process: New tellers sometimes say to their listeners, “Just tell me how I can make the story better.” This effectively hands the power for the story over to the listeners, which is what we are trying to avoid. When this happens, I intervene and remind them to ask specific questions. This can be challenging, as sometimes the teller just has an uneasy feeling. Part of learning the model is to encourage tellers to ask something like, “I felt uneasy in the part about leaving home. Did anyone else feel uneasy there.”
• Repetition: Over time, as students engage in this process as tellers and listeners, they see its positive effect on themselves and others. They see the effective techniques that others use, and they see what comes up in the questions and how people integrate that information in their next stories. They get used to taking the responsibility for their own creative products, and to eventually relish that.
• Suggestions: Sometimes a suggestion must be made to insure that the teller isn’t inadvertently causing offense or putting themselves in a bad light. This usually has to do with a point of fact or pronunciation. But sometimes it does have to do with cultural values and assumptions that the teller may not be aware will alienate or be offensive to listeners. As you might imagine, this requires care and sensitivity to address.  Sometimes it’s best to speak with the teller privately, but it often must be addressed in the whole class so that others know they are safe and can have continued confidence in the facilitator.

Lerman, Liz, and John Borstel. Liz Lerman's Critical Response Process: a method for getting useful feedback on anything you make, from dance to dessert. Dance Exchange, Inc.; 1st edition (July 1, 2003).

Lipman, Doug. Improving Your Storytelling: Beyond the Basics for All Who Tell Stories in Work and Play. August House; Illustrated edition (January 1, 1999).

Lipman, Doug. The Storytelling Coach: How to Listen, Praise, and Bring Out People's Best.  August House; 1st Edition (October 12, 2006).

Comments

[Dee Dee]

Another blog from you, Liz just filled with helpful information. While I may not have had a clear idea of why it is structured the way it is I can attest to its effectiveness. I have kept in mind what listeners have appreciated and tried to incorporate that when crafting new stories and when I am not sure about a piece of the story I will keep drilling down until I know where exactly I need help.