With some of you I talked about a nice offer Stephanie and me made to a company: a slim SF structure for an intervention on organisational level. The strength of it was letting clients work, offering an easy and flexible plan with checkpoints in it to stop if it's better enough.

Since some of you showed nice appreciative curiosity I would like to tell you what happened since. We got a "No" and a positive comment on our offer. The decision of the client was to take an other offer which works with a classical consulting model and tells the client, what to do.

We are happy that it was possible to make enough clarity about our way of working and that we are not going to do the job instead of them.
We recognised that this is a relevant part of our offer and we really want to keep it in our work.

I just wanted to share this with you...
...and while sharing it I recognise one more thing:

I'm aware the same role-clarification happens somehow in one-to-one coaching as well. Also in one-to-one coaching clients decide whether the way of working fits to them.
I see a difference I’m not clear about yet. Is it that in a one-to-one-situation client already experienced the benefit (or the not-fitting) of the way of my working before she/he makes the decision to come again or not? And what about the organisational level? Working during the clarification meetings very SF helps clients to see, how it does feel and fit.
-is the difference about complexity?
-is the difference about confidence of the client that what worked in the clarification phase is strong/good enough during the further organisational work?
-is the difference about our own calmness by telling: here works the client even if the client “is” an organisation of 70 or 700 people?

Any nice questions to help me to get more clear? Anything what worked in your praxis?
Thanks! Kati