Tag Archives: Neuro-Linguistic Programming

As a meta of fact

All articles, ,

Sometimes, the words and phrases which are so well understood in one sphere require translation in another. I was reminded of this last week when I shared with a coaching client the idea of taking a meta-position and was asked to explain this term. It seemed like a good opportunity to write a posting.

The prefix “meta-” from the Greek seems to refer to a change e.g. of position or form. Various definitions point to something that refers to itself or something that is one step removed. In the world of neurolinguistic programming (or NLP) this prefix has been used in a variety of ways and it is from this use in NLP that I borrow the term. One powerful process in NLP is called the “meta-mirror”, a process by which the individual steps fully into his or her emotions and the script that accompanies these emotions about another person (“first position”), then steps into the metaphorical shoes of the person about whom he or she is talking (“second position”), then steps into the position of observer of self and other (“third position”) before stepping into a “fourth” position to observe the initial self (in “first position”) and the second self (in “third position”) and to decide which version of the “self” is more resourceful in responding to the original stimulus.

In nonviolent communication (or NVC) the metaphor “jackal” is used to refer to the kind of things we say when we are in first position and without awareness of our self-talk and the term “giraffe” is used to describe the thoughts and speech that come when we have stepped back to observe our feelings and to connect with the needs that underpin our feelings. The point about our “jackals” (or gremlins as they are often called in wider circles) is that they guide our lives in certain directions whether we want them to or not. At the same time, when we develop the ability to stand back and observe them – well, frankly, they often don’t stand up to close inspection.

So why is the NLP “meta-mirror” process so powerful? Precisely because the ability to step out of one’s shoes and observe oneself at one step removed opens up choices and possibilities which are not there without this ability to self-reflect. In our own shoes for example, we might say “John is so irritating. He always arrives late at meetings and he is never prepared”. In saying this, our attention is on John and John alone. The minute we are able to take a meta-position and to become an observer of the self we add all sorts of information to the picture. We can learn for example, that we feel angry. And we can examine whether John’s behaviour is the cause of our emotion or simply a stimulus, recognising that the cause of our anger is actually the thoughts we have about John’s habitual lateness. With this comes the ability to reflect on our response to John’s lateness and to adopt a different approach – if we want to.

So much for the jargon, what does this mean in practice? The “jackal” or “gremlin” has an inbuilt belief (which he does not recognise as such) that his belief is the truth. If you like, in the absence of being able to step back and observe himself, the jackal can hold the most questionable beliefs and maintain a story as if it were a truth. This means that he acts as if his belief or story were true. This could be beneficial or not depending on the nature of the belief or story. Everyday examples include the person who believes he will never get far because he didn’t do well at school versus the person who believes anything is possible. Good stories or bad? You decide.

Paying it forward

About Dorothy, ,

It’s not often I have cause to mention my local supermarket on my blog, even though I am cared for like a princess by staff who see me pop in on a regular basis. Today, though, I am celebrating the law of unintended consequences and an opportunity to ‘pay it forward’.

Now, in case you haven’t come across the ‘pay it forward’ idea, I commend you to watch the film of the same name with Kevin Spacey, Helen Hunt and Haley Joel Osment. In this film a young boy comes up with the idea as his response to his teacher’s invitation to students to create something that will make the world a better place. The idea? Do someone a favour and ask them not to pay it back but to pay it forward.

Now, when I first saw this film, the young man who served me at my local video rental shop (those were the days!) gave me a very strange look and – if I remember rightly – described the film as decidedly “cheesy”. Needless to say I didn’t tell him that I was planning to watch it as one of our optional “homeworks” with fellow students on my NLP Practitioner programme.

But what of my local supermarket? Well, if you shop at Sainsbury’s and you are a Nectar Card holder you may have noticed the recent introduction of a natty little box that dispenses small slips of paper with special offers when you pay for your shopping. More than once, my special offer has been an inducement to spend £40.00 or more – something I rarely do given that I live so close and hardly ever do a “big shop”.

Yesterday I had one of these slips in my purse when I popped in to Sainsbury’s. I knew it was reaching its sell-by date and I had only a small number of things to buy so I was delighted to offer it to the woman in front of me at the check-out. This meant that she got £4.00 off her shopping – about 10% – and I had the satisfaction of knowing that this little slip of paper didn’t end up unused in my bin.

Now, it’s a strange thing, but I sense that the impact of this small gesture on both of us – who knows, maybe even on those who observed it – was disproportionate to its monetary value. The woman offered to pay me the £4.00 she’d saved and I was delighted to say no – all the more so because I could see she was doing the family shop. She was clearly touched by the kindness of a stranger. I was touched in turn knowing I had made this gesture and been seen. And when two strangers show kindness to each other, the world always becomes a safer more comfortable place.

What of Sainsbury’s? I am guessing that this interaction isn’t what they planned when they set up their boxes full of inducements to buy. And still, I’d like to think that if their marketeers were sitting round imagining the impact on local communities of many ‘brief encounters’ like this one, they might chose to say, “yes! let’s do this and celebrate our role in making the world a better place!”

What is a ‘coaching culture’?

Coaching, ,

Sometimes my colleagues ask the most stimulating questions via discussion groups and this one (on the Coaching at Work group on LinkedIn) intrigued me: what is a ‘coaching culture’?

Amongst the many environments I have worked and played in, I think first and foremost of my experience as a member of a number of resource teams with ITS (http://www.itsnlp.com/). In this context, I was a volunteer working with other volunteers to support our trainers in delivering various trainings in neurolinguistic programming (or NLP). As volunteers we were all interested in furthering our learning as well as supporting the learning of others. You could call this a ‘coaching culture’.

What was the culture in this environment? This was an environment in which team members embraced each other fully, understanding that we are all learners. Anyone seeking support for their learning would be welcomed by other members of the team. Whenever there was friction or misunderstandings feedback was given openly and directly, and both parties understood that they might have something to learn from this exchange of feedback. And when team members had a ‘gripe’ with another member of the team it was typically well understood that this was a signal to the ‘griper’ that he or she might have something to learn. Team members tended to view each other – and programme participants – as resourceful, whole and able to learn (even if they hadn’t learnt yet!). There were high levels of trust and flexibility.

What about work in this environment? Whilst there was considerable flexibility and a willingness to cut each other some slack, we still worked to high standards across a whole range of tasks, from sorting the stationery cupboard to supporting participants. Over the life of a team (twenty days over five four-day modules) we got to know each others’ strengths and to work to them as well as to our own. Work was a joyful experience.

How might this translate into the workplace? Correspondents on the Coaching At Work group highlight that organisations aspiring to a ‘coaching culture’ at work might have many definitions of this phrase and as I write I wonder how many definitions would fall well short of the ‘ITS experience’. How many organisations would welcome the level of intimacy involved in working together in this way?

I also wonder which is chicken and which is egg. For, on the surface, it seems to me that the culture of the resource teams was only possible because team members were chosen with great care. At the same time, I think of Douglas McGregor’s famous ‘XY Theory’ which proposed that managers tend to adopt one of two fundamentally different approaches to managing their people. Is it possible that, over time, an organisation in which leaders believe in the importance of learning (who engage in their own learning and support the learning of others) will, over time, attract precisely those employees who wish to work in a ‘coaching culture’?

Empathy’s natural, nurturing it helps

Emotional Intelligence, ,

Research into ’emotional intelligence’ highlights the importance of empathy – the ability to identify and connect with the feelings and experience of another. This is not quite the same as sympathy, when an individual recognises feelings in another which they also hold. When we are sympathetic, those with whom we sympathise can experience confusion and frustration (“hang on, is it me or you we’re talking about here?!”). When we are able to demonstrate empathy, we are able both to hold another in a safe emotional space no matter what their emotions – a wonderful skill for a parent, manager, coach etc. – and to understand the effect our actions might have or have had on another.

In short, empathy provides the basis for creating a particular kind of environment – followers of non-violent communication might call it a compassionate environment – in which individuals are able to attend to each others’ feelings without judgement. In this environment, it is more likely that everyone’s needs will be understood and respected. This in turn makes it more likely that everyone’s needs will be met.

At the same time, whatever our innate ability, it does seem that many of us lack the skills of empathy or fail to exercise them. Today, I was curious to receive a link to an article about empathy in the New York Times, entitled Empathy is natural, but nurturing it helps. Reading this article raised several questions for me.

My first question is this: to what extent is it possible that an individual might have no innate capacity to develop the skills to empathise with another? The article mentions those people who have autistism or schizophrenia and suggests they may be wholly or partially lacking in this innate ability. As I write I wonder if a key challenge for the majority of people with limited innate ability is not so much the total inability to empathise as the failure to learn the skills of empathy. For whilst well-meaning parents, teachers and other adults may well invoke the need to show consideration, not all of them demonstrate empathy (‘lead by example’) and fewer still are able to break empathy down into its component parts.

As I second question, I wonder: to what extent are there people who, lacking skills in empathy, do not have the capacity to acquire them later in life? In truth, I am more optimistic than not that for many – the majority? – of adults it is possible to acquire them. For some, this will involve undoing the damage caused by growing up in an environment in which emotions were discouraged or dismissed. For many, it will involve becoming aware of abilities they already have and of which they were not aware. Approaches ranging from therapy through neurolinguistic programming and nonviolent communication right through to business approaches such as Roger Schwarz’s skilled facilitator approach all help individuals to develop self empathy and empathy towards others – skills that go hand in hand.

And what of those people who, on the surface, ‘can’t’ develop empathy skills? I would hazard a guess that, for the vast majority of these people the ‘impossible’ is perfectly possible and begins with a very simply step: believing they can. For once this belief is present, it is a matter of exploration to discover new ways of doing things and to develop new skills.

The anatomy of an action

Emotional Intelligence, ,

Currently, it seems that all sorts of snippets are coming my way about the way the brain works and the impact on such things as emotional intelligence. I am reminded of the French phrase jamais deux sans trois – receiving the brief description below, it’s as if all the buses have turned up at once.

I was curious about the following brief description of an experiment by Benjamin Libet, who died in 2007. Libet’s experiments challenged our traditional view of how we make decisions. This description was part of an invitation to a talk this evening which, sadly, I am unable to attend.

Benjamin Libet (1916-2007) was a pioneering scientist in the field of human consciousness. His classic experiment showed that when subjects were asked to press a button, prior to their decision to do so, their unconscious brains had already started getting them ready to act. This implies that things happen in the following order: first comes automatic brain activity, then a conscious decision, then the action itself.

These findings seem to challenge our common sense idea of ourselves. ‘We’ seem to be nothing more than conscious decision-makers with the occasional power of veto over unconscious forces.

The role of the unconscious mind has been the subject of exploration and conjecture throughout history. Freud stands out in the twentieth Century as having made attempts to understand the unconscious mind, for example, and many therapeutic approaches explore the unconscious.

I think of neurolinguistic programming (or NLP) as one area in my own experience which engages with the unconscious mind on an ongoing basis, recognising that it’s possible to speak directly to the unconscious, and also inviting the unconscious to speak. As I write I recognise how many questions in coaching are addressed directly to the unconscious mind.

We live in an extraordinary era in the science of the brain, an era in which, increasingly, scientists are able to understand what is actually happening in the brain that creates the behaviours we observe. I regret that I shall not be hearing more about this this evening.

To be or not to be

Emotional Intelligence, , ,

Shona Cameron, one of my colleagues in the world of Nonviolent Communication (or NVC) sends through a link to a fascinating article in the Guardian about something called e-prime: This column will change your life: to be or not to be…

The article, by Oliver Burkeman, refers to an idea I had not come across before. David Bourland, proposes – in an essay about something he calls e-prime – to eliminate the use of the verb “to be”. Burkeman references one of Bourland’s teachers, Alfred Korzybski, known especially for his assertion that “the map is not the territory”.

It seems to me that Bourland’s idea, put forward some 45 years ago, reflects Korzybski’s teaching. For if you can no longer say “John is lazy”, you are obliged to find some other way of putting your idea forward, perhaps a way that reflects you own responsibility for reaching this conclusion (“It’s my view that John does not work as hard as some of his colleagues”, for example). This new linguistic turn of phrase does more to highlight the gap between the map and the territory it seeks to represent, making clear the role of the viewer in the viewing. Perhaps this different turn of phrase might even highlight this gap to the viewer and invite greater self-accountability. How many performance appraisals might be transformed by such a fine distinction? How many family arguments might never take place?

The article’s author asserts that e-prime never really caught on and yet the distinctions made by Bourland and Korzybski have found their way into many schools of thinking. Our ability to distinguish between what we observe and our response to what we observe is an essential part of Nonviolent Communication, for example, whilst Korzybski’s phrase “the map is not the territory” has been adopted as a core presupposition in the world of Neurolinguistic Programming (or NLP).

How widely understood is the gap between the “map” and the “territory”? Not very. One might even observe that in any relationship in which one party wishes to expercise power and influence it can help to obscure the distinction. If, though, we aspire to honest open relationships in which people make free, informed choices, we might find that e-prime’s elimination of the verb “to be” invites greater transparency of thought.

Mmm… before I press the “publish post” button, let me just check this posting for my use of the verb “to be”…

How do you change a thought?

All articles, Alternative approaches,

It’s the end of the day and I find myself responding to a question on the Coaching At Work LinkedIn group – a great forum for coaches. There is already a line of responses to Len Williamson’s provocative question: “How do you change a thought?”

I decide to offer a few thoughts of my own before I close at the end of the day:

I smile when I read you say “I am trained in Gestalt (but still learning so much)”. What a different thought this is if you replace the “but” with an “and”!

What a rich diversity of responses, too. I am so grateful to Coaching At Work for providing this place of exchange as well as to you for asking the question and to everyone who has (and has yet to) respond.

A few random thoughts of my own. NVC (Nonviolent Communication) uses feelings as a route to awareness. Why am I angry, sad etc.? The aim is to connect with underlying needs that are or aren’t being met. Also some emotions (anger, guilt, shame etc.) point to a particular way of thinking – that somebody (self or other) has done something “wrong”. A practitioner of NVC understands that thinking this way gives away our power and limits our options.

Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) offers all sorts of ways to change one’s thinking – and so it should! Bandler and Grindler and their followers have set out to beg, borrow and steal (a matter of perspective!) the best that’s out there.

As coaches, don’t we ask loads of questions that invite awareness, open up options, facilitate thinking choices – at the “this thought” and “all thoughts” (meta-programme) level?

Maybe the most liberating thought of all is this: that we get to choose what we think and it’s OK to do so.

Responding to anger: getting ready to reach out

Emotional Intelligence, ,

The “meta-mirror”, a tool from the kitbag of neuro-linguistic programming, is a powerful way to explore a difficult relationship in the privacy of a quiet space. The emphasis is on one’s own learning. After all, as hard as it is, we can’t do other’s learning for them.

I have already been reflecting on a conversation with a colleague at a time when he was feeling anger in response to something I had done. I know that there’s something that I’m needing still before I either go back to my colleague or choose to walk away.

The first step in the meta-mirror is to step firmly into one’s own shoes and to express whatever comes up in relation to another person. I am surprised when the first thing that comes up is a sense of anger that my colleague spoke to me in the way he did, knowing that he has the tools to own his anger and even to transform it. I thought I had left this anger behind.

I am also surprised to learn something else – that just a fraction below the surface I am “beating myself up” about my own contribution to this conversation. It seems I would like to have handled this conversation with a level of grace I didn’t manage to call on at the time. There’s something else, too – I realise I’m not quite ready openly to say “I won’t speak with you as long as you talk to me in this way. Come back when you’re ready to take responsibility for your anger”. Perhaps, in the language of my colleagues these are my own “needs behind the need” – the things I’m hiding from by holding on to my anger.

With this recognition, I can feel my anger slipping away and a sense of compassion – for myself, for my colleague – emerging. I wonder if he, too, has been beating himself up since we spoke.

With this renewed sense of compassion I complete the meta-mirror process, stepping into my colleague’s shoes before stepping back to observe myself from a distance (“How does this you here respond to that you there?”). It seems I have already found the compassion I was missing – for myself, for my colleague.

It’s not that I have changed my mind about the way my colleague spoke to me. I haven’t. Still, I am ready to speak to him to see if he, too, wants to connect so that we can reach a place of mutual understanding.

I am not wedded to any particular outcome – just ready to initiate the conversation.

Responding to anger: connecting with my colleague’s unmet needs

Emotional Intelligence, ,

In the process of reviewing my experience – of talking with a colleague at a time when he was feeling anger in response to something I had done – it’s important to me to understand the needs of my colleague as well as my own.

As I review my experience of our conversation, I recognise that I know what actions I took that stimulated anger in him and I know that they did indeed stimulate anger in him and still, I don’t understand why. My colleague gave me an explanation which I didn’t truly understand. They were not actions that, if anyone had else had taken them, were likely to stimulate a similar response in me.

This is not to dismiss the experience of my colleague. Rather, simply, I recognise that I didn’t take the information from our conversation that would help me truly to connect with him or to understand his needs. I notice that without this depth of understanding I feel unable to respond to his needs from the place I treasure so much and aspire to right now – a place of empathy and compassion.

I am curious, too, about some of the comments my colleagues have made to me. They have reminded me of something that I already know – that as well as the needs which my colleague has sought openly to address in our conversation there may be other needs which he sought to meet in our conversation by holding onto his anger and the thinking that lies beneath his anger. One colleague described these as “the needs behind the need”. I can only guess what these needs might be.

Even as I write I recognise one implication for me – and for our relationship with each other – of this lack of shared and mutual empathy and understanding. For when there is a conflict or misunderstanding there is also an opportunity for learning, healing and resolution. This takes place when both parties can fully understand each other’s needs, can understand the impact each of their own behaviour on each other’s needs, and can honestly and sincerely express regret for any behaviours they wish they had not taken and commit to do something different in future. I don’t have any sense of regret at this stage for anything I have done though I might do with a deeper understanding of my colleague’s needs. Nor has my colleague expressed any regret for his behaviour though I hope that he, too, might do so from a place of greater understanding.

I wonder, what next? And I decide to take a next step. It is a step of inner dialogue with both myself and my colleague, using an approach from the “kitbag” of Neurolinguistic Programming – the meta-mirror.

Being “at choice”: placing your life in your own hands

Emotional Intelligence, , ,

Oona Collins*, when she was my coach, reminded me often that “you can’t change the others, you can only change yourself”. I continue to be grateful for this sage piece of advice and to practise building the muscle of focusing on what I can do and of letting go of those things over which I have no control.

I am reminded of this today when, working with one of my clients, we discover the seesaw of emotions she feels as her attention moves between those things she is doing to move things forward and those things that are outside her control. As our call draws to a close she commits to notice where she is placing her attention and where she could be placing it in order to increase her sense that her life is indeed, in her own hands.

My client is not the first person (nor will she be the last) to experience intense changes of mood which depend on knowing – or not knowing – just how much she can effect the course of her life. For many clients, increasing their understanding of the extent to which their life is determined by their own choices – known as being “at choice” and even “at cause” – is the key learning they take away from working with a coach.

Of course, the challenge of learning to accept those things we cannot change whilst focusing on those we can has exercised many people over the centuries. Even as my call is drawing to a close I am recognising how much has been written on the subject and I offer to write a posting on my blog which shares some of the resources which support the practice of being at choice. Here are a few of the many resources that spring to mind:

  • Surely the classic text in this area is Viktor Frankl’s book, Man’s Search for Meaning. Frankl famously observed how, even in the concentration camps in which he was prisoner during the Second World War, some prisioners found it in themselves to give away their last pieces of bread to comfort others and pointed to the freedom we all have: to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way;
  • Virginia Satir’s poem Self Esteem was written to support a young girl with whom she was spending time at the time of writing. This poem, available to read directly from a number of websites, highlights the extent to which we can choose who we are. It is also one of the texts included in Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen’s original Chicken Soup for the Soul;
  • I think also of Muriel James’ and Dorothy Jongeward’s book Born to Win and especially of their opening chapter with its vivid description of what it means to be a “winner” and a “loser”;
  • I think also of W. Timothy Gallwey’s book The Inner Game of Tennis which became an international bestseller – and a special favourite amongst businessmen and -women – when it was first published in 1974. Gallwey’s book is about the how of the inner mastery so many writers and deep thinkers point to;
  • Richard Wiseman’s The Luck Factor is also a firm favourite of mine. Wiseman, who offers the unusual combination of a Professorship in psychology and a career as a magician, offers many insights into the ways of thinking that people bring who think of themselves as “lucky”;
  • Last (for now) though by no means least is Michael Neill’s book Feel Happy Now! Like Gallwey’s Inner Game of Tennis, Feel Happy Now! is about the how of creating inner mastery.

I would add that my practical studies in both neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and nonviolent communication (NVC) have offered highly effective ways to manage one’s inner response in order to feel at ease – no matter what.

Oh! And one of the most powerful practices in my own repertoire is the practise of celebrating. This helps me to connect with the actions – whether my own actions or the actions of others – that support me in meeting my needs. I wrote about my own approach to celebration at http://dorothynesbit.blogspot.com/2009/06/gratitude-when-youre-needing-fuel-for.html

*Oona’s website is at http://www.potentialplus.co.uk/