Neuro Linguistic Programming

Transcription

Acuity (Online) ISSN 2045-5402
Enhancing and Advancing
Neuro Linguistic
Programming
A New Anthology of Shared Findings and Learnings
Published by the ANLP
October 2013
Vol. 4
Page left intentionally blank
Neuro Linguistic Programming
A New Anthology of
Shared Findings and Learnings
published by the ANLP
October 2013
Volume 4
Edited by Joe Cheal
41a Bedford Road, Moggerhanger, Beds, MK44 3RQ, UK.
Tel (+44) 1767 640956
Email joe.cheal@gwiztraining.com
The Association of NLP
Apsley Mills Cottage, Stationers Place, Hemel Hempstead, HP3 9RH, UK.
(+44) 20 3051 6740
www.anlp.org
Review Panel
Richard Bolstad
L. Michael Hall
James Lawley
Judith Pearson
Sally Vanson
Lisa Wake
Patrons
Steve Andreas
Robert Dilts
John Seymour
Submissions are welcome. Please email the Editor for Contributor Guidelines.
The views expressed in Acuity are those of the contributor and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the
ANLP or the Editor.
Articles remain the copyright of the contributor. All other contents are (c) ANLP 2013. No part of this
publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording and/or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. This PDF may not
be lent, shared, resold, hired out or otherwise made available in any form without the prior consent of the
publishers.
ACUITY Vol.4
Journal Contents
Article
Author
Page
Macabre Metaphors
James Lawley & Keith Fail
5
Science and the Presuppositions: Scientific support
Richard Gray
17
L. Michael Hall (with C. E.
34
for the foundations of NLP
Words Really Do Matter
“Buzz” Johnson)
Joe Cheal
43
Pointing to a New Modelling Perspective
James Lawley
55
Made to Measure – Using Outcome Evaluation in
Gareth Evans
65
Levels and Loops of The Learning Organisation
Joe Cheal
77
Distinguishing The Psychologies
L. Michael Hall
88
Lisa Wake
94
Fe Foreman
104
Embodied Modelling and a Development of the
Satir Categories
NLP Practice
Between Psychotherapy And Coaching
First Person Life History Account of Using NLP for
Pain Management and Physical Recovery Post
Traumatic Accident
An investigation of the effects of using Clean
Language to support employees through
organisational change
Acuity Goes Fourth!
At the core of NLP sits modelling. Acuity was originally modelled on a journal, ‘NLP
World’ that ran from 1994 to 2001. Now, every article submitted to us helps us to build on
that model and to further understand (and refine) the purpose and identity of Acuity.
Indeed, to help authors write for Acuity we have recently updated the guidelines (which
are, in effect, the published details of the Acuity model).
With the aim of creating the best possible guidelines for Acuity, we appear to be seeking a
‘perfect’ model. As the model becomes more specific (and hence the guidelines grow), this
raises some questions about the very nature of modelling:
•
•
•
Could there come a point where a model becomes so detailed that it becomes
restrictive and ‘rule-bound’?
Can there be such a thing as a categorical model (that covers all people in all
contexts)? Would this become the model or could it remain a model? If a model
becomes the model (e.g. of how to do something with the highest degree of
excellence) does it become something we should/ought to use (i.e. rule-bound)?
If there is a best way of doing something, can there be any flexibility when we create
and define a model that models the very best?
Whilst writing for Acuity is not for the faint of heart, neither is it meant to be a Herculean
Task! Acuity is peer reviewed so you will get feedback. Whilst some writers choose to exit
the process at this point, it is the act of getting feedback that will make your articles
stronger. As the editor of Acuity, I experience great joy in sending my own articles to
reviewers (anonymously, as all articles are), and getting insightful, detailed and often
challenging feedback. When I get beyond the inevitable ‘feedback-shock’, I know that
what I end up writing will be a better article… something I could not have done alone.
And what a privilege to get feedback from some of the most excellent minds in NLP!
Thank you so much to the review panel: L. Michael Hall, James Lawley, Judith Pearson,
Sally Vanson and Lisa Wake for their excellent feedback and their valuable time.
Joe Cheal
Editor of Acuity
Karen Moxom
Managing Director
ANLP
Acuity Vol.4
5
Macabre Metaphors
James Lawley and Keith Fail
"And what would you like to have happen now?"
"I want to go back down the hole and pick up the dead bodies there."
Bob's affect was at once intense and sounded deeply sorrowful.
Stop for a moment and consider: If you were facilitating Bob in a change-work session,
what would you do next?
This article describes a way of working with clients whose behaviour and language can
unsettle even experienced therapists and coaches. It includes an examination of a client
transcript to illustrate the process in practice.
Bob has a big physical presence and a huge range of affect – one minute yawning, the next
loud and angry, the next deeply sorrowful. He had long suffered with trauma-induced
habits of unproductive thoughts and behaviour. The macabre nature of his metaphors
overwhelmed and confused several of the participants at the first training of Symbolic
Modelling and Clean Language in Austin, Texas taught by Penny Tompkins and James
Lawley.
The above quote is how Bob started when I (Keith) was his facilitator on that training. In
other circumstances I probably would have asked Bob to consider the different "parts" of
himself that were being expressed in his frequent changes of physiology (Dilts &
DeLozier, 2000). This use of a parts model might have led to an integration, but I have my
doubts since Bob is trained in NLP and has had many hours of coaching and therapeutic
work that have not been successful at integrating those parts.
Clean Language
Clean Language is one of the enduring contributions of David Grove, a New Zealand
psychotherapist known for his creativity and effectiveness when working with clients who
have suffered severe trauma. Grove devised a method that took Milton Erickson's
injunction against imposing the therapist’s theories on the client even further than
6
Macabre Metaphors
Erickson did (Grove & Panzer, 1989). To do this he developed a small set of questions that
featured the client’s exact content. These questions facilitate clients’ abilities to consider
the interior landscape of their personal metaphors in a concentrated way. These clean
questions reveal the deep structure of each client's idiosyncratic model of the world and
help the client to self reflect on previously subconscious patterns that repeat in undesired
ways.
Symbolic Modelling
In the mid 1990s Penny Tompkins and James Lawley used NLP modelling processes to
study Grove's therapeutic method. They called their meta-model of the way he questioned
his clients Symbolic Modelling (Lawley & Tompkins, 2000). With the guidance of a coach
or therapist, clients self-model their interior metaphoric landscape with minimal
imposition of content from the facilitator. This encourages a self-reflexive process that
leads to self-correcting insights and changes. Instead of using a facilitator-led change
technique, the direction of a Symbolic Modelling session emerges from the logic of the
client’s metaphors. Facilitators aim not to change anything. Rather they encourage
conditions whereby spontaneous changes occur, and then they follow the effects of those
changes. Sometimes these lead to cul-de-sacs revealing what does not work, at other times
a contagion of effects leads to a transformative experience.
When a client’s troubled experiences interrupt their natural drive to express themselves it
is common for them to rebel against change-work and any imposition from the outside of
how they ‘ought’ to respond – even while they despise the behaviors that they themselves
have been expressing. Their troubled experiences have successfully protected them up
until this point and while they desperately want to improve their lives, they don't want to
risk changing. They are caught in a “better the devil you know” trap. While from the
outside this kind of behavior can seem like “resistance” or “self sabotage”, a modeller
regards it as just another example of the person’s patterns revealing themselves in that
moment.
Symbolic Modelling is tailor-made for these tough cases since it leaves all the
responsibility for introspection, insight, discovery and change in the client's hands. The
facilitator stays out of the center of the client’s awareness so that the client can focus
attention on self and how he or she relates to his or her idiosyncratic model of the world.
Acuity Vol.4
7
What is a macabre metaphor?
Something is macabre when it is “disturbing and horrifying because of involvement with
or depiction of death and injury”. The same definition sometimes holds for coaching or
therapy clients’ metaphors – but who is being disturbed or horrified? While it can be the
client or an aspect of their psyche, often clients are less disturbed by their metaphors than
is the facilitator. Clients have often had many years to get used to their own troubling
symbolic images, sounds, feelings and accompanying reactions – whereas for the
facilitator it is the shock of the new.
David Grove said that “clean” facilitators should be “equal information employers”. By
this he meant that facilitators should not favour one kind of information, nor side with one
metaphor over another. Clean facilitators take care not to give minimal cues that
encourage apparently “positive” metaphors to overcome apparently “negative” ones. On
the other hand, they do take note of whether the client regards a particular symbol or
metaphor as problematic or resourceful (Tompkins & Lawley, 2012).
Perhaps the most important reason to be an equal information employer is because you
never know when a dark and horrifying symbol will become or contain just the resource
the client needs – and neither does the client. In David Grove’s video, Tapestry (1989), the
client reports an “achy pain that I have in my ankle and foot that spreads up into my leg
[for] fifteen or twenty years”. During the session a “sharp, dark needle” appears that
“could hurt. It could do a lot of damage”. David follows the intention of the needle that
likes to “tear flesh on the outside and the inside” until it wants to stop. Having enacted its
intention by tearing the flesh on the client’s metaphorical arm, the needle transforms into a
sewing needle that creates a “multicolored tapestry” that is wrapped around the painful
ankle like an “orthopedic stocking”.
In a follow-up four months later the client revealed that she no longer felt ashamed of the
scar on her left foot – which had been caused by scalding water while she was overdosing
on heroin: “I no longer hate the differences between my feet”. Since her left foot is now
“more interesting” and she is “just kind of accepting what it is, and even enjoying it” she
doesn’t need to cover up the scar and has bought sandals which “really show my foot”. A
macabre flesh-tearing needle becomes a redemptive metaphor. How? Nobody – not even
the client – knows, but in her own words, the process “allowed the needle to heal that part
of myself”.
8
Macabre Metaphors
Maintaining a neutral perspective
To maintain a neutral perspective when working with ‘bizarre’ metaphors is hard enough,
but when a metaphor appears abusive or destructive and the facilitator feels his or her
stomach turn, it can be especially challenging. When the facilitator experiences a strong
visceral reaction the tendency to avoid the macabre aspects of a client’s psyche or worse,
to treat them with disdain, is understandable. However, clean facilitators need to
acknowledge and temporarily set aside their personal reactions and continue to attend to
what is happening for the client. The structure and simplicity of Clean Language is helpful
in this regard since it requires a high degree of outward attention and little cognitive effort
is required to ask a clean question. We are not advocating facilitators ignore their own
responses; rather we maintain that the ability to set them aside is a useful skill, especially
at those moments when a client’s metaphors become psychoactive for the facilitator!
(Lawley, 2006)
Clean Language helps facilitators stay neutral on the outside even when they are
struggling with their own reactions on the inside. While novice facilitators may encounter
these challenges more frequently, even those with extensive experience are not immune.
After more than 20 years of working with some of the most heart- and gut-wrenching
client material, David Grove still occasionally had what he called his “white knuckle
moments”.
I (James) have had my own white knuckle moments. I recall a client who in the middle of a
session sat bolt upright on the edge of his chair, looked deep into my eyes and said in a
powerful voice “I feel like a samurai warrior”. He raised his hands above his head as if
holding a sword and brought them down in a scything motion over my head, saying “And
I’d like to cut you in half.” I’m sure I gulped as I was catapulted back to a real-life memory
of when I had a gun pulled on me. My insides turned to ice. However, I managed to stay
with the process and respond, “And when you cut me in half [pause] then ... what ...
happens?” To my relief the client went straight back into his previous metaphor landscape
and carried on as if nothing untoward had happened. I regained my composure and the
session continued. Later the samurai warrior played a key role in the client’s
transformation.
Transcript of Bob’s session
The following took place on the third day of a training in Symbolic Modelling Lite and the
Clean Language of David Grove (Lawley & Tompkins, 2011). In a previous 20-minute
Acuity Vol.4
9
session Bob (B) the participant-client had described a number of macabre and disturbing
metaphors. The participant-facilitator of that session did well to stay with the process but
by the end was visibly shaken. Keith stepped in to the facilitator role (K) for the second 30minute session. He had not observed the first session.
As part of the learning format Keith was being supervised by James and coached-in-themoment (Tompkins & Lawley, 2007). James provided immediate feedback and supported
Keith to keep the client’s attention on the most salient aspects of his metaphor landscape.
The transcript contains the exact words of the client. To make it easier to follow we have
removed James’ in-the-moment coaching comments to Keith, some repetitive exchanges,
and tidied up a few of the questions. All facilitator-introduced words have been italicized
to highlight the syntax and form of clean questions. The comments interspersed among
the transcript are James Lawley's subsequent explication of the facilitation process.
Bob recapped his first session and in response to being asked what he would like to have
happen now, he yawned deeply and said:
B:
I want to go back down the hole and pick up the dead bodies there.
K:
And you want to go back down the hole and pick up the dead bodies there. And
when you go down the hole and pick up the dead bodies there, what kind of down is
that down?
B:
All the way down. [Several deep yawns]
K:
And is there anything else about all the way down?
B:
Ummm, Ummm, Ummm, all the way down is [deep yawn], maybe has something
to do with sleeping or yawning.
K:
And where is the hole?
B:
It might be in my heart, a big hole in my heart.
K:
And it might be a big hole in your heart. And when that hole in your heart, what kind
of hole is that hole in your heart?
B:
Ummm, Ummm, Ummm, deep, deep, deep, it hurts. Dark, there’s too many dead
bodies down there.
Keith works entirely within the client’s symbolic world. He honors the client’s metaphors
by using the client’s exact words and a few very simple clean questions. Keith adopts a
10
Macabre Metaphors
neutral yet curious tonality, accepting whatever the client describes. In so doing he is
facilitating Bob to portray, elaborate and embody a perception of his (Bob’s) current
metaphorical reality.
Keith follows the client’s logic until the “too” of “too many dead bodies down there”
suggests Bob’s original desired Outcome has run into a Problem. Keith is using the
Problem-Remedy-Outcome (PRO) model (Tompkins & Lawley, 2006) to distinguish
between these three categories. He therefore applies the PRO algorithm to acknowledge
the client’s Problem and invite the client’s attention to shift to a desired Outcome:
K:
And when too many dead bodies are down in the hole, what would you like to have
happen?
B:
[Sigh] I’d like to make them be alive again. They made me kill all those things
[sobs]. They made me kill all those things [more sobbing]. They made me kill all
those little things.
K:
And they made you kill all those things. And when you’d like them to be alive again,
what kind of alive is that alive?
B:
Good question. [Sigh] I guess the kind of alive where they were never dead before.
The kind of alive where I didn’t have to meet them to kill them.
K:
The kind of alive where they were never dead before where you didn’t have to meet
them to kill them. And is there anything else about that alive?
B:
[Growls] Maybe happy, maybe ... I don’t know.
Bob’s second desired Outcome “to make them be alive again” is immediately followed by
a new Problem, “They made me kill all those little things”. Keith acknowledges the
Problem but he is not seduced by it. Instead he directs Bob’s attention to his latest desired
Outcome.
Keith followed the client’s line of reasoning until it indicated that this desired Outcome
may not be workable either. Bob is suggesting that if he hadn’t met “all those little things”,
he wouldn’t have killed them and they wouldn’t be dead. This makes sense, except Bob
has stated that they are dead because he killed them. How can they become alive again?
Keith gives Bob the opportunity to find out by asking:
K:
And when you want them to be alive again, can they be alive again?
Acuity Vol.4
11
B:
No, no, no.
K:
And when they can’t be alive again, what would you like to have happen now?
B:
[Laughs] I want to kill the people that made me kill them.
K:
And can you kill the people that made you kill them?
B:
No, they’re dead already.
K:
And when you want to kill the people that made you kill them, and you can’t because
they’re dead already, what would you like to have happen?
The client’s proposed Remedy, “to kill the people that made me kill them” also bites the
dust. Keith sticks with the process by acknowledging the reality of every Problem and
every unworkable Remedy, while continually inviting the client to attend to a desired
Outcome. The meta-message is: OK, these are your problems, and these are your
solutions, which by your own logic cannot work, and given that’s how it is, how would
you like it to be?
And low and behold, the first shoots of a new desired Outcome begin to show through the
deep, dark undergrowth of the client’s psyche:
B:
[Said softly] Maybe say I’m sorry to all those souls. All those little spirits. Those
dead people.
K:
And say you’re sorry to all those little spirits. And what kind of say you’re sorry is
that say you’re sorry?
B:
I’m not sure. Maybe sincere, truthful.
K:
And sincere, truthful saying you’re sorry. And when sincere, where is sincere?
B:
[Several heavy breaths] Here [touches chest].
K:
And when sincere is there [gestures to client’s chest], is there anything else about
sincere there?
B:
Yeah, they wouldn’t let me cry because they killed them.
K:
And they wouldn’t let you cry because they killed them.
B:
Because I killed them. They wouldn’t let me have any grieving.
12
K:
Macabre Metaphors
Because you killed them. And they wouldn’t let you cry or have any grieving, and
when you say you’re sorry for all of those spirits, and truthful, sincere, where is
truthful?
B:
I’m not very certain because I don’t know if I have any truthfulness in me. I’m a liar.
K:
You aren’t certain you have any truthfulness in you. And you’re a liar. And when
you want to say you’re sorry to all the spirits, and you don’t know if you have
truthful in you, what would you like to have happen?
B:
[Sobbing] I want to be dead.
Through the skillful use of clean questions an incipient desired Outcome is developing
within the client’s metaphor landscape, “say I’m sorry to all those souls”. However, as
often happens with macabre metaphors, the client’s attention, like a magnet, is repeatedly
drawn back to the problematic. In response Keith continues to tread the thin line between
acknowledging and honoring the client’s painful inner world, and offering him the
opportunity to live in a ‘how I would like it to be’ world for a little while.
When the client proposes another Remedy – “I want to be dead” – Keith does not flinch. Is
“I want to be dead” literal or metaphorical, or both? We don’t know but given the client is
deep within his metaphoric world we can assume that a large facet is symbolic. This is one
of those Grovian “white-knuckle moments”. Grove demonstrated with many clients that
at these pivotal times the least productive thing the facilitator can do is to bail out. That
would likely send a meta-message to the client that their words were too much for the
facilitator to handle. This would mean the metaphors were controlling both the facilitator
and the process. Much better to stay with wherever the client is, to trust the process, and
to ride the roller coaster.
Which is exactly what Keith does. He follows the client’s logic and applies the PRO model
(which, in this case, utilises the presupposition that time doesn’t stop just because you are
dead):
K:
You want to be dead. And when you’re dead, what happens next?
B:
Good question. I think I’ll feel better [laughs].
K:
And what kind of better is that better that you will feel when you’re dead?
B:
Relaxed. Relaxed. I don’t have to be hiding and guarding all the time and carrying
this weight - this fucking weight. Oh Jesus, this weight. And these little lives.
Acuity Vol.4
K:
13
And you don’t have to be hiding and guarding all the time, and carrying this
fucking weight. And when relaxed, is there anything else about that relaxed?
B:
Lose the weight, drop the weight, the burden of these once upon alive things - the
guilty responsibility of their demise.
K:
And when lose the weight, then what happens?
B:
I’ll be thinner.
K:
You’ll be thinner. And is there anything else about lose the weight?
B:
I won’t have anybody else to feed.
K:
And you won’t have anybody else to feed. And then what happens?
B:
I’m not sure, but I want to find out [said with some gusto].
K:
And where is that want to find out?
B:
Hiding in a closet behind a door.
K:
In a closet behind a door. And what kind of closet is that closet?
B:
A bad man’s closet.
K:
A bad man’s closet. And what kind of door is that door?
B:
A protective door, a hiding door.
K:
Protective and hiding. And when door, is there anything else about that protective
door?
B:
I get discovered behind it. It’s not very protective.
K:
And when you get discovered behind a not very protective door, what happens to
sincere, and truthful, when you want to find out?
B:
Fucking right I want to find out [said with even more gusto].
K:
So when you find out, what happens to those spirits that you wanted to say sorry to?
[Bell sounds the end of the training activity]
14
Macabre Metaphors
B:
Maybe I can let them know why that happened to them. Because I didn’t know.
They were wondering: Why them? Why was I doing that? What did they do
wrong? They could know and they might be sort of alive but dead in me. I’m tired
of carrying them around. I don’t know if I’ll ever find an answer for them. Maybe I
don’t know the answer. Maybe I don’t know why they died. There’s no why ... [big
sigh].
K:
And are you ok with us leaving this here?
B:
I apparently saw something through the crack in the door, between the hinges and
the door jamb, and that must have freaked me out. OK, yeah, I wanted to do the
right thing. OK, they didn’t want me to tell, and they couldn’t get away with killing
me ... Alrighty then.
During the session, the client’s attention switched rapidly from one aspect of his metaphor
landscape to another all the while retaining a characteristic coherence. From:
•
•
•
•
•
•
a deep, dark hole in the heart with too many dead bodies which he would like to
make alive again
to maybe saying a sincere truthful sorry to all those souls he had killed
to wanting to be dead
to wanting to lose the weight – the guilty responsibility of their demise
to wanting to find out [what happens then]
to hiding behind a not very protective door of a bad man’s closet
and finishing with several realizations.
Is the client’s description of seeing something through a crack in the door a memory?
Maybe, maybe not. Since any childhood memory that is still evocative will have symbolic
connotations in Symbolic Modeling we work with both ‘real’ memories and imagination in
the much same way.
Follow up and conclusion
I (Keith) spoke with Bob about a month after this session. He said that he was feeling
better about himself and felt like he was making progress in his life. It is interesting that
the self-modelling of his personal metaphor-scape had continued to yield new insights
and self-healing. At eleven months I followed up with Bob again. And he had the
following comments.
Acuity Vol.4
15
•
The work we did was so non-directive that it is kind of hard to pinpoint causeeffect stuff, but things definitely got better for me after our sessions. It is hard to
measure exactly though.
•
Our work was related to my identity and sense of myself. In many ways I'd always
tended to short circuit myself. When I told somebody about something that is good
that I've been doing, I had tended to mess it up. My father was an alcoholic and a
pattern for me was that my father punished me by taking things away from me that
I loved. He felt that I was baby-like and too vulnerable and too effeminate. My
father destroyed anything that I loved. So before our work I seemed to destroy
whatever was good that I was working on.
•
After the symbolic modeling work I've opened up more. I'm behaving in ways I
didn't in the past. I no longer worry about trying to look tough and butch and
straight. So I am more relaxed about that. I've also dialed back on my intoxicants.
•
I'm definitely behind symbolic modeling. It plainly puts the person in the driver's
seat. Their unconscious mind tends to do the driving and inner tour guides reveal
to you narratives from your unconscious. In other therapy I've done in the past I've
never had a therapeutic system that started nowhere and ended up somewhere and
felt like it left me cooking but also complete somehow. It is very satisfying. Not
having to jump through any therapist's hoops. I feel that this is very organic and
self-healing. I'm very much a proponent of this methodology.
After a year of using Clean Language in my (Keith’s) coaching practice it is interesting to
reflect back on these first sessions and the learning I gained working with Bob. Not many
of my clients are as darkly disturbed and metaphorically morose as Bob was that day. But
the session shows how Clean Language and Symbolic Modeling can work with troubled
clients and their macabre metaphors. One of the insights that is much richer for me today
is how genuinely respectful the Symbolic Modeling process is; giving people the room to
take full responsibility for their own healing, changes, and recovery.
Acknowledgement: We are deeply appreciative to Bob (not his real name) for giving his permission
to use this material so that others might learn from his experience
Biography
James Lawley is a supervising neurolinguistic psychotherapist – registered with the
United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy since 1993. He has provided consultancy to
organisations as diverse as GlaxoSmithKline, Yale University Child Study Center, NASA
Goddard Space Center and the Findhorn Spiritual Community. With Penny Tompkins he
16
Macabre Metaphors
co-authored Metaphors in Mind – the first comprehensive guide to Symbolic Modelling
using the Clean Language of David Grove, and an annotated training DVD, A Strange and
Strong Sensation, which shows them working in a live session. Their website
cleanlanguage.co.uk contains over 200 articles.
Playing on his uncommon last name, Keith Fail exclaims, "The only 'fail' in this world is
not to live with fierce tenderness." For over 25 years, Keith has delivered business
solutions with authenticity using core NLP concepts. Team managers and executives
choose Keith as coach, trainer, and change agent because his systemic skills connect "our
hearts' passions" with superior intra-personal skills. This creates action and fervent results
that impact bottom-line results. To reach Keith about consulting or NLP Practitioner
Training, email: KeithFail@nlpResourcesAustin.com
References
Dilts, R.B. and DeLozier, J.A. (2000). Encyclopedia of Systemic Neuro-Linguistic Programming
and NLP New Coding. Scotts Valley, CA: NLP University Press. Viewable at
www.nlpuniversitypress.com (see Parts Model pp. 926-927 and Conflicting Parts pp.
210-213).
Grove, D. (1989) Resolving Feelings of Anger Guilt and Shame - "Tapestry" (A 90-minute VHS
video) David Grove Seminars, Edwardsville, IL. Transcript available at:
cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/42/
Grove, D. and Panzer, B. (1989). Resolving Traumatic Memories: Metaphors and Symbols in
Psychotherapy. Irvington, New York.
Lawley, J. (2006). When Where Matters: How psychoactive space is created and utilised,
The Model, Jan. 2006. Available at cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/29/
Lawley, J. and Tompkins, P. (2000). Metaphors in Mind: Transformation through Symbolic
Modelling. Developing Company Press.
Lawley, J. and Tompkins, P. (2011). Symbolic Modelling: Emergent Change though
Metaphor and Clean Language. Chapter 4 in Hall, L.M. and Charvet, S.R. (Editors).
Innovations in NLP: Innovations for Challenging Times, Crown House.
Tompkins, P. and Lawley, J. (2006). Coaching for P.R.O.s. Coach the Coach, Feb. 2006.
Available at cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/31/
Tompkins, P. and Lawley, J. (2007). Coaching in-the-Moment. Available at
cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/203/
Tompkins, P. and Lawley, J. (2012). REPROCEss: Modelling Attention, Acuity, Vol. 3, Nov
2012. Available at: cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/303/
Acuity Vol.4
17
Science and the Presuppositions: Scientific
support for the foundations of NLP
Richard M. Gray, PhD
While working on a theoretical model for NLP, it became necessary to explore some of the
scientific support for the presuppositions and assumptions upon which NLP is based. The
presuppositions are familiar: The map is not the territory; the meaning of your
communication is the response that you get; all behavior has a positive intent, and so forth.
These, however are often supplied as a received wisdom, as the essence of the perspectives
of Satir, Perls and Erickson and often with little more than a passing nod to Korzybski
(1994), Bateson (1972, 1979) and Ashby (1956). Contrary to this tendency, L. Michael Hall
(2010) has done some excellent work in relating the presuppositions to their roots in the
human potentials movement, an important part of the background of each of the therapists
first modeled by NLP.
Despite the work of Hall, in order to build an adequate foundation for theory, the
presuppositions should be connected to a more stable experimental root. This is necessary
because those who have written NLP off as a cult psychology, a pseudo-science or some
other evil thing (Devilly, 2005; Rodrique-Davis, 2009), will accept nothing other than a
hard scientific foundation; and even then they will quibble. Moreover, having the facts
before us makes our own position and its meaning to us as individuals, practitioners and a
community, all the more satisfying. As we move towards scientific acceptability and the
rigorous testing of our models, this kind of information will become more and more
necessary. This thinking runs against the tide of what has often been taken to be the
traditional NLP position: that the field is atheoretical, that it is self-validating in that it
either works or it doesn’t and that these are patterns and not truths; they are not subject to
scientific validation (Bandler & Grinder, 1979; Dilts, Delozier, Bandler & Grinder, 1980).
While on some level all of this is accurate, NLP has consistently set forth a series of
axiomatic perspectives and presuppositions which, if taken seriously constitute a
theoretical basis for all that we do. Even if we work in a world of self-validating models,
our root epistemology—the way we come to knowledge—is quite precise and is
supported by evidence from multiple parallel observations in psychology, biology, general
systems theory and other fields. If we acknowledge these parallelisms, our own
18
Science and the Presuppositions
understanding of the field will be richer and our capacity to communicate with the
scientific world will be enhanced.
To that end, this paper singles out a few of the presuppositions of NLP for examination in
light of other research. It draws from a few studies from a wide range of disciplines and
theoretical approaches. What they have in common is that they focus on behavioral
phenomena that can be identified with one or more of our presuppositions. In no case was
the original material developed to validate NLP, rather these are evidences from multiple
descriptions of the root ideas in our field. Please note that many of the articles cited are
reviews and theoretical arguments that only cite the relevant research in support of their
own agendas. Essentially this will show that our material is neither extraordinary nor
insubstantial but has been the center of research efforts from multiple perspectives and are
found at every level of integration.
The method here relies on Bateson’s (1972) idea of abduction; the pattern that connects. In
each of the following cases, across multiple fields, battling theoretical models, different
levels of integration, there are patterns that emerge over and over again. These are the
patterns that the early developers of NLP identified as presuppositions and root
assumptions. It further relies on vertical integration of data from across the social sciences
(Cosmides, Toobey & Barkow, 1992). This means that the evidence from neuroscience,
experimental psychology and theories of personality should consistently describe certain
behaviors and that that ‘consilience’ (Wilson, 1998), will allow a more complete
understanding of the phenomenon under consideration. Where the information cannot be
integrated, we may understand that the phenomenon under examination may not be
worthy of further consideration. It bears some relation to the dictum of Karl Mannheim
(1936), that no phenomenon can be fully understood until it has been observed from every
possible perspective. Needless to say, the evidences provided here are not exhaustive but
only suggestive.
Out of the entire range of 13 or more presuppositions (IASH & DeLozier, 2006; Andreas,
2006; O’Connor & Seymour, 1990), I have identified three groups. One group identifies our
epistemology and provides the tools and assumptions necessary to the entire field. A
second group is related to modeling and interpersonal relations while a third relates to the
technologies that flow from the practice of NLP. These distinctions flow from Bandler’s
definition that NLP is an attitude and a methodology that leaves behind a trail of techniques.
While on many levels I do not believe that this is an adequate definition of NLP, as a
heuristic for separating the field into its parts, it is quite valuable. For the purposes of this
paper, the attitude stands in for the epistemology.
Acuity Vol.4
19
Presuppositions
From here we can press on to examine a few of the presuppositions. These will include:
The map is not the territory; behavior arises in regard of some context; every behavior has
a positive intent and behavior develops hierarchically and in accord with general systems
principles. This finds some correspondence with Dilts’ (1994) identification of the first and
last of these presuppositions as foundational to NLP.
The map is not the territory indicates that subjective meanings often differ from the
external, objective reality. What seems self-evident to one person may not be so to another.
Bandler and Grinder (1975) relate these differences to the constraints imposed upon
experience by social norms, personal history and differences in physical capacities. They
also spring from the universal transformation of meaning through deletion, distortion and
generalization (Bandler & Grinder, 1975, 1979; Chomsky, 1972; Korzybsky, 1994; Lewis &
Pucelik, 1990). This is one of the key ideas from Alfred Korzybsky (1994); we do not interact
with the world but with our perception of the world. In NLP it is a central presupposition
that reflects the constructivist leanings of NLP as the study of subjective experience (Hall,
2010; Linder-Peltz & Hall, 2007; Wake, 2009). Beyond NLP the concept is found in Varela,
Rosh and Thompson (1990) who observe that up to 90 per cent of neural activity in the
brain is endogenous. This means that our perception of the world, before we ever become
conscious of it, has been shaped and reshaped by memory, expectation, cognitive filtering
and past experience. In the end, it may bear little relation to the object itself.
Glenberg (1997) points to the example of a coke bottle. The bottle, depending upon the
present time experience of the observer and their history with such things, may be seen as
a weapon, a drinking vessel, something redeemable for cash, evidence of the presence of
other people or just a piece of trash. It almost cannot be just a coke bottle. Past experience
determines the meaning of the object.
From the perspective of embodied consciousness, in which meaning is determined by the
possible opportunities for action that an object offers, the interference between the memory
of the object as remembered action sequences, and the present time interaction may conflict
with one another. If the remembered interaction is not sufficiently suppressed, it interferes
with the present-time interaction (Glenberg, 1997; Niedenthal, Barsalou, et al., 2005;
Niedenthal, Barsalou, et al., 2009).
At the level of neuroscience, research indicates that the details of human experience, the
borders between objects and categories, are not a part of the objects themselves but are
projected upon the object by the brain as the perceptions are processed. Like the embodied
20
perspective, a strictly neurological perspective suggests that the world of perception is
only broken into a world of things and categories by the brain itself (Buzsáki, 2010;
Damasio, 1989; Gallese, 2003). This appears repeatedly in the literature of Linguistics and
cross cultural studies (Bandler & Grinder, 1975).
Explorations into the function of memory (Glenberg, 1997; Nadel, Hupbach, Gomez, &
Newman-Smith, 2012; Kroes & Fernendez, 2012) suggest that its primary function is to
predict opportunities for reinforcement, the presence of danger and other life-critical ends.
It is a map of expectancies. When the map is distorted so that it no longer provides
survival-relevant cues, the responses that follow will be inappropriate to the circumstance.
People operate in regard of a context. Insofar as actions have meaning those meanings are
related to contexts. Contexts may be internal or external, states of being, places, emotional
contexts or any combination of these factors (Bandler & Grinder, 1975, 1979).
The phenomenon of mood dependent memory effects reflects the idea of mood or emotion
as context (Eich & Metcalf, 1989; Eich, Rachman & Lopatka, 1990, Smith, 1995). These are
often reflected in NLP in terms of present states and desired states, stuck states and
resourceful states (Bandler & Grinder, 1979; Andreas & Andreas, 1980).
Newly formed memories, to a large extent depend upon the functions of the
hippocampus. One of the primary functions of the hippocampus is the association of
memory with context (Morris, 2006, 2009; Nadel, Hupbach et al., 2012). Skinner’s (1957)
idea of a discriminative stimulus (Sd) encompasses a context where reinforcement will—or
will not-become available. J. J. Gibson’s (1977) idea of affordances, defines behavior in
terms of the tight link between perception and action and the specific kinds of
opportunities that context affords for behavior. Behaviors are linked to context.
Context also arises in regard of the map-territory distinction. Aspects of the current
territory may activate inappropriate maps for behavior; maps that would be appropriate
to another time or place.
Priming effects introduce context via cognitive and embodied means. For many, holding a
warm cup of tea changes personal responses to others, moving an object closer to someone
changes their evaluations of the person nearest the object. Changes in contexts and
contextual elements can set the stage for a shift in personal maps about relationships,
goals, judgments and other facets of behavior (Bargh, Chen, & Burroughs, 1996; Bargh,
Gollwitzer, Lee-Chai, et al., 2001; Eskine, 2013; Williams & Bargh, 2008).
Acuity Vol.4
21
This idea of context is reflected In Dilts’ neurological levels in which the lowest level of
organismic function is environmentally determined and higher levels represent various
kinds of subjective contexts. It reflects the behaviorist idea that context is an important part
of any behavior (Pavlov, 1927; Harris, 1979; Skinner, 1957). It also reflects the concept of
behavior as situated (Niedenthal, Winkielman, et al., 2009). Both Damasio (1989) and
Buzsáki (2010) discuss the importance of context to meaning on a neurological level.
According to Buzsáki, the details of memories become more vivid as they are linked with
appropriate representations of context in hippocampal place cells (2010).
Every behavior has a positive intent. Behavior is purposeful. It may be said that
motivation is only had in regard of specific outcomes or endpoints. Whether driven by
need, curiosity, love, self-fulfillment, fear, delusion, disgust, boredom or anger, every
behavior has a positive intention for the person executing it. In NLP these are often seen as
the exit criteria in the T.O.T.E strategy (Dilts et al., 1980; Dilts & Delozier, 2000; Miller,
Galanter & Pribram, 1960).
Positive intent may be satisfied by an external outcome— earning money. It may be
fulfilled by need satisfaction-the hungry man seeks food. It may be satisfied by a change of
state —escape from a fearful or painful condition or quieting negative internal voices.
Outcomes may range from executing the next step in a chain of neural elements (Buzsáki,
2010; Damasio, 1989; Dehaene & Changeaux, 2000) on the micro level, to consummatory
behaviors with self-actualizing implications on the macro level (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990;
Maslow, 1971). They may be rooted in simple biology-- the withdrawal of the aplysia
syphon in response to electric shock (Kandel, 2001); simple behavioral expressions--a
reinforcer increasing the probability of any behavior immediately preceding it (Skinner,
1957) including the opportunity to engage in a preferred behavior (Premack,1961) or the
opportunity to execute a previously unavailable behavior (Timberlake & Alison, 1974).
Intended outcomes may be understood as long term goals (Prochaska, 1994); or complex
self-defining needs as Maslowian self-actualizing directions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990;
Maslow, 1971).
Behavior develops hierarchically and in accord with general systems principles.1
This presupposition is more complex than the others and it implies several other elements
that are often little understood or taken for granted in NLP. As a result, this section will
include much more elucidative material than the rest. Hierarchical organization implies
the existence of basic units or elements that can be reassembled to create more complex
structures. Implicit in the creation of hierarchies is the TOTE mechanism or some similar
recursive rule (Dilts et al, 1980; Miller, Galanter & Pribram, 1960).General systems
22
principles are a series of rules that describe the properties of complex systems. We will
work with one element at a time.
Behavior Develops hierarchically. One of the basic observations of NLP is that behavior
can be analysed into sequences of visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory and gustatory
elements (VAKOG or the four-tuple [VAK+OG]) (Andreas & Andreas, 1980; Bandler &
Grinder, 1975,1979; Dilts et al., 1980; Lewis & Pucelik, 1990; O’Connor & Seymour, 1990).
This basic analysis follows directly from Chomsky’s (1972) observation that the generative
component of language allows all grammars to create an infinite number of novel
sentences out of a limited number of individual words or phonemes for each language.
Dilts and DeLozier (2000) formulate it for NLP as follows:
... any mental functions (i.e., memory, decision making, motivation, learning,
creativity, etc.) can be reduced to some explicit, ordered sequence or combination of
sensory representations of sights, sounds, feelings, smells or tastes (p.852).
In this generalized concept of sensory perception and operation, the kinesthetic element
includes movement, the perception of movement, emotion and mood so that the VAKOG
analysis includes the possibility of action as well as perception (Dilts, Grinder, Bandler, &
Delozier, 1980).
In NLP, the concept is often sourced from Bateson’s (1972) levels of learning. Dilts (1990,
1996; Dilts & Epstein, 1995) specifies a hierarchy of outcomes and processes in his
neurological levels and Hall (1996) makes hierarchy explicit in his meta-states. This
presupposition also lies at the heart of Richard Bolstad’s RESOLVE model (2002).
Consonant with these, Piaget (1970) makes the useful observation that hierarchy is
organized such that structure on one level becomes content on the next higher level.
According to Chomsky (1972), language is assembled from basic units (phones-the sound
possibilities of the human organism) into larger elements (Phonemes-the sounds
characteristic of a given language). These assemble into the basic elements of meaning
(morphemes) from which words, sentences and discourses are created. He further notes
that phrases and sentences can take the structural position of other parts of speech in a
larger sentence or discourse.
The concept of hierarchical organization of behavior is one of the root ideas in the cognitive
revolution (Botvinick, 2008). Botvinick reports that in 1951, Karl Lashley complained that
behavior could not be explained in terms of simple chains of stimulus-response
associations but required the hierarchical assembly of multiple nested subroutines. iller
Acuity Vol.4
23
Galanter and Pribram (1960) in their landmark work, Plans and the Structure of Behavior,
also emphasized the need for hierarchical structures including nested subunits.
Botvinik (2008) reports that hierarchies may be assembled by two separate mechanisms.
The first relies on simple synchrony; neurons that fire together tend to become associated
together as a single neural event. The second is defined by some higher level outcome or
plan and is dependent upon reinforcement of the pattern at whatever level it occurs. This
will become the focus of the TOTE discussion below.
At the level of neurology, Antonio Damasio (1989) describes the possible organization of
such hierarchies in terms of Hebbian connectionism. He indicates that there is strong
evidence for the linking of sensory and motor inputs into larger units that become the
building blocks for larger behavioral components. In his presentation, the linking
mechanism is simple temporal synchrony. Similarly, Buszaki (2010), describes the
assembly of neural words and sentences based upon neurotransmitter timing cycles.
Longer cycles (AMPA and GABA based) are associated with the assembly of neural
‘phrases and sentences’ and shorter cycles (dopamine and acetylcholine based) are
associated with individual sensory-motor elements and ‘neural words’.
The basic organization of the frontal lobes reflects a hierarchical organization. Throughout
the brain more abstract concepts are represented rostrally (towards the head) and more
specific movements and perceptions are represented more caudally (towards the tail). In
the frontal lobes, specific, small-grained movements are represented in the motor cortex,
moving rostrally, larger behavioral chunks are represented in the premotor cortex. Further
still, in the rostral direction are more abstract representations of the desired action
(Botvinick, 2008). A similar organization can be found in the orbito-frontal cortex where
more specific multisensory representations provide strong motivation while weaker
motivations are encoded as the traces move caudally towards more abstract unimodal
representations (Kringelback, 2005). The same kind of hierarchical organization
characterizes multiple areas of neural organization including the general perception of
shapes and letters (Glezer, Jiang et al., 2009, Kandel, 2009; Kanwisher, 2010), the
perception of movement in the motor neuron system (Kilner, Friston, & Frith ,2007), the
specification of interoceptive perceptions in the insular cortex (Craig,2009) and many other
systems.
Hierarchy is ubiquitous in the organization of the brain and behavior. Botvinik notes:
All existing models of hierarchically structured behavior share at least one general
assumption – that the hierarchical, part–whole organization of human action is
24
mirrored in the internal or neural representations underlying it. Specifically, the
assumption is that there exist representations not only of low-level motor
behaviors, but also separable representations of higher-level behavioral units. (2008,
p. 202)
With the introduction of goal states, we necessarily come to the TOTE model.
The TOTE model. In NLP, the process of recursion and assembly of complex behaviors and
actions (and even simple actions) is described in terms of the TOTE model. TOTE is an
acronym, it refers to Test, Operate, Test, Exit and is derived from a seminal publication in
cognitive psychology by Miller, Galanter and Pribram (1960), Plans and the Structure of
Behavior. This book set forth the idea that behaviors in complex systems that have no
defined end (e.g., do this five times and stop) need to have some guiding process that details
what to do and when to stop doing it. In living organisms, this suggests that behaviors can
be usefully compared to a computer program that sets a criterion, operates on the data,
and tests to see whether the end criterion has been met. If it has not been met, the
program continues. If the criterion has been met, the program ends. The model was
integrated into NLP early on and is cited by Dilts et al., in NLP Volume One (1980; Gray
2010, 2011).
In the language of NLP the process begins with the identification of a desired outcome.
The first test in the Test- Operate-Test-Exit strategy is the comparison of the present state
to a desired state—an outcome. If they fail to match, some operation is performed with the
purpose of changing neural wiring, percepts, behaviors or the world in the direction of the
intended outcome. The second test in the algorithm compares the present state to the
outcome. If the outcome criteria have been met, the process ends. If, however, the outcome
has not been met, the process loops back through the test-operate procedure until it does
(Dilts, 1983; Dilts & Delozier, 2000; Dilts, Grinder, et al., 1980; Gray, 2010, 2011; Wake,
2010).
According to Gray (2010, 2011), as it appears in NLP, for large-scale conscious activities,
the model usually specifies that testing happens in the sensory modality most relevant to
the issue. A carpenter hammering nails might use sight, feel or sound—a hammer hitting a
nail off-center sounds and feels very different from one that has hit the nail correctly
This model can also be used to build much more complex behaviors. If we imagine that a
basic TOTE can be used to assemble a set of rudimentary skills that are necessary to a
larger task, we can imagine that larger and larger tasks can become integrated as unified
wholes using the same model.
Acuity Vol.4
25
The T.O.T.E model can be understood as a generalized description of behavioral shaping
where the test at each level is defined by the presence or absence of reinforcement. This
reinforcement may occur as matching a criterion set by a superordinate neural element-Buszaki’s (2010) reader or Damasio’s (1989) convergence point; the ability to perform a
previously unavailable behavior (Timberlake & Alyson, 1974) or the fulfillment of some
deprivation-based criterion like hunger or thirst (Skinner, 1957). According to Dehaene
and Changeaux (2000) reinforcement mechanisms at the neural level control the strength
of synaptic connections, the anticipation of other rewards and the control of decision
making processes. Most of these are gated via the midbrain dopamine pathway that
appears to be intimately involved with behavioral salience and reward.
Thus, the purely Skinnerian definition of a reinforcer as any stimulus that increases the
probability of the behavior that precedes it, can now be applied to a generalized schema,
on every level of integration, in which a set of behaviors matching to criterion serves as a
legitimate reinforcer (Gray, 2010, 2011).
In its more complex forms the TOTE model has become identified with hierarchical
reinforcement regimens in which higher order outcomes assemble lower level chunks to
achieve intermediate outcomes and goal behaviors (Botvinick, Niv & Barto, 2008). As part
of the structural organization of behavior, the pattern appears at every level of integration
(Buszaki, 2010; Botivnick, 2008; Botivnick, Nive & Barto, 2008; D’Amasio, 1989).
Systems Organization
There are several formulations of systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1968; Fidler, 1982; Gray,
1996; Piaget, 1970). All of them reflect many of the same basic ideas, these usually include:
emergence, centration, transformation and self-regulation.
From the systems perspective a complex phenomenon or organism can be shown to be
composed of a group of interacting subsystems. Systems have the special quality that the
characteristics of the whole are unpredictable from the nature of the parts or subsystems.
Wholes are said to be the emergent properties of the interactions between their parts or
subsystems. They differ specifically from aggregates in this property: the whole possess a
quality that is irreducible to its parts (Bertalanffy, 1968; Fidler, 1982; Gray, 1996).
Neurological evidence suggests that more complex behaviors coalesce around outcomes
that define the emergent properties of simpler behavioral systems (Buzsáki, 2010;
Damasio, 1989; Gray, 2006; Fidler, 1982). Although the telic behavior defines the function
26
of the parts that it integrates, those parts are wholes in themselves, each having an internal
integrity. Each functions in its own sphere and serves its own purpose. Assembly into
larger systems repurposes those outcomes and behaviors in service of the larger whole.
NLP is systems theoretical; that is, it is built on the same principle: larger elements of
behavior are built of smaller elements as an organized whole. In NLP we regularly note that the
whole is different from the sum of its parts. This is emphasized by the fact that NLP begins
as a modeling discipline: we begin with examples of excellence and by modeling them we
learn the nature and sequence of parts whose practiced performance and execution in the
correct sequence lead to the emergence of the valued behavior. More often than not, the
skill being modeled was not predictable from its parts.
Centration as the tendency for whole systems though differentiated into separate
subsystems, to retain the capacity to center their energy upon one or another of those
subunits. That is, the whole, at any moment in time, is capable of temporarily redefining
itself in terms of the subunit. According to Bertalanffy, centration is the only way a system
changes from one state to another (Bertalanffy, 1968).
Steve Andreas (2004) has referenced this same principle in the idea of heterarchy and gives
the example of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). In the American armed forces, rank is
absolute, it has nothing to do with expertise; it is hierarchical. In the IDF, the soldier with
the essential level of expertise takes command for the situation where her skill is
paramount. When that crisis ends, normal order is restored. That is to say, that in any
emergent situation, a unit of the IDF centrates around the soldier with the most relevant
skill set (Gray, 2010, 2011).
In organisms, perceptions and actions are often controlled by perceived needs and desires.
At any moment, one sensory system, dominated by one need, may determine the action
criteria in that context. The most salient outcome determines the choice of behavior. In
NLP this principle is observed in parts work; functioning subsystems of the individual
often work against the current interests of the whole in order to meet some outdated or
currently irrelevant positive intent. When those parts are acknowledged as valuable
subsystems and encouraged to take their part in the definition of the whole, their purposes
are reintegrated into the emergent whole and congruence is restored. It also appears in the
principle that every behavior has a positive intention—working out its own function as a
sub system.
A systems theoretical approach implies a dynamic hierarchy in which the organism is
intentionally reconfigured in terms of the centrating subsystem. Moreover, the same
Acuity Vol.4
27
approach preserves all of the structures and subsystems as contributing members and
potential centers of the whole. In a systems theoretical approach, there is a balance
between the current-time organization of the emergent whole and the emergence of new
properties of the system as it moves through time. Emergence defines the current state of
the system, however, as new definitions arise through centration, new capacities arise and
the system is transformed as new functions emerge (Gray, 1986).
Systems are dynamic, they transform and change but all of those changes are determined
by the capacities of the individual. This is the principle of transformation. Living systems
change and people change over time. In NLP we understand that, apart from actual
physical and developmental deficits, a human being can become anything that they
imagine.
As we apply a model of some skill to our own lives or the life of a client, we make use of
pre-existing resources (subsystems) in novel configurations with the intent that when
appropriate, the organism will find its center in the emergent skill that we have modeled
from another. The parts were always there, the potential for emergence of the skill was
there (if unobserved), it is the new ordering of the same elements that gives rise to the
transformation. It is one of the roots of the presupposition that everyone has the resources
that they need to achieve their outcomes.
Complex systems also have the property of self-regulation. This means that people remain
people, horses remain horses and you remain who you are. Even when we make radical
changes in beliefs and behaviors, the characteristics that define you continue to operate.
We see this in NLP as the unconscious tends to correct ecologically unsound behaviors that
have no strong compulsive elements. When a behavior has not been practiced so as to
become automatic and is not associated with significant external reinforcement, it will often
fade away leaving the original structure of personality and behavior intact. Behaviors that
resonate with the deep structure of the individual are easily assimilated and can quickly
become part of the individual’s standard behavioral repertoire. For this reason, once more,
ecology is a major consideration in any kind of change work. In general, we continue to be
who we are.
28
Discussion
This brief overview has provided a sketch of some of the neurological and experimental
evidence that supports four of the most fundamental NLP presuppositions as they impact
behavior. These were: The map is not the territory, People operate in regard of a context,
Every behavior has a positive intent and Behavior develops hierarchically and in accord
with general systems principles. The review has been rather superficial but is designed to
suggest the depths of support that already exists in the scientific literature for some of the
central tenets of NLP.
As noted in the beginning, this review has examined four presuppositions that seem to be
most basic to the scientific understanding of NLP.
Beyond an examination of the
presuppositions, however, the preliminaries for theory construction require not only a
more complete specification of the scientific evidence for all of the presuppositions but
doing the same for the observations about sensory sequences in behavioral analysis (the 4tuple), eye accessing cues, the process of modeling and other basic NLP tools and
presuppositions.
The take-away here, is that NLP is founded upon well-established science; science that has
often been ignored or taken for granted. By alerting ourselves to the patterns that appear in
the mainline journals we affirmatively show that NLP is not haphazard, a cult psychology
or a pseudo-science, but a discipline founded upon well-established scientific principles.
Notes
1. Much of this discussion is based on materials from Gray (1996, 2010 & 2011) and is
used with the author’s permission.
Biography
Richard M Gray, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice, Fairleigh Dickinson
University, Teaneck, NJ. Before his move to academia, Dr. Gray served for more than 20
years in the US Probation Department, Brooklyn, NY. He is the creator of the Brooklyn
Program, an NLP-based substance abuse program which operated for seven years in the
Federal Probation System. In recognition of that work, he was co-recipient of the 2004
Neuro-linguistic Programming World Community Award, presented at the CANLP
conference in Montreal. Dr. Gray is the author of Archetypal Explorations (Routledge,
Acuity Vol.4
29
1996), Transforming Futures: The Brooklyn Program Facilitators Manual (Lulu, 2003) and
About Addictions: Notes from Psychology, Neuroscience and NLP (Lulu, 2008). He is a
regular presenter at national and international addictions conferences and a recognized
expert in Neuro-Linguistic Programming. He received his BA in Psychology from Central
College, Pella, IA; MA in Sociology from Fordham University, Bronx, NY; and Ph.D. in
Psychology from the Union Institute, Cincinnati, OH. He also earned a certificate in
Forensic Psychology at New York University in 2002. Dr. Gray is a Certified Master
Practitioner of Neuro-linguistic Programming and a Certified Ericksonian Hypnotist.
Richard is a member of the American Psychological Association, the Federal Probation
Officers Association, the Canadian Association of NLP, the Institute for the Advanced
Study of Health and the NLP Research and Recognition Project.
References
Andreas, C. & Andreas, S. (1989). Heart of the mind. Moab, UT: Real People Press.
Andreas, S. (2004, October). “Heterarchy and Ecology: Maintaining and Restoring Balance
in Living Systems.” Workshop presented at The Institute for the Advanced Study of
Health (IASH), World Health Conference: The Many Paths to Health, San Francisco,
CA.
Andreas, S. (2006, September). “Imaginal Discussion NLP Group.” Workshop presented at
The Institute for the Advanced Study of Health (IASH), World Health Conference:
Well Being and Integrity for Our Lives Our Work and Our Communities, San
Francisco, CA.
Andreas, S. (2006). Six Blind Elephants: Understanding Ourselves and Each Other Volume I:
Fundamental Principles of Scope and Category. Moab, UT: Real People Press.
Ashby, W. R. (1956). Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall, Electronic version at
Principia Cybernetica.
Bandler, R. & Grinder, J. (1975). The Structure of Magic I. Cupertino, Calif.: Science and
Behavior Books.
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1979). Frogs into Princes. Moab, UT: Real People Press.
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: direct effects of
trait construct and stereotype-activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71(2): 230-44.
Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Trötschel, R. (2001). The
automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6):1014-27.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps Towards an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. NY: Bantam.
Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General System Theory. New York: George Braziller.
30
Bostic St Clair, C., & Grinder, J. (2002). Whispering in the Wind. Scotts Valley, CA: J & C
Enterprises.
Botvinick, M. M. (2008). Hierarchical models of behavior and prefrontal function. Trends
in Cognitive Science, 12(5):201-8. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.009.
Botvinick, M. M., Niv, Y., & Barto, A. C. ( 2009) Hierarchically organized behavior and its
neural foundations: a reinforcement learning perspective. Cognition, 113(3):262-80.
Buzsáki G. (2010) Neural syntax: cell assemblies, synapsembles, and readers. Neuron, 68(3):
362-85. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.023.
Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and Mind: Enlarged edition. NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Cosmides, L., Toobey, J., & Barkow, J. (1992). Introduction: Evolutionary Psychology and
Conceptual Integration. In Jerome Barkow, Leda Cosmides, & John Tooby (Eds.) The
Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, (3-15). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Collingwood, C. (2010) The New Code of Neuro-Linguistic Programming: A Paradigm shift in
NLP.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.inspiritive.com.au/images/
the_new_code_of_nlp_a_paradigm_shift_in_nlp.pdf
Craig, A. D. (2009). How do you feel — now? The anterior insula and human awareness.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(January 2009): 59-70. doi:10.1038/nrn2555.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. NY: Harper and
Row.
Damasio, A. R., (1989). Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: A systems-level
proposal for the neural substrates of recall and recognition. Cognition, 33: 25-62.
Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J. P. (2000). Reward-dependent learning in neuronal networks
for planning and decision making. Progress in Brain Research, 126(2000):217-29.
Devilly, G. J. (2005). Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and
psychiatry. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39(2005): 437-445.
Dilts, R. (1995). Strategies of Genius (Vol. 1). Cupertino CA.: Meta Publications.
Dilts, R., & Epstein, T. (1995). Dynamic Learning. Capitola, CA: Meta Publications.
Dilts. R. (1990) Changing Belief Systems with NLP. Capitola, CA: Meta Publications.
Eich, E., Rachman, S., & Lopatka, C. (1990). Affect, pain, and autobiographical memory,
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99(2):174-8.
Eich, E., & Metcalfe, J. (1989). Mood-dependent memory for internal versus external
events. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15(3), 443-455
Eskine, A. J. (2013). On the representation and processing of social information in
grounded cognitive systems: why terminology matters. Frontiers in Psychology,
2013(4): 180. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00180
Fidler, Jay (1982) "The Holistic Paradigm and General Systems Theory", in General Systems
Theory and the Psychological Sciences, vol.1, Gray, Fidler & Battista (Eds.) Seaside,
California: General Systems Press.
Gallese, V. (2003). The Manifold Nature of Interpersonal Relations: The Quest for a
Common Mechanism. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 358(1431): 517-528.
Gallese, V., Kaysers, C. et al. (2004). A Unifying View of the Basis of Social Cognition.
Trends in Cognitive Science 8(9): 396-403.
Acuity Vol.4
31
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving,
acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What Memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(1):1-19.
Glezer, L.S., Jiang, X., & Reisenhuber, M. (2009). Evidence for Highly Selective Neuronal
Tuning to Whole Words in the “Visual Word Form Area”. Neuron 62(2):199-204. doi:
10.1016/ j.neuron.2009.03.017.
Gray, R. M. (1996). Archetypal Explorations. London: Routledge.
Gray, R. M. (2010). NLP Patterns and Principles. Acuity, 1(1), November 2010, 6-16.
Gray, R. M. (2011). Interviewing and counseling skills: An NLP perspective. Raleigh, NC: Lulu
Press.
Gray, R., Wake, L., Andreas, S., & Bolsted, R. (2012). Indirect Research into the
Applications of NLP. In Lisa Wake, Richard Gray & Frank Bourke (Eds.), The Clinical
Efficacy of NLP: A critical appraisal (153-193). London, Routledge.
Hall, L. M. (1996). Meta-States: A domain of logical levels. Grand Junction, CO:
Empowerment Technologies.
Hall, L. M. (2008). Roots of Neuro-Semantics. Retrieved from: http://
www.neurosemantics.com/ns-writings/roots-of-neuro-semantics
Hall, L. M. (2010). The history of NLP (17 Articles). retrieved from http://
www.neurosemantics.com/topics/nlp/the-history-of-nlp
Harris, B. (1979) Whatever Happened to Little Albert? American Psychologist, 34: 151–60.
IASH & Delozier, J. (2006). An Interview with our Keynote Speaker [Interview Transcript].
Retrieved
from
IASH
2006
Conference
Web
site:
http://www.nlpiash.org/conference2006/ Site/ Presentations/DelozierJudith.htm
James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt.
Jobeq.com. (2000).Putting NLP Metaprograms Research in context: Studying the scientific
validity of NLP. Retrieved from: http://jobeq.com/articles/NLP_Research.htm
Kandel, E. R. (2001). NOBEL LECTURE: The Molecular Biology of Memory Storage: A
Dialog Between Genes and Synapses. Bioscience Reports, 21, 565–611.
Kandel, E. R. (2009). An introduction to the work of David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel. The
Journal of Physiology, 587(12): 2733-2741. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2009.170688.
Kanwisher, N. (2010). Functional specificity in the human brain: A window into the
functional architecture of the mind. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
107(25): 11163-11170.
Kilner, J., Friston, K., & Frith, C. (2007). Predictive coding: an account of the mirror neuron
system. Cognitive Processing, 8(3): 159-166.
Korzybski, A. (1994). Science & sanity (5th ed.). European Society for General Semantics.
Retrieved from http://esgs.free.fr/uk/art/sands.htm.
Kringelbach, M. L. (2005). The Human Orbitofrontal Cortex: Linking Reward to Hedonic
Experience. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 6(9): 691-702.doi:10.1038/nrn1747.
Kroes, M., & Fernández, G. (2012). Dynamic neural systems enable adaptive, flexible
memories.
Neuroscience
and
Biobehavioral
Reviews,
36(7):1646-66.
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.014
32
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lewis, B. & Pucelik, F. (1990). Magic of NLP Demystified. Portland, OR: Metamorphous
Press.
Linder-Pelz, S. & Hall, L.M. (2007). The theoretical roots of NLP-based coaching. The
Coaching Psychologist, 3(1): 12–15.
Mannheim, Karl. (1936). Ideology and Utopia. (Louis Wirth and Edward Shills, Trans.) New
York: Harvest Books.
Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, Illinois.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the Structure of Behavior.
London: Holt.
Morris, R. G. M. (2006). Elements of a neurobiological theory of hippocampal function: The role of
synaptic plasticity, synaptic tagging and schemas. European Journal of Neuroscience,
23(11), 2829-2846.
Morris, R.G. M. (2009, May 11). Elements of a Neurobiological Theory of Hippocampal
Memory Function: Automaticity, Synaptic Tagging and Schemas. NIH neuroscience
seminar series. Bethesda, Md.: National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from
http://videocast.nih.gov/ summary.asp?live=7148&bhcp=1
Nadel, L., Hupbach, A., Gomez, R., & Newman-Smith, K. (2012). Memory formation,
consolidation and transformation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, (2012), doi:
10.1016/.
Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005).
Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social
Psychology Review: An Official Journal of The Society for Personality and Social Psychology,
Inc., 9(3), 184-211.
Niedenthal, P. M., P. Winkielman, et al. (2009). "Embodiment of emotion concepts." Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6): 1120-1136.
O’Connor, J. & Seymour, J. (1990). Introducing NLP. London: Element.
Pavlov, I. P. (1927) Conditioned Reflexes. London: Routledge
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic Epistemology (Eleanor Duckworth, Trans.). New York: Columbia
University Press
Premack, D. (1961). Predicting Instrumental Performance from Independent Rate of
Contingent Response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(2), 163-171.
Prochaska, J. O. (1994). Strong and weak principles for progressing from precontemplation
to action on the basis of twelve problem behaviors. Health Psychology,13(1): 47-51.
Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: It's not what you think it is. American
Psychologist, 43(3): 151-160.
Roderique-Davies, G. (2009). Neuro-linguistic programming: cargo cult psychology?
Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 1(2): 57-63.
Smith, S. M. (1995). Mood is a component of mental context: Comment on Eich (1995).
Journal Of Experimental Psychology: General, 1 24(3): 309-310. doi:10.1037/00963445.124.3.309
Acuity Vol.4
33
Timberlake, W., & Allison, J. (1974). Response deprivation: An empirical approach to
instrumental performance. Psychological Review, 81(2): 146-164. doi: 10.1037/h0036101.
Varela, F.; Thompson, E. and Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and
Human Experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wake, L. (2009). Neurolinguistic Psychotherapy: A Postmodern Perspective. London:
Routledge.
Weber, D. (2002). Healing Embodied Metaphors: Becoming the Person You Were Meant to
Be.
Anchor
Point,
16(7),
July
2002.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/
articles/188/1/Healing-EmbodiedMetaphors/Page1.html
Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes
interpersonal warmth. Science, 322(5901):606-7. doi: 10.1126/science.1162548.
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: the unity of knowledge. New York: Knopf.
34
L. Michael Hall, PhD
(with Dr. C. E. “Buzz” Johnson)
There’s an old myth in the field of communication, one that has been around for decades
and one that seems to persist in spite of all of the counter research, data, and information.
It is the old myth that “Most communication is non-verbal.” It is the myth that was once
summarized into the formula of “7 / 38 / 55 percentage.” The problem with this old myth,
in addition to simply being wrong, is that it downgrades the importance of language and
discounts how dependent we are upon words for clarity and precision of communication.
Now way back in 1994, Dr. C. E. “Buzz” Johnson, an Optometrist, wrote an article to
expose the myth. In fact, the title he used went directly after the mythology in these ideas:
“The 7%, 38%, 55% Myth.” 1
Detailing the Myth
The myth—and it is totally a myth—is that only 7% of the meaning that we obtain from a
person in communication comes from the words while 38% from sounds and 55% from
what we see visually. From the very first time that I heard this idea by somebody in NLP,
I didn’t know it was a myth, but I had a sense that it was obviously wrong-headed and
even non-sense. I immediately thought about all the times I have sat in an airplane
watching a movie in some language other than English and not understanding anything
about it! I certainly was not understanding 93% of it from the visual images and sounds. I
could tell if someone was upset or angry or loving or kind, but that was about it. I didn’t
know the plot, the characters, the problems, etc.
And over the years that has become repeatedly obvious as I’ve traveled into many, many
countries where I have tried to communicate with people who spoke languages other than
English. I have tried to ask for simple things all to no avail, “Where is the train station?”
“May I have scrambled eggs.” “Point me to the men’s room.” I have had to make
childlike sounds, “Chu chu; chu chu” to get the idea of a train, but then asking where is
train station?
Acuity Vol.4
35
Just listening to the sounds that people were making and watching their face and gestures,
I definitely was not picking up 93% of the messages and meanings that they were
communicating! And in reverse, when I tried to let someone know that I wanted a grilled
chicken salad or a fish or how to call for a taxi, they definitely were not getting 93% of my
intended messages! And even I went into pantomiming cars and planes and grilled
chicken salad (which is a sight to see!), I could not make myself understood.
I recently tried to explain to the chef in Guangzhou China who was cooking gourmet eggs
that I wanted 2 eggs, scrambled and cooked well-done and please do not cut the egg into a
thousand tiny pieces (which he continued to do day after day). Impossible! I even had
someone write that message on a three-by-five card, handed it to him, which he
immediately took into the back area of the kitchen trying to get someone to tell him what
to do! Then he did not return with the card (!) which I tried to ask for with more
pantomiming. All to no avail.
Words do count! Words do mean something. By words we transfer simple and complex
ideas from one another and in fact, probably 80 to 90 percent of our communications are
dependent on words— not the non-verbal gestures, sounds, grunts, pantomimes, facial
expressions, etc.
In the original article by Dr. Johnson, he described Albert Mehrabian’s original research,
what it was about, and how it was misunderstood.
“Albert Mehrabrian, Ph.D. of UCLA was the originator of the 7-38-55 theory. He
speaks of it in two books, Silent Messages published in 1971, and Nonverbal
Communications published in 1972. . . . From Chapter 3 of Silent Messages we find that
the numbers 7-38-55 expressed as percentages have to do only with what he calls the
resolution of inconsistent messages (italics added), or to put it in NLP terms,
incongruencies. He states that there are very few things that can be communicated
non-verbally.
He initially was investigating liking/ disliking which he later
generalized into feelings. In speaking with him by phone in March, 1994, he stated
that his findings and inferences were not meant to be applied to normal
communications. They were of very limited application.”
Now there is a video on Youtube that you can see that has similarly exploded the myth of
this old mis-represented idea. It is presented by Creativity Works and titled: Busting the
Mehrabian Myth.2
Just last night here in Guangzhou, China we had 7 teams (in the Meta-Coach training)
make a presentation (/skit) on various business experiences like “introducing a coaching
36
culture into an organization,” “managing upwards,” “making a presentation MetaCoaching in a board room for consideration,” etc. While watching, there was so many
words, so much action occurring, after a couple presentations, my translator got worn out
and just quit. As I continued to watch, I kind of knew what was going on but when the
audience burst forth with laughter due to some exchange or conversation, I didn’t have a
clue. “It’s funny!” I knew that. But I didn’t know what was funny, how it was funny, and
I couldn’t have passed the funny situation on to anyone else.
Words! How amazing in their power to transfer meaning! Here’s to the marvel and
wonder and magic of words— linguistic symbols by which we can communicate complex
ideas and messages to each other. There are many people in (and outside) the NLP field
who somehow got the idea that words are an inferior form of communication and that the
best communication is behavioral. But try it and you won’t get the food you want, get to
the destinations that you want, or transfer the complex ideas that you want to explore.
And now, here is the original article by Dr. C. E. “Buzz” Johnson:
THE 7%, 38%, 55% MYTH
In the remote sense that anyone in the NLP field needs their memories refreshed
concerning the numbers in the above title, let me briefly give my recollection from
numerous sessions. The total message one receives in any face to face communication is
divided into three components. The words themselves, the tonality used in delivering
those words, and the body language accompanying the other two.
The numbers indicate the relative weight or importance assigned to each of these three
areas with body language receiving the 55% figure, tonality the 38%, and the actual words
themselves being tagged with a paltry 7%.
This strangely skewed distribution has
bothered me ever since my introduction into this marvelous arena called NLP.
Out of the Mist
The first reason for my puzzlement was that none of my NLP instructors could tell me
where those figures came from. Please do not interpret this to mean that I had been
cursed with unknown and unknowing fly-by-night mentors.
known and active in the NLP community.
They are all very well
They are also, in my opinion, excellent
teachers. However, when asked where I might find further information about the research
Acuity Vol.4
37
that produced those numbers, I was vaguely referred to a variety of well known
universities. I later drew a blank at each of these institutions.
Secondly, if these percentages are really valid it would mean that the learning of foreign
languages could be greatly abbreviated. After all, if the words only account for 7% of the
meaning of communication, we should all be able to go to any country in the world, and
simply by listening to the tone and carefully observing the body language, be able to
accurately interpret 93% of their communications! And I’ll bet you always thought that
learning Chinese or Russian would be a real stretch. In fact, from these percentages, it
appears that you needn’t even bother. You may be better off without being encumbered
by all the intricacies of any language. People like Leo Buscaglia are looking forward to the
time when words will no longer be necessary as he states in his book Living, Loving &
Learning. Since a word such as “love” has as many definitions as it has definers, he feels it
will be a happy day when the world of word hang-ups is replaced by “vibrations.”
Counting on What?
I wonder how many of you have a 93% rate of accuracy when it comes to interpreting and
understanding even your most intimate friends and family members? And that’s with
people speaking the same official language with its 7% impact!
It is not only the NLP community that is espousing and apparently believing the 7-38-55
myth. I’ve heard therapists and counselors who were unfamiliar with NLP allude to those
same numbers. There also seems to be a widespread belief among the general population
that words are relatively unimportant. I’m sure most of us have heard people mid-read
with statements such as, “She didn’t really mean what she said, she probably meant XXX
instead.” Or, “He may have said that but he didn’t really mean it.” Or, “It’s not what you
say, but how you say it.”
In NLP change work, note how carefully we re-word statements in order to reframe a
client’s personal perceptions.
And by very skillfully using just the right hypnotic
language patterns, we are able to rapidly enhance desired shifts in our clients’
understandings and attitudes and beliefs. Would we need to be this meticulous and
conscientious if we were really dealing with only 7% of a person’s awareness and
comprehension?
I was finally able to track down the source of this myth thanks to a professional speaker
who makes his living giving sales seminars and workshops. And yes, the 7-38-55 was an
important part of his presentations.
He didn’t know how to spell the name of the
38
individual responsible for the research that originated those numbers or which university
was involved, but he gave me a valuable starting point by offering me a couple of different
possible pronunciations. I think you’ll be interested in what I found.
The Study
Albert Mehrabrian, Ph. Of UCLA was the originator of the 7-38-55 theory. He speaks of it
in two books, Silent Messages published in 1971, and Nonverbal Communications
published in 1972. In these two books, he refers to research projects which were published
in various professional journals. I will get to the journals in more detail later, but first let’s
look at some of his statements from one of the books.
From Chapter 3 of Silent Messages we find that the numbers 7-38-55 expressed as
percentages have to do only with what he calls the resolution of inconsistent messages, or
to put it in NLP terms, incongruencies. He also states that there are very few things that
can be communicated non-verbally. He initially was investigating liking/ disliking which
he later generalized into feelings. In speaking with him by phone in March, 1994, he
stated that his findings and inferences were not meant to be applied to normal
communications. They were of very limited application.
Let me paraphrase some of his thoughts from page 134 toward the end of that book.
Clearly, it is not always possible to substitute actions for words and therefore, what are the
limitations of actions as instruments of communication? If you’ve ever played charades,
you know that words and language are by far the most effective way of expressing
complex and abstract ideas. The ideas contained in Silent Messages, and most other books
for that matter, couldn’t be done with actions. A very important thing to remember about
the differences between words and actions is that actions only permit the expression of a
limited set of things; namely, primary feelings and attitudes.
The Details
Now let’s examine in more detail the specifics of a couple of his experiments from which
some people have made some rather sweeping and inaccurate generalizations. From the
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, Vol. 31. No. 3, pg. 248-252 is a report entitled
Inference Of Attitudes From Nonverbal Communication In Two Channels. This study was
designed to investigate the decoding of inconsistent and consistent communications of
attitude in facial and vocal channels.
The experimental team found that the facial
Acuity Vol.4
39
component received approximately 3/2 the weight received by the vocal component. You
can readily see that this roughly corresponds to the 38% and 55% figures mentioned
earlier.
You may be wondering how this study was conducted. There was only one word used.
That word was “maybe,” selected for its apparent neutrality. Three female speakers were
tape recorded saying that word wile varying their tone of voice so as to communicate
three different attitudes (i.e., like, neutral, and dislike) towards an imagined addressee.
Then the tapes were listened to by 17 female subjects with instructions to imagine that the
speaker is saying this word to another person and judged by the tones what the speaker’s
attitude is towards that imaginary addressee. So there was no direct feedback by anyone
who was being addressed. It was a number of third-party listeners who were asked to
mind-read, guess, interpret, imagine, etc., how the speaker felt towards someone who
wasn’t even there and, in fact, didn’t even exist. There was no way to see or hear the
reactions of this phantom individual, about whom someone was going to make several
long-lasting and powerful speculations.
Next, black and white photographs were taken of three female models as they attempted
to use facial expressions t communicate like, neutrality, and dislike towards another
person. Then photos were shown to the same 17 subjects with the instructions that they
would be shown the pictures and at the same time hear a recording of the word “maybe”
spoken in different tones of voice. “You are to imagine that the person you see and hear
(A) is looking at and talking to another person (B).” For each presentation they were to
indicate on a rating scale what they thought A’s attitude was toward B. Again, third-party
mind-reading with no direct contact with the person addressed, B, because that person
was non-existent. The conclusions from this experiment were that the facial components
were stronger than the vocal by the ratio of 3/2 as referred to earlier.
An interesting comment that came out of the discussion section indicated that the effect of
redundancy (i.e., consistent attitude communication in two or more channels) is to
intensify the attitude communicated in any one of the component channels. Perhaps this
is something that could be more profitably pursued instead of the denigration of words.
Or as you can see from this particular study, word, not words. And that word was
“maybe.” It seems to play words under quite a handicap not much different from playing
charades.
40
Two Studied Combined
They integrated this study with another one to come up with the .07, .38, and .55
coefficients.
This second study was reported in the Journal of personality and Social
Psychology, 1967, Vol. 6, No. 1, pg. 109-114 entitled, Decoding Of Inconsistent
Communications.
Here they dealt with inconsistent communication of attitude in two
components; tone of voice and nine different words. Three words were selected that
seemed to indicate a positive attitude, “honey,” “thanks,” and “dear.” Three were neutral,
“maybe,” “really,” and “oh,” and three were negative, “don’t,” “brute,” and “terrible.”
Two female speakers were employed to read each of the nine words with each of the three
tones, positive, neutral, or disliking of an imaginary addressee. These were recorded on
tape which was then listened to by 30 University of California undergraduates.
They were instructed to imagine that each word was being said by one person to another
and to judge what the speaker’s attitude was towards the imaginary recipient. One-third
were told to ignore the information conveyed by the meaning of the words and to pay
attention only to the tone. Another third were told to ignore the tone and pay attitude
only to the meaning of the words. The last third were told to utilize both the tone and the
content.
The findings were that the independent effects of tone, overall, were stronger than the
independent effects of content. I should think so! After all, the words allowed were very
limited while the tones allowed were unlimited as long as certain feelings were being
demonstrated.
communication.
But, after all, Mehrabian’s main interest is in non-verbal types of
However, in fairness, it was mentioned in the discussion that the
methodology used failed to solve the problem for which it was intended. An alternative
methodology could have employed written communication for assessing the independent
effects of content and electronically filtered speech (with the content rendered
incomprehensible) for assessing the independent effects of tone.
I don’t know if an
alternative experiment like that was ever carried out.
After commenting on some of the methodological problems, they do go on to say that the
results indicate that judgments of attitude from inconsistent messages involving single
words spoken with intonation are primarily based on the attitude carried in the tonal
component. The use of single words is a long way away from normal communications,
don’t you think? In fact, they admit that their findings can only be safely extended to
situations in which no additional information about the communicator-addressee
Acuity Vol.4
relationship is available.
41
This seems to relegate it to the realm of tightly controlled
laboratory-pure experimentation only.
I would invite all of you readers to examine not only Mehrabian’s books, but also his
articles in the professional journals which go into more detail concerning his experiments.
If enough of us carefully analyze the available data, perhaps we can reinterpret the results
in a more useful, meaningful, and workable way than we have in the past.
Time For Accuracy
If we continue to disseminate erroneous information such as the 7-38-55 myth, I feel we
are doing a grave disservice not only to the NLP community, but to the public in general.
We could do a great service by helping the public realize that the words they use on
themselves as well a on others are extremely important in determining the effectiveness
and longevity of relationships, the strength of personal self-esteem, and a whole host of
other psychological physiological phenomena.
Words and language are probably the primary motivation factors for human beings and
they can be enhanced by proper congruent tonality and body language. They can also be
somewhat diminished by incongruencies which then often show up as confusion and
bewilderment in relationship situations. For example, think how often some battered
women have desperately believed the words of their batterers despite overwhelming
incongruent behavior. “He said he was really going to change this time.”
Think of your own personal experiences in close relationships that have gone sour.
Haven’t you also hoped and waited for change that would transform incongruent
communication signals into congruent ones? Especially before NLP training? Haven’t
most of us, at some time, hopelessly clung to our own inaccurate interpretation of
another’s actions hoping for a miracle that would once again make everything whole and
comfortable just like we thought it used to be? And what was the total affect of the spoken
word at those times? Did the words really have only a 7% influence on our hopes and
desires? Not likely. Given the emotional impact of prior experience and beliefs, our
memories are not about to logically reduce the words of a loved one, or former loved one,
to such an insignificant role instantaneously.
Such impersonal and coldly analytical reactions are probably destined to remain in the
safety aloof confines of the experimental laboratory with its pretend situations and
imaginary interactions. Perhaps we could benefit from a re-assessment of old acquired
beliefs in the glaring light of real life relationship reactions and perceptions.
42
Notes
The article was first published in July, 1994 in Anchor Point and I was so impressed with it
at that time that I wrote to Dr. Johnson and received his permission to put it on the NeuroSemantic website (www.neurosemantics.com) because I wanted to offer it to correct the
old myth about communication.
It is a very good video and you can get to it by clicking the following link:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dboA8cag1M
Authors:
L. Michael Hall, Ph.D., author of more than 40 books on NLP and a visionary leader for
Neuro-Semantics.
You can see articles and patterns on www.neurosemantics.com and
www.meta-coaching.org.
Dr. C. E. “Buzz” Johnson, retired Optometrist, a Master Practitioner and Trainer, a
researcher of the power of words in a variety of disciplines: medicine, education,
addictions, relationships, psycho-neuro-immunology, hypnosis, psychotherapy, etc.
References
Buscaqlia, Leo. (1982). Living, loving, & learning. Charles B. Slack, Inc.
Mehrabian, Albert. (1972). Nonverbal communication. AldimeAtherton, Inc.
Mehrabian, Albert. (1971). Silent Messages. Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Mehrabian, Albert; Ferris, Susan. (1967). Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 31. No. 3.
Pg. 248-252.
Mehrabian, Albert; Wiener, Morton. (1967). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol.
6, No. 1. Pg. 109-114.
Acuity Vol.4
43
Embodied Modelling and
a Development of the Satir Categories
Joe Cheal, MSc
This article is divided into two parts. The first part is an introduction to a grounded form
of modelling called Embodied Modelling (based on the principles and research behind
embodied cognition). The second part is an application of Embodied Modelling as applied
to the Satir Categories (which leads to a series of suggested developments to the Satir
Categories model).
Part 1: Introducing Embodied Modelling
Embodied Cognition
Consider the concept of love for a moment. How do you feel love? Do you keep love in your heart?
Does it give you a warm glow? Does it make your head swim? Does it give you butterflies in your
stomach? Does it lift you?
Embodied cognition is based on the principle that the mind uses the body, the body’s
environment and its relationship to the environment as a reference for understanding
concepts1. In other words, abstract concepts (e.g. nominalisations) are processed and
expressed in concrete terms. Although perhaps not a completely new perspective
(philosophically), recent interest and research into neuroscience has added credence and
support to embodiment.
The notion of embodied cognition was popularised more
recently by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and embodiment is also the premise of the
interconnected fields of cognitive linguistics, grounded cognition, embodied metaphor
and embodied simulation.
Concepts will often be expressed as kinaesthetic, physical metaphors, either to parts of the
body or tangible things around that we can truly grasp. Alternatively, these metaphors will
be in location or movement (using prepositions). We search for love, fall in love and then
love lifts us up. Our love gets deeper as time passes by2. Take any nominalisation and you
will find that in order to ‘make sense’ of it, we tend to embody it in some way. This
embodied language may refer to any of the senses, particularly visual, auditory and
44
Embodied Modelling and a Development of the Satir Categories
kinesthetic. In NLP we refer to this language as ‘predicates’, i.e. the language of the
modalities and submodalities.
For this article, we are particularly interested in the language and embodiment of location
and movement. Steven Pinker (1999) suggests that there are two significant types of
metaphors: ‘location in space’ and ‘force/agency/causation’; these would apparently
correlate with one of the two pathways (i.e. the ‘where’ pathway) in the brain that process
visual information (Bergen 2012, pp51-52). Signals travel from the eyes to the primary
visual cortex and then information travels along the two pathways, in effect ‘what and
‘where’:
1) ‘What’ : This pathway is responsible for determining what the object is, its shape
and its colour. The pathway runs down and forward through the temporal lobe.
2) ‘Where’: This pathway is responsible for spatial maps, location and movement
direction. It runs up and forward through the parietal cortex.
Whilst still in its infancy and not yet unequivocally demonstrated, research into ‘mirror
neurons’ (e.g. Iacoboni 2008) suggests that when we see, hear about, read about or talk
about an action, there may be a network of motor neurons in the brain that will activate as
if we are carrying out the action. In addition, according to Bergen (p54), it appears that we
actively “construct visually detailed simulations of the objects that are mentioned”.
Embodied Modelling
The concept of embodying cognitive processes is not necessarily new to NLP. Carmen
Bostick St Clare and John Grinder (2001) use embodiment in their modelling process to
acquire the skill of an exemplar. Robert Dilts (2010) introduced the ‘somatic mind’ for a
‘third generation NLP’ set of change-work processes. Charles Faulkner (2005) brought the
concept of embodied metaphor into NLP with his ‘Metaphors of Movement and Change’
and Andy Austin has since built on Faulkner’s work (2013). However, this article is
designed to formalise a new ‘sub-field’ of NLP called ‘embodied modelling’.
Embodied modelling begins with the client, from their point of view, taking them as the
centre of the model. The model itself will then develop from them. According to the
embodied cognition hypothesis, we make sense of the world from our own physical and
sensory perspective. Hence embodied modelling, by its very nature, is a sensory approach.
Embodied modelling could be realised in two distinct ways: Static and Dynamic:
Acuity Vol.4
45
1) Static
In this type of modelling process, we use the metaphor of ‘embodied location’, where we
are at the centre and there is a 360 degree ‘field’ or landscape around us which contains
things we have a relationship with. Lucas Derks’ Social Panorama (2005) would be an
example of this, where we imagine people we know around us. We are static in this form
of modelling, whilst the panorama may change. The people (or more correctly the internal
representations of those people) will likely be in different locations around and distances
from us. They may differ in other submodalities too – some might be brighter, more
colourful, bigger, more in focus, louder etc than others. This form of modelling could
apply to anything we have a relationship to, for example, different memories, foods,
animals or jobs.
It could also be argued that James Lawley and Penny Tompkins’ Symbolic Modelling
(2003) would also be an example of static embodied modelling - where we help a client
build (or realise) a metaphorical landscape around them. Whilst the client’s attention may
move from one metaphor to another, the building process works from the client’s
perspective.
2) Dynamic
If we have a mental space around us, or as David Grove called it: a ‘psychoactive’ space
(Lawley, 2006), can we utilise this space to actively
move around in?
In this type of modelling process, we use the metaphor
of ‘embodied movement’ to give us a sense of direction
from where we are currently positioned. The standard
directions of movement would be: forward/backward,
left/right (or NSWE compass points) and up/down.
This would give us an ‘XYZ axis’ (3 dimensional)
model (as introduced by Charles Faulkner in his 2007
NLP conference presentation).
Whilst this might initially seem restrictive, our language uses these directions to embody
various metaphor types. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) give some great examples of what they
call orientation metaphors, and of particular interest here is the language of up and down
(p15-17):
46
• Happy is up: “I’m feeling up today”. Sad is down: “feeling down”.
• Conscious is up: “wake up”. Unconscious is down: “fell asleep”.
• Health/life is up: “peak of health”. Sickness /death is down: “he came down with
flu”.
• Having control is up: “top of the pile”. Being controlled is down: “he fell from
power”.
• More is up: “income rose”. Less is down: “income fell”.
• High status is up: “rise to the top”. Low status is down: “fell from grace”.
• Good is up: “things are looking up”. Bad is down: “things are going downhill”.
• Virtue is up: “high standards”. Depravity is down: “underhanded”.
• Rational is up: “high brow discussion”. Emotional is down: “base emotions”.
• Unknown is up: “up in the air”. Known is down: “the matter is settled”.
To add to the model and to move it forward, here are some further examples of how many
people (particularly in Western cultures) appear to embody meanings in the directions of
movement:
Forward
Towards
Advance
Push
Future
Progression
Zoom in (close view)
(Metaphor type/context)
Motivation
Force
Influence/Leadership Style
Time3
Development
Camera Lens
Backward
Away
Retreat
Pull
Past
Regression
Zoom out (wide view)
Left
Past
Rewind
Smaller/Less
Start
Wrong
Not okay/Alone
Random/unstructured
Chaos
Time (Western)
Video
Numbers (Western)
Western language, journey
Moral judgement
Feeling
Resources/Ideas
State
Right
Future
Forward wind/play
Bigger/More
End
Right
Okay
Trusted/structured
Order
Up
Higher
Bigger
Awake/awareness
Joy/happy
Good/better
Big Picture/Meta
Louder
Achievement/Status
Height/Size
Trance state
Emotional state/feeling
Grades/Scores
Chunk size
Volume
Down
Lower
Smaller
Deeper
Depressed/miserable
Poor/worse
Detail
Quieter
Acuity Vol.4
47
The process of dynamic embodied modelling when working with a particular context/skill
(e.g. relating to a person/group, coaching, presenting, influencing, motivating, problem
solving, reframing, negotiating, selling, buying, working, playing a sport, playing an
instrument, dog/horse training), is to take each direction in turn and ask the embodied
modelling questions.
Select a context/skill that you would like to model. Have the client stand with eyes open or
closed (according to preference). With each ‘direction’, whilst the client stands in the same
place, have the client rock slightly in that direction. If that is not enough movement, have
the client step in that direction.
Then ask the embodied modelling questions for each direction in turn:
1) Elicit information and resources about a direction:
• And in the context of X, when you move [direction], what does that mean to you?
• And in the context of X, when you move [direction], what do you do there?
2) Elicit the benefits/positive intentions of the direction:
• And how might that be useful?
3) Elicit helpful contexts/applications of this direction:
• And where might that be effective?
4) Do an ‘ecology check’ (to determine the potential limits and scope of this direction):
• And how might that not be useful?
• And where might that not be effective?
For example:
And in the context of influencing, when you move forward, what does that mean to you?
“I’m pushing information at people.”
And in the context of influencing, when you move forward, what do you do there?
“I go into telling mode... I tell people.”
And how might that be useful?
“It’s quicker... I can get more information across. It feels more in my control.”
And where and when might that be effective?
“When people don’t know about the topic. When they need me to give them
information and maybe expect it. When they believe in me and trust me.”
And how might that not be useful?
48
“If people already know what I’m telling them, I might be ‘teaching them to suck
eggs’.”
And where might that not be effective?
“If they don’t know who I am or I don’t have credibility with them, they may reject
what I’m saying or want to argue with me.”
When this questioning process is repeated through the different directions, it should give
the client six different options that they can utilise when they are in that context/using that
skill. (If we include ‘do nothing’/’not moving in any direction’/’stay in neutral’ as an
option, then this will give us a seventh option.) In order to develop a ‘directions of
movement’ model further, Lakoff & Johnson (1980) also refer to ‘near’ and ‘far’, which
might bring about further distinctions to an individual’s ‘embodied model’.
Of course, we all have individual and culture differences and these differences may create
variable models. One person’s model may not match another person’s model; however,
some ideas may be generalisable, learnable or at least a springboard for individualised
adaptation.
An Application of Embodied Modelling: Developing the Satir Categories Model
As an exercise, I wanted to explore the Satir categories in the context of embodied
modelling. Before explaining the outcome, here is a brief overview of the categories as
outlined in and about Satir’s work (e.g. Satir 19724, Satir et al 1975, Satir et al 1991, James &
Shepherd 2001, Churches & Terry 2007):
Satir
Category
Blamer
Placater
Distracter
Computer
Characteristics & Qualities
Fault finding, superior, loud, tyrannical, accusing, finger pointing, name
calling, critical, aggressive, inquisitorial, pushing the point home, telling,
shifting responsibility, generalising, domineering, dominating, finding
fault.
Ingratiating, trying to please, apologising, never disagreeing, ‘martyrish’,
‘syrupy’, vulnerable, approval seeking, seeking sympathy, accepting/
taking the blame, giving power away, being nice.
Irrelevant, nonsensical, dizzy, focussing nowhere, lopsided, constantly
spinning, changing subject/changing mind, ignoring questions,
asymmetrical, angular, fluctuating, unpredictable, causing confusion,
moving, multitasking.
Ultra-reasonable, correct, hiding emotions, unfeeling, calm, cool, collected,
Acuity Vol.4
Leveller
49
disassociated, monotone, abstract, logical, rational, data driven, details
focussed, wordy, prone to complicated jargon.
Congruent, real, whole, responsive, appropriate to context, showing
feelings, moving freely, say what they intend to say, accept the
consequences of their own behaviour, integrated, flowing, alive, open,
balanced, centred, symmetrical, true to what they think, in touch with
head, heart, feelings and body. Act with integrity, commitment, honesty,
intimacy, competence, creativity.
The first four categories outlined above (Blamer, Placater, Distracter and Computer) are
from Satir’s original work (1972) and were used to describe dysfunctional aspects of
personality; particularly in the context of family dynamics (indeed she sometimes called
them the ‘survival stances’). The Leveller was then introduced as the congruent, balanced
personality. In addition, Churches & Terry (2007) introduced a sixth category (in the
context of teaching) that they called the Sequencer. I have also added some additional
characteristics and qualities to Churches & Terry’s brief description:
Sequencer
Unemotional, thoughtful, makes sequential order, communicating time
passing, planning ahead, indicating movement, processing, placing,
ordering, chunking, identifying patterns, organising, practical, structured.
By using the embodied modelling approach myself (i.e. self modelling), it seemed that the
four original categories (Blamer, Placater, Distracter and Computer) followed the pattern
of forward, back, left and right. For me, this is like a ‘mental-joystick’ where I can move
around the four points. My initial process, revealed the following:
BLAMER
DISTRACTOR
COMPUTER
PLACATER
In explanation, the Blamer felt aggressive, pushy and forward. The Placater was
withdrawing, pulling back. The Distracter felt rather ‘left field’, gauche and quirky. The
Computer felt as if it was about being right and correct. Satir et al (1991) suggest the
Blamer and Placater are “diametrically opposed” (p.41) and that the Distracter and
Computer are the “antithesis” (p.48) of one another which would also fit this model.
50
The Leveller and Sequencer felt different in nature. The Leveller felt like the place in
between Blamer and Placater. Indeed, Satir herself suggested that the Leveller is not like
the other four (Satir 1972).
It is an assertive stance, in the middle of the continuum from aggressive (Blamer) to
passive (Placater). Then, the Sequencer felt like the middle of the continuum between
Distracter and Computer. It seems like a place in between chaos and order. Adding these
traits in created the following, where Leveller and Sequencer became the X, Y continuums
between the other four traits:
BLAMER
DISTRACTOR
COMPUTER
PLACATER
In addition, there seemed to be a sweet spot in all of the personality styles, particularly
when used in a dynamic model. It felt like there are useful qualities and elements in each
type. This implied that there are useful applications for all directions (which fits with the
NLP presupposition that ‘every behaviour will have a context in which it is useful’.)
As previously mentioned, the literature on Satir Categories seems to define the Blamer,
Placater, Distracter and Computer in relatively dysfunctional and pathological terms.
However, they are taught in some NLP trainings as presentation/teaching styles. This
would suggest that there needs to be some development to the Satir category model as it
stands in order to allow for the positive strengths of each type. As an example outside of
the NLP field, the same process was applied in Transactional Analysis to the Driver types
(Kahler 1975) which were later developed into Working Styles by Julie Hay (e.g. Hay
2009). This allowed a shift from the pathological disease-model of ‘what’s wrong with
people’ through to a more balanced ‘what are the strengths and weaknesses of each style’.
Returning to the embodied modelling process, it felt like there is a centre area where the
Satir Categories could be resourceful and useful. However, the extremes (outside the centre
circle) become more pathological and unhelpful, particularly if someone gets locked into
an extreme position. Perhaps this might also suggest a way that someone could get
‘unlocked’ by moving in a different direction and back into the centre area.
Acuity Vol.4
51
When a type is used ‘in moderation’ and there are useful qualities therein, it is important
that the label for the positive version is reflective of it being a strength. The terminology of
‘Blamer’ in particular may create a less than positive association. For this reason, here is a
development with four moderated frames for the original Satir Categories:
Resourceful Frame
Moderated Characteristics & Qualities
Expresser
Blamer
Push influence, direct, telling, focussed, emphatic,
strong and powerful communication, evaluating, give
feedback, clear expression, instructions and requests.
Engager
Placater
Pull influence, gentle, empathic, inviting, consulting,
involving,
asking,
open,
including,
in
service,
apologise if done something they didn’t intend.
Entertainer
Distracter
Amusing,
light-hearted,
diffusing,
cheerful,
charming, quick to laughter, fun loving, joking,
variety, spontaneous and creative.
Educator
Computer
Factual, evidence based, referenced, intellectual,
credible,
academic,
demonstrating
intelligence,
explaining, giving directions.
By adding in the healthy qualities to the model, we get the following:
In terms of completing the model by adding the third dimension of up and down, the Satir
categories (as a model from my perspective) doesn’t require this dimension. If I were to
add anything, it would probably be ‘up’ to working with ‘bigger picture’ ideas and ‘down’
into to working with ‘detail’.
52
An example of the Satir Categories model in action:
I was running a half day workshop on Effective Appraisals for a local authority. One of
the delegates (who expressed a view at the start that he had been sent) was more vocal
than others and at every opportunity early on the course would go into a
Blamer/Distracter position. His strategy seemed to be: taking the course off tangent by
going big picture and putting the blame as far away from himself as possible; thus making
him the victim to the system and hence making anything that I would be “teaching” him
“all very well” but not going to make a “blind bit of difference” to his job. He used large
frame size phrases like: “It’s nothing we can do anything about... it’s ultimately the
Government” and “twenty years ago we didn’t have this kind of problem”. The
interesting thing was, he had evidence to back up what he was saying and actually, I
agreed with him (inside my mind)!
My goal was to manage him so he was satisfied and then to move on so that the other
delegates weren’t just observers to a potentially irrelevant debate. Rather than match him
immediately, I ‘completed the transaction’ by using the opposite end of the continuum –
the Engager (modified Placater). I told him that from the view he was taking he may well
be right and that I was sorry it was the case. I then shifted quickly to Entertainer (modified
Distracter) by giving a shrug to indicate: “what can you do... it’s not my fault!” then “let
me show you something” (in a rather ‘conspiratorial’ tone). I introduced a model (as
Educator - modified Computer) and then moved to Expresser (modified Blamer)
suggesting to everyone in the room: “if you keep choosing to see the world that way (i.e.
big picture/out of my control), then that way lays insanity”. This was said in a tone of
voice (and with a facial expression) indicating that doing so would be idiotic! Then finally
back to Leveller: “Okay, let’s get back to the storyline (i.e. the agenda)” I took control of
the process (Sequencer) and continued the course.
Whilst I’m not suggesting that this was a perfect way of handling the situation, it worked
there and then. I found out at the coffee break that this chap was known by colleagues as
the ‘Riddler’ because he liked to talk people (especially management and management
trainers) round in circles! I’m sure there were many other ways of working through this
situation but at the end of the session, the ‘Riddler’ said he came in sceptical but was now
feeling more positive about the appraisal process. This could have been part of the game
for him, of course, but his colleagues looked genuinely surprised.
Acuity Vol.4
53
Conclusions
Currently, embodied cognition and simulation appear to be part of an academic field
leading primarily to research based theory. Might NLP provide a fruitful ally to embodied
cognition in providing practical applications for personal (and perhaps professional)
development? In addition, might embodied cognition research prove useful to NLP? Since
NLP is a field of modelling and application, it is hoped that ‘Embodied Modelling’ will
provide a platform for the development of new practical models.
Notes
1. As a point of interest, it is possible that Embodied Cognition may create a challenge
to the NLP internal representations model. According to Shapiro (2011, p4): “An
organism’s body in interaction with its environment replaces the need for
representational processes thought to have been at the core of cognition. Thus,
cognition does not depend on algorithmic processes over symbolic
representations. It can take place in systems that do not include representational
states, and can be explained without appeal to computational processes or
representational states.”
2. Back to love for a moment... Do you feel it in your fingers... do you feel it in your
toes? According to Bergen (2012), it is likely that it will have taken your brain a little
longer to process ‘feel it in your toes’ than ‘feel it in your fingers’. In order to
establish whether you feel it in your toes or not, neural signals are sent to that area
of your body and then back. Since toes are further away than fingers it takes a
slightly longer time to process.
3. Research by Lynden Miles et al (2010) suggests that when people think about the
future, their body rocks slightly forward. When they think of the past, they rock
slightly back.
4. Information about the Satir Categories in Satir’s book Peoplemaking (1972) is
duplicated in Bandler, Grinder & Satir (1976) and Grinder & Bandler (1976).
Biography
Joe Cheal has been working with NLP since 1993. As well as being a master trainer of
NLP, he holds an MSc in Organisational Development and NLT, a degree in Philosophy
and Psychology, and diplomas in Coaching and in Ericksonian Hypnotherapy,
Psychotherapy and NLP. He is also a licensed EI practitioner.
He is the author of ‘Solving Impossible Problems: Working Through Tensions and Paradox in
Business‘ and co-author of ‘The Model Presenter: Developing Excellence in Presenting and
Training’.
54
Joe is a co-founder of the Positive School of Intrinsic Neuro-Linguistic Psychology
(www.psinlp.com)
and
a
partner
in
the
GWiz
Learning
Partnership
(www.gwiztraining.com), working as a Management & Organisational Development
Specialist.
References
Austin, A. (2013) ‘Metaphors of Movement’ http://metaphorsofmovement.co.uk/home/
(accessed 07/07/2013)
Bandler, R., Grinder, J. & Satir V. (1976) Changing with Families, Science & Behavior Books
Bergen, B.K. (2012) Louder Than Words, Basic Books: NY
Bostick St Clare, C. & Grinder, J. (2001) Whispering in the Wind, J&C Enterprises
Churches, R. & Terry, R. (2007) NLP for Teachers, Crown House Publishing
Derks, L. (2005) Social Panoramas, Crown House Publishing
Dilts, R. (2010) NLP II: The Next Generation, Meta Publications
Faulkner, C. (2005) Words within a Word: The Metaphors of Movement and Change, Genesis II
Publishing (Audio CD).
Faulkner, C. (2007) “Metapatterns: A biological basis for how NLP works” Presented at the
NLP Conference, London 2007.
Grinder, J. & Bandler, R. (1976)The Structure of Magic II, Science & Behavior Books
Hay, J. (2009) Working It Out At Work 2nd Ed, Sherwood
Iacoboni, M. (2008) Mirroring People, Farrar, Straus and Giroux
James, T. & Shephard, D. (2001) Presenting Magically, Crown House Publishing
Kahler, T. (1975) “Drivers—The Key to the Process Script” Transactional Analysis Journal,
5:3
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003) Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago Press: London
Lawley ,J. & Tompkins, P. (2003) Metaphors in Mind, The Developing Company Press:
London
Lawley, J. (2005) “When Where Matters: How psychoactive space is created and utilised”
The Model Magazine, 2005, Edition 3, pp 24-31
Miles, L., Nind, L. & Macrae, C.N. (2010) “Moving Through Time” Psychological Science,
vol 21, no. 2, pp. 222-223.
Pinker, S. (1999) How the Mind Works, Penguin
Satir, V. (1972) Peoplemaking, Science & Behavior Books: Calif.
Satir, V., Stachowiak, J. & Taschman, H.A. (1975) Helping Families to Change, Aronson: NY
Satir, V., Banmen, J., Gerber, J. & Gomori, M. (1991) The Satir Model, Science & Behavior
Books: Calif.
Shapiro, L. (2011) Embodied Cognition, Routledge, London
Acuity Vol.4
55
James Lawley
After more than a decade of searching for a satisfying
analogy to describe the perspective I take when symbolic
modelling I’ve finally found one right under my nose. It is the
everyday act of pointing.
It wasn’t until I came across Raymond Tallis’ Michelangelo’s
Finger – a whole book devoted to pointing – that I realised just
how much mental activity is involved in this simple act. The
moment I understood what the recipient of pointing has to do
with their attention I thought: ‘That’s what we do. That’s how
we model symbolically’.
Before exploring what pointing can reveal for us as symbolic modellers I will examine
how pointing works and what both parties have to do with their attention during
pointing.
Raymond Tallis explains what is involved in pointing:
What is pointing?
There is the producer (the person doing the pointing); the pointer used by the
producer (usually the outstretched hand and index finger); the pointee (that which
is pointed out); and, finally, the consumer (the person for whose benefit the
pointing is carried out). The producer uses a part of his or her own body to
establish an axis that joins the producer with the item being pointed out – with the
pointee. The consumer is invited to follow the virtual line with her visual attention
until it reaches the pointee. (Tallis, 2010 p. 7)
The index finger is the canonical referential gesture that makes clear what is present
in other, less versatile, modes of bodily pointing, using the thumb, the arm as a
whole, the elbow, the shoulder, the head, the torso, the eyes and even the foot.
(Tallis, 2010 p. 11)
56
What does the producer do?
She has to be able consciously to use her body as a signal. This implies a special
relationship to said body, one that is not found in animals. In addition, she has to
have the capacity to be aware of another’s (different) viewpoint. This is a necessary
condition of her being aware that she is cognitively advantaged compared with the
other person, at least with respect to knowledge of the object being pointed at. The
pointer pointing something out to another is to amend a perceived deficit in their
knowledge, or experience, or awareness. The usual, and fundamental, occasion for
pointing is to correct a lack: to draw attention to something important or at least
interesting the other has not noticed or cannot see. In addition, she has to
understand that the other’s comparative disadvantage can be set right. (Tallis, 2010
pp. 10-11)
What does the consumer do?
When you point something out to me, I do not consciously adopt the viewpoint of
your body. I simply look ‘over there’ to where you are pointing. But I can take this
short cut only after I have already acquired the skill that enables me, as it were, to
triangulate between you, the object and me. (Tallis, 2010 p. 145)
The consumer has to cast herself in her imagination out of her own body and
mentally look along the line drawn in space by the arm and index finger extending
from the producer’s body. The consumer, that is to say, has to put herself in the
producer’s place. (Tallis, 2010 p. 9)
This is a rather remarkable thing to do. As a consumer, you momentarily adopt the
pointer’s perspective, follow the direction of their pointing, identify what is being pointed
at (the pointee), and bring that awareness back to your own point of perception. By
sharing their perspective your attention is drawn to the object of their attention. Aptly, the
word ‘attention’ comes from the Latin meaning ‘stretching towards’. Once you have
stretched yourself to what the pointer is pointing at, you can converse about it. (see Figure
1).
Acuity Vol.4
57
Figure 1: The act of pointing
The mind-body process involved for a consumer of pointing is more than simply
experiencing the world “from your own perspective” as in an NLP ‘first position’ (Dilts &
DeLozier, 2000). Nor do you become the pointer. It is not “as though you were another
individual ... in his or her skin” as in an NLP ‘second position’ since you do not give up
your own perspective. And it is not an NLP ‘third position’ where you see yourself
interacting with the pointer as if you were an outside observer. Instead, as the consumer
you notice how the world must look from the pointer’s vantage point and use that to
extend your sense of their world while maintaining your own perspective. I propose this is
a new and different perceptual position.
Pointing to mind-body phenomena
Tallis describes a situation where the producer points to something that is outside the
visual field of the consumer, e.g. “He went that-a-way.” But he does not mention a similar
but more common case where people use their gestures and words to point to something
within their body or mental space. Pointing to mind-body phenomena happens all the time in
everyday conversation. But we are so involved in the content of what we are saying and
thinking that we often have only the minutest awareness we are indicating the location
and form of symbols in our ‘psychespace’ (as David Grove sometimes called it). And the
same goes for the consumer of the pointing.
In a coaching/therapy context clients are continually pointing to things in their inner
world of their mind’s eye, ear and feeling. Through their gestures and their metaphors
they are pointing out where symbols are in their inner landscape and what form they take.
As a coach/therapist I am the ‘consumer’ of the client’s pointing. The only difference with
physical-world pointing is that I can never see, hear or feel what they are actually pointing
58
at. Perhaps because of this, in traditional coaching/therapy the information provided by a
client’s indicative gestures is mostly ignored. I’m not talking about ‘body language’ and the
interpretation thereof. I’m referring to what David Grove called the client’s ‘choreography’
– how the movement of a client’s body references the location and form of the metaphors
in their symbolic world. Although I may not be able to see the symbols in a client’s private
world, with careful modelling I can know where they are from the client’s perspective and
attend to something like what they are attending to.
Clearly the physical act of pointing to is often used metaphorically to mean pointing out
something nonphysical. But there is more to it than that. The process of a producer
pointing and of a consumer identifying a pointee parallels the process of two people
constructing and understanding a metaphor. Metaphors are the pointer that point out
experience. Unlike physical items pointed to, we cannot know another person’s experience
directly but we can infer it via the intermediary of metaphor (see Figure 2).
Pointing
Producer sees item
Metaphorising
Person A has an experience
Producer uses pointer to point to Person A uses a metaphor to
an item
describe (point to) an experience
Consumer looks at pointer
Person B hears/sees metaphor
Consumer infers location of item
Person B infers kind of experience
Consumer sees item
Person B has a sense of Person A’s
experience
Figure 2: The act of metaphorising
Acuity Vol.4
59
Symbolic Modelling
What makes the perceptual position of the consumer of pointing so unusual is that I can
share the producer/client’s perspective while retaining my own perspective. By unconsciously
working out the trigonometry involved I intuitively understand the relative arrangement
of the three points, and how the world looks different from each. As a symbolic modeller I
bring that intuition into my conscious awareness and make it central to my modelling of
the client and their landscape.
The everyday act of pointing can be mapped on to the analogous act of modelling
symbolically (see Figure 3).
Pointing
Producer
Pointer
points)
Modelling Symbolically
Client
(body
part
that Pointer (body part that points)
Pointee (item pointed to)
Symbol
in
landscape
client’s
Consumer
Symbolic modeller
inner
Figure 3: The act of modelling symbolically
Being able to appreciate another person’s perspective while maintaining your own requires a
special kind of modelling skill. Luckily one that almost all of us possess innately.
Previously I had described a symbolic modeller’s perspective as like being in the
passenger seat of a car and being driven around an unfamiliar town by someone (the
60
client) who is pointing out all the places they know, “Look, that’s where I went to school.”
But in the car metaphor the consumer does not have an independent location. Whereas the
pointing analogy beautifully reflects the ‘split attention’ required by a symbolic modeller: I
can simultaneously know the client’s perspective and muse on it from another perspective
inside, outside or beside the client’s world (Lawley & Tompkins, 2002).
When the facilitator asks a clean question of what has been pointed to a switch occurs.
Each clean question ‘points to’ or ‘points out’ some aspect of the client’s metaphor
landscape. Metaphorically pointing means “to direct the mind or thought in a certain
direction” and that is what every Clean Langauge question is designed to do (Lawley &
Tompkins, 2000). The client now becomes the consumer of the facilitator’s pointing (see
Figure 4).
Figure 4: The act of asking Clean Language questions
When the client answers the question the producer-consumer roles switch again – over
and over. This very simple oscillation creates an iterative process that forms the spine of a
Symbolic Modelling session. This is how Penny Tompkins and I facilitate the development
of the client’s embodied psychoactive metaphor landscape.
I know of no other method of therapy or coaching where both the client and facilitator so
consistently point to a single inner landscape – the client’s. If you are not trained in a clean
approach and you are thinking this seems similar to how you facilitate, I haven’t made the
distinction clear. In over 15 years of training this process I have never found anyone who
can maintain the consumer- and producer-of-pointing roles consistently, without
thoroughly retraining their attention.
Acuity Vol.4
61
The triangulation involved in pointing enables the client, their landscape and the
facilitator to engage in what David Grove called a ‘trialogue’; with the most important
conversation occurring between client and their landscape.
A skilled clean facilitator can help amplify the pointing to and point out nature of a
conversation. To do so they need to do two things: to create a ‘clean environment’ – one
with a low level of contaminants from their own inner world; and to ask about the spatial
aspects of the client’s verbal and nonverbal metaphors. Since most metaphors have an
explicit or implicit spatial aspect, as long as your ears and eyes know what to listen and
look for, most clients will give you plenty of opportunity to be a midwife to their
metaphor landscape.
Then something quite fascinating happens. The client becomes aware they are pointing out
things to them self. The client notices they are simultaneously both the producer and
consumer of their own pointing. They become aware they are, to use a phrase introduced
by French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty (2005), embodied subjects
Gregory Bateson called this a “double description”. The effect is the inclusion of both
descriptions into a transcendent third perspective – just as depth perception emerges from
binocular vision. I believe most gestures and movements of the body are not
communication to another person, but aids to our own thinking process. By noticing how
our inner world works clients gain a deep insight into why they act and respond the way
they do, and they start to notice choice points – places where their process could go in a
different direction and result in a different outcome. When this happens the client is selfmodelling (Lawley, 2012) (see Figure 5).
Figure 5: The act of self-modelling
62
Purpose of pointing
Tallis notes that pointing has two key purposes. First to rectify a perceived deficit in the
consumer – we point out something they can't see or are not yet aware of and we
"understand that the other’s comparative disadvantage can be set right". As a result we
momentarily share a perspective, and fulfill the second purpose: we “make a world in
common” (Tallis, 2010 p.132). Tallis suggests that the ability to perform this kind of mental
gymnastics makes possible the kind of society only humans have:
If one subscribes to the idea that language originated out of gesture, then pointing,
as the most versatile of all gestures, and the one that seems closest to the primary,
that is to say the referential, function of language, we may argue that it is crucial to
the beginning of truly social being (of a kind unknown elsewhere in the animal
kingdom), of a collectivization of consciousness upon which community,
discourse, civilization and knowledge are based." (Tallis 2010, p. 131)
The purpose of pointing makes sense when producer and consumer are pointing at
different people, but what about, as mentioned above, when one person plays both roles?
Then the client is, in effect, rectifying a deficit in their own awareness. They become
conscious of what before was tacit knowledge, or they have a creative insight. In so doing
conscious and subconscious share (momentarily at least) the same perspective. They
establish a different kind of relationship. Not Topdog and Underdog. Not Master and
Emissary. Not rider and horse. Not adversaries, nor even allies. Instead they are coinspirers – they form a Necessary Unity.1
Concluding Points
I am excited about the pointing analogy because people instinctively know what to do
when someone points and therefore it should be easy to transfer that skill to facilitating a
client session. The challenge for the symbolic modeller is to maintain the alternating
consumer and producer perspectives throughout a session. When you develop this skill it
is much easier to set aside your own landscape and commit to working within the logic of
the client’s landscape, i.e. to work ‘cleanly’2.
I will leave the last word to the Buddha who in the Shurangama Sutra says:
It is like when someone points his finger at the moon to show it to someone else. Guided
by the finger, that person should see the moon. If he looks at the finger instead and
mistakes it for the moon, he loses not only the moon but the finger also.
Acuity Vol.4
63
Notes
1.
‘Topdog vs. Underdog’ a phrase Fritz Perls (1969), the founder of Gestalt Therapy,
coined to describe a self-torturing game that people play with themselves.
The ‘Master and his Emissary’ is from the title of an Iain McGilchrist book (2010).
"Co-inspiration arises from the conversations we have with each other that are
conducted in mutual respect for the other and it provides for a manner of working
together in freedom." Humberto Maturana
(legacy.oise.utoronto.ca/research/tlcentre/conf2004/process.html)
A ‘Necessary Unity’ taken from the title of a Gregory Bateson book (1979).
2. The nearest scientific description of the pointing perspective I have come across is
that pioneered by Maturana and Varela (The Tree of Life) called "biological
phenomenology" or the “view from within” since it attempts to describe the
phenomenal inner world of the organism from the outside. Ken Wilber refers to this
as one of "8 native perspectives". In this case, the perspective of an interior (of an
"I") looked at from the outside, i.e. a third-person modelling of a first-person
reality, from their
perspective. www.kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF/ExcerptC_KOSMOS_2003.pdf
Biography
James Lawley is a supervising neurolinguistic psychotherapist – registered with the
United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy since 1993. He has provided consultancy to
organisations as diverse as GlaxoSmithKline, Yale University Child Study Center, NASA
Goddard Space Center and the Findhorn Spiritual Community. With Penny Tompkins he
co-authored Metaphors in Mind – the first comprehensive guide to Symbolic Modelling
using the Clean Language of David Grove, and an annotated training DVD, A Strange and
Strong Sensation, which shows them working in a live session. Their website
cleanlanguage.co.uk contains over 200 articles.
References
Bateson, Gregory (1979) Mind and Nature A Necessary Unity – Advances in Systems Theory,
Complexity, and the Human Sciences, Hampton Press.
Dilts, Robert and DeLozier, Judith (2000) Perceptual Positions 938-943, Encyclopedia of
Systemic NLP and NLP New Coding. nlpuniversitypress.com/html3/SeSh.html
Lawley, James and Tompkins, Penny (2000) Metaphors in Mind, The Developing Company
Press,
64
Lawley, James and Tompkins, Penny (2002) A Model of Musing: The message in a
metaphor, Anchor Point, Vol. 16, No. 5. cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/22/
Lawley, James (2012) What is Self-Modelling? cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/blogs/71/
McGilchrist, Iain (2010) The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the
Western World, Yale University Press.
Perls, Fritz (1969) Gestalt Therapy Verbatim, Real People Press.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (2005) Phenomenology of Perception, Routledge.
Tallis, Raymond (2010) Michelangelo’s Finger: An exploration of everyday transcendence,
Atlantic Books.
Tompkins, Penny and Lawley, James (1999) Clean Language Without Words, Rapport,
Issue 43. cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/8/
Acuity Vol.4
65
Made to Measure – Using Outcome
Evaluation in NLP Practice
Gareth Evans
I want to start this piece by asking a couple of questions – “How do we know when
someone has benefited from change work in NLP practice?” “What do words such as
‘evidence’ and ‘evaluation’ actually mean to us?” Initially following my training in NLP I
would have suggested the answers to such questions as being synonymous with ideas
such as sensory-based calibration, unconscious confirmation through non-verbal signals
and physiological changes and the 2nd ‘Test’ in the TOTE (Bostic St Clair & Grinder 2000).
Whilst all of these distinctions remain valid within the context of NLP practice and
application (Andreas 2006), this is not necessarily how evidence is understood outside of
NLP practice and this article is about considering these other perspectives on evidence and
evaluation. It is also about suggesting why incorporating other ways of evidencing what
we do (alongside our use of calibration, etc) may be useful, and from some perspectives,
essential.
Within a larger scope of the field of ‘therapeutic practice as a whole’ there is something of
a revolution going on with regard to what is meant by the term ‘evidence-based practice’.
It’s about a move toward only recognising those models of therapeutic working that are
‘researched’ and shown to be effective by current standards of evaluation (Haynes 2002).
In the field of research this is identified with the so-called ‘gold standard method’ that
places meta-analysis, systematic review and randomised controlled trials at the top of a
pyramid of what constitutes good evidence (Bateman & Tyrer 2004)1. Proceeding from
this understanding of evidence and research are claims that some therapies are more
evidence-based and by implication more effective and efficacious than those that have not
been tested through clinical trials, see for an example of this, NICE (National Institute for
Health and Clinical Excellence) guidance for depression in children and adolescents (2005)
which lists only a few therapies deemed evidence-based and therefore able to be used in
therapeutic work.
At the same time there are other psychotherapy researchers who express doubts as to
whether this is the best or most useful way to measure the effectiveness of therapeutic
work at all (Bergin & Lambert 2004, Duncan et al 2004). Much is made in this particular
‘tradition’ of research of what has come to be known as ‘Common Factors’ research2
66
Made to Measure
(Lambert & Ogles 2004) which identifies common elements across widely different models
of therapy that account for their similar levels of effectiveness. Proceeding from this
understanding of evidence and research are claims that no psychotherapy is any more
effective or efficacious than any other in a statistically significant way because good client
outcomes are due to the common factors that are the basis of all good therapeutic work.
Stepping aside from these important arguments for one moment we might still choose to
note that measures of effectiveness – however arrived at – drive policy decisions in the
UK, Europe and the USA (c/f health related advisory bodies such as NICE and the
National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH). In the National Health Service (NHS) in the
UK and in the managed care world of the USA these decisions about policy and practice
increasingly dictate what is ‘in’ and what is ‘out’ in terms of what professionals are guided
to do therapeutically (Roth & Fonagy 2006). In response to this increasing demand for
evidence there are efforts under way in the broad NLP community (c/f www.nlprandr.org
and www.nlpresearchdatabase.org) to collate research into elements of NLP practice.
Naturalised small group trials of techniques such as the VK Double Dissociation Process
(Koziey & McLeod 1987, Gray 2010), Anchors (Davis & Davis 1991) and Submodality work
(Stanton 1996) have taken place. There have also been some small-scale non-randomised
and randomised controlled trials3 into the demonstrated effectiveness and efficacy of
Neuro-Linguistic psychotherapy and NLP Therapy (Genzler-Medlitsch & Schutz 1997,
Stipancic et al 2010) and this is to be commended and encouraged further.
However, there remain challenges to using these particular types of research method to
measure and evidence a process methodology such as NLP4 (Bostic St Clair & Grinder 2002,
Bandler 2008).
Aside from the significant cost, time and resource implications of
undertaking randomised control trials, we in the NLP community might also want to
question the very presupposition that one can isolate elements (i.e. techniques, etc) within
a process methodology like NLP. The attempt to measure technique without somehow
referencing for example the importance of context, non-verbal/minimal cue feedback loops
and the meta-frames of language used within and around particular techniques is
problematic. For process methodologies like NLP this is especially the case, as much of
what is integral to NLP practice, i.e. sensitive and self-correcting adjustments to, and
awareness of the cybernetic and systemic feedback loops, is potentially lost in such clinical
trials based research.
There is though a way of embracing the idea of evidence-based practice whilst also
allowing us to capture something (albeit minimally perhaps) of the whole process of NLP
change work in action – the use of client outcome measures. Outcome measures are
already utilised in research trials looking at how well particular therapies work with given
Acuity Vol.4
67
types of presenting difficulty, i.e. depression, trauma, anxiety, etc. Outcome measures are
typically administered at the start, middle and end of therapy and then again at 3, 6, 12
and/or 18 month review to measure quantitative changes in the severity, frequency and
duration of the presenting difficulty. However they can also be used in routine clinical
practice away from research projects to gain a client’s perspective on change and gains
made with respect to desired outcomes and thereby demonstrate the effectiveness of
particular therapeutic models in the naturalistic setting of day to day clinical practice.
There are several standardised and validated outcome measures in use within NHS
clinical practice, for example ‘CORE’ – Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (Barkham et
al 2001), ‘SDQ’ – Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Schaffer et al 1983), ‘Beck
Depression Inventory’ (Beck et al 1996), and ‘Honosca’ – Health of the Nation Outcome Score
for Children and Adolescents (Gowers et al 1999) to name a few and all of these measures
focus on subtly different elements of presenting difficulty and change. Implicit in the use
of the outcome measures mentioned above is an emphasis on using diagnostic labels and
categorisations as well as their tendency to record absence of difficulty as opposed to
measurement of gain which may well be less helpful for practitioners of outcome-oriented
models of change (NLP, Solution Focused Brief Therapy, etc). One set of simple measures
that can be accessed for free, are validated by research and are client-focused and
strengths-based, are those provided by Miller and colleagues from the Institute for the
Study of Therapeutic Change (ISTC) – the Session Rating Scale or SRS (Duncan et al 2003)
and the Outcome Rating Scale or ORS (Miller et al 2003, Miller & Duncan 2004). The SRS
and ORS are four item measures that allow clients to provide immediate (recordable)
feedback on their experience of change work. For example with the SRS, clients rate their
satisfaction with the focus and quality of the session on likeard scales5 and the ORS is used
to score changes in various important areas of experience.
68
Made to Measure
Diagram 1: SRS
Relationship
I did not feel heard,
understood, and
respected
|-----------------------------------------------------------| I felt heard,
understood, and
respected
Goals and Topics
We did not work on |-----------------------------------------------------------| We worked on
what I wanted
what I wanted
to work on
to work on
Approach or Method
The therapist’s
approach is not a
good fit for me
The therapist’s
|-----------------------------------------------------------| approach is a
good fit for me
Overall
There was something
Overall, today’s
missing in the
|-----------------------------------------------------------| session was
session today
right for me
Diagram 2: ORS
Individually
(personal well-being)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Interpersonally
(Family, close relationships)
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Socially
(Work, school, friendships)
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Overall
(General sense of well-being)
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
The ORS is completed just prior to the start of a session and is based on the client’s
perceptions of how things have been for them in the week prior to the session. The SRS is
completed by the client after a finished session and gives an immediate recordable form of
feedback for how the session has been for the client. The items on both the SRS and ORS
use likeard scales that can be rated along a 10cm line from 0 to 10 (i.e. worst to best).
Clients are encouraged to put a mark somewhere along the likeard scale for each item (see
Acuity Vol.4
69
below for example) to rate how well they have been doing in each of the designated areas.
Instructions on the ORS indicate that scores to the left represent low levels whereas scores
to the right indicate high levels. The descriptions on the SRS (as noted above) in diagram
2 are self explanatory in terms of low and high scores.
For example on the ORS:
Diagram 3:
Individually
(Personal well-being)
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
So in the example provided above, this might represent a score of around ‘6’ on the
Individual well-being scale. Dependant on the previous week’s score this could indicate
anything from a decrease in personal well-being to no change to some improvement to
significant change, etc. The client repeats this simple and brief scoring process for the
other items and this gives client and practitioner a quick reference to how the client
perceives they are doing.
Typically the ORS is scored immediately following its completion at the start of the
session. This can be done with a ruler for precision or discussed more approximately with
the client, e.g. “Is that more a 5 ½ or a 6?” Once all four items are scored they are added
together to give a total score out of a maximum ‘40’. Data from research conducted on the
ORS (Miller et al 2003) shows that scores below ‘26’ on the questionnaire are indicative of
clinical difficulty with scores closer to ‘0’ being indicative of greater difficulty. Scores
above ‘26’ are indicative of an absence of difficulty and therefore are indicative of when
therapeutic work can be ended. For those practitioners interested in plotting out data
scores and trends, the scorings from the ORS and SRS can be plotted out on simple graphs
to provide a visual record of changes made during therapy.
Particular changes in scores that suggest movement toward change or alternatively,
deterioration in presentation can further be linked to possible specific interventions or
significant moments in therapeutic work as identified on a session by session basis. As an
example of both of these situations we could note how for example, the specific resolution
of a long-standing phobic response using VK Dissociation in session 2 leads to notable
improvements in ORS scores from that point onwards. This allows the practitioner to
‘evidence’ the impact of a specific procedure in the context of all the common factors that
contribute to therapy (as further linked to evidence gathered from scores on the SRS); Or a
sudden bereavement in the client’s extended family system prior to session 3 links to a
70
Made to Measure
sudden deterioration in ORS scores until the grief is helpfully worked with, and positive
change to ORS ratings begin to show again.
Individual and overall scores can be discussed, and with agreement with the client,
particular areas could be agreed as targets for more specific interventions in session, e.g.
deciding to work on the client’s perceptions of ‘Interpersonal’ factors if the client rates this
scale as low using NLP techniques such as Perceptual Positions or exploring Meta Model
patterns to help the client become more resourceful in a given area. Where positive change
is occurring the practitioner can then amplify and encourage changes already made,
linking such to future-paced scenarios, etc. Where change is not happening, or proceeding
more slowly, this allows client and practitioner to take a more enquiring and curious
position and seek further clarification and feedback about what might be impacting on the
client at that time.
This can lead to possible adjustments in choices of intervention,
exploration for possible secondary gains or unrecognised and un-integrated purposes and
intents, etc (Andreas 2006).
The use of the ORS in particular provides immediate feedback as the value and impact of
the intervention used as clients who do not record changes in their ORS scores within the
1st six session typically do less well and/or drop out of therapy in the longer term (Duncan
and Miller 2008). Practitioners who are sensitive to a lack of progress in the early stages of
change work can use the scores on the ORS to explore the client’s experience of the work
being done.
This allows conversations about adjustments to the style or type of
intervention to be had or for client and therapist to decide that things are not working as
planned. Duncan et al (1999) have demonstrated that it is better to either change therapist
or end therapy earlier than later to safeguard the client. Not only does it give the client
and therapist a chance to do something different but also protects the client against such
things as experiencing the failure of therapy as being their fault or concluding that they
are beyond help. The SRS allows for a similar opportunity to calibrate change-work as it
provides simple visual indicators as to how the client experiences what the therapist
offers. Therapists who make use of this feedback on the quality of the therapeutic alliance,
on whether they are working on what the client wants and their overall method get better
outcomes than colleagues who tend to ignore client feedback and pursue their own ideas
about what needs to happen (Lambert 1999).
Using outcome measures provides a succinct way of NLP practitioners and clients
collaboratively reviewing progress together, as opposed to the practitioner’s use of
calibration alone as a form of feedback. In practice this makes for a shared review of
change work between client and practitioner where the client has the chance to experience
their input and feedback as being just as privileged as that of the professional. They get
Acuity Vol.4
71
the chance to offer an opinion on what is happening in sessions in the moment. As
research into therapeutic outcomes suggests, the client’s rating of the therapeutic alliance
is more predictive of a good outcome to change work than what particular technique or
therapy is used (Duncan and Miller 2008). For NLP practitioners this allows us to take the
outcome-oriented approach that has always been at the heart of NLP change work and
extend this beyond notions of well-formed outcomes into using principles of feedback and
review to guide both the change-work undertaken and how relationship between client
and therapist develops.
Developing skills in this broader sense of collaborative working can allow us as NLP
practitioners to continue doing good work whilst also becoming better able to demonstrate
the effectiveness of what we do. Measures like the ORS and SRS can be incorporated
alongside other distinctions we would routinely use to ethically shape and influence the
client’s experience of the alliance and of the change work. This includes our ability to use
language persuasively, to work with someone’s meta-program preferences, their goals,
motivation and aspirations and other factors such as client-generated metaphors6.
Personal Thoughts toward the Future
To finish off I want to step away from the more discursive tone that has been used
throughout this piece and move toward a more personal discussion of hopes and
aspirations. I wanted to end by asking a few questions and then sharing some initial ideas
for a way forward.
What would it be like if as NLP practitioners we began using outcome measures like the ORS and
SRS for all of our new clients?
How useful could it be if we recorded this outcome data on a session by session basis and followed
this up, where possible, with outcome measures completed 6 or 12 month post therapy?
I’d suggest that with a commitment to using simple outcome measures like the ORS and
SRS we would be able to quite quickly step beyond anecdotal evidence for the
effectiveness of NLP as a change-work methodology. Instead we could then build up a
robust and consistent data base of the effectiveness of NLP change work as measured by
our clients and recorded across different types of need and desired outcome. In addition
to the work of individual practitioner, local research networks could be set up to
coordinate the gathering, collating and recording of data as well as to problem-solve any
teething issues that might arise along the way. For those interested, this could be linked to
72
Made to Measure
local NLP practice groups and the outcome data gathered could be pooled together and
held by a central person identified as a ‘research lead’ for the group.
In clinical settings we could invite clinical trainees (such as trainee clinical psychologists
who in the UK are expected to carry out small scale research projects as part of the
requirement of their training) or for example, in the UK National Health Service, the
particular Local Health Board or Hospital Trust’s Audit Office, to independently evaluate
any data gathered and collate such into reports, presentations and poster presentations so
as such can be more broadly disseminated. In non-clinical settings, designated ‘research
leads’ could work to establish links with local universities to see whether there would be
scope for the university to carry out independent analysis of outcome data.7
This type of local, active participation by practitioners in the NLP community could feed
forward into presentations of evidence data at the NLP Research Conferences beginning to
take place in the UK (linked to the Universities of Surrey, Cardiff and Hertfordshire,
NLPtCA, ANLP, etc) and across Europe (linked to EANLP). The value of choosing a
standard measure that everyone signs up to using is that it allows for comparative date
analysis and consistency of recording across domains and types of difficulty and also
builds up a more consistent and verifiable stock of research evidence.
With time and weight of evidence we could begin to more confidently stake our claim to
the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of NLP as a change-work/therapeutic model. Doing
this could potentially help make NLP more readily and easily available to those people
who might need our help the most, e.g. those clients who cannot afford to pay for private
change work, who have significant and challenging elements to their life experiences or
who have significant mental health needs. These are the people who might significantly
benefit from the help that, as a skilled community of practitioners, we could be offering to
them.
Notes
1.
For NLP practitioners it needs to be noted that local, anecdotal evidence (as in “All
the evidence I need is right in front of me”) is least regarded and sits at the bottom
of the research pyramid; polarity responding aside to this kind of imposed
‘wisdom’, this is the state of the field and how it is (and will continue to be).
2.
These Common Factors and their relative weightings are: Extra Therapeutic Factors,
i.e. friends, social connections, faith, leisure activities, etc – anything that is outside
of the therapeutic work – which account for around 40% of what makes for positive
Acuity Vol.4
73
outcomes as rated by clients; Therapeutic Relationship Factors – quality of rapport,
trust, understanding, etc (30%); Hope and Expectation Factors – belief in therapy
working, placebo, etc (15%); Model & Technique Factors – those aspects/techniques of
therapy we can be so enamoured with (15%).
3.
Small scale non-randomised trials are those with only a small number of research
subjects who have not been randomly assigned to treatment vs. non-treatment
(control) groups; Randomised-controlled trials are trials where people are randomly
assigned to treatment or control groups so as to prevent researcher/therapist bias in
any selection of clients to treatment.
4.
For the sake of clarity I am actually discussing what John Grinder (2001) would
describe as ‘NLP Applications’, i.e. the therapeutic use of NLP technology as
opposed to NLP modelling of excellence. In this context I will also use the terms
‘therapist’, ‘change-worker’, ‘therapy’ and ‘change-work’ interchangeably and
choose to ignore the potential differences between the meanings of these terms and
the implications of proceeding as I am for the sake of brevity
5.
A likeard scale is an analogue rating scale, i.e. rate from 1 to 10 how effective this
session has been, etc. They can use numbers, descriptive words (Helpful, neutral,
unhelpful, etc) or pictures – child versions use faces (smiling, neutral, ‘sad-looking’,
etc).
6.
Including opening up to the notion of sensory representations more as indicators as
to how a person metaphorically constructs their ‘experience of their experience’ at
an embodied level of cognition as opposed to revealing particular sensory
preferences, i.e. ‘visual’ language about, for example, distance, time, clarity,
movement, etc, having more to do with metaphors arising from early experiences of
how that person related to space, location, movement, etc and how these became
encoded in basic bodily and orientational metaphors and categories of experience,
etc. See the work of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson such as ‘Metaphors We Live
By’, ‘Women, Fire and Dangerous Things’ and ‘The Body in the Mind’ for further
information on how perception, cognition, knowing, etc is rooted in embodied
metaphor (metaphors about bodily experience and orientation). Their research
would suggest that metaphor, rather than being something poetic and fanciful, is
actually the very structure of all thinking.
7.
This was successfully done in 2004 with the University of Chester, UK where data
gathered from a pilot project around teaching NLP skills to carers of cancer
sufferers – ‘The Living with Cancer Project’ – was analysed and written up into a
comprehensive report by some of the University’s research staff. Notable good
outcomes for carers and sufferers in this project were thus independently evaluated
74
Made to Measure
and recorded and provided a piece of robust qualitative data for the application of
NLP in the NHS (Sargent et al 2004).
Personal Note
I would like to encourage any NLP practitioner who is willing to put their work to the test
and play their part in demonstrating the effectiveness of NLP change work to access the
ISTC website (www.scottdmiller.com), find the link to ‘Performance Metrics’ and
download the SRS and ORS and begin using them.
Biography
Gareth Evans is a Community Mental Health Nurse and INLPTA trained NLP Master
Practitioner. Gareth works in a community mental health clinic with children, adolescents
and parents with common and complex mental health difficulties. Trained in various
therapies, including psychodynamic, solution focused and cognitive behavioural models,
he uses an integrative-eclectic approach underpinned by the use of NLP and Ericksonian
principles and methodologies and based on the individual needs of the young people and
families he works with. E-mail: Gareth.Evans6@wales.nhs.uk
References
Andreas, S (2006) Six Blind Elephants: Understanding Ourselves and Others: Volume 1;
Fundamental Principles of Scope and Category, Moab, UT, Real People Press
Bandler, R (2008) Richard Bandler’s Guide to Trance-formations, New York, Health
Communication Publishing
Barkham, M., Margison, F., Leach, C., Locock, M., Mellor-Clark, J., Evans, C., Benson, L.,
Connell, J., Audin, K., McGrath, G. (2001) ‘Service profiling and outcomes
benchmarking using the CORE-OM: towards practice-based evidence in the
psychological therapies’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 69, pp 184 –
196
Bateman, AW., Tyrer, P (2004) ‘Psychological treatment for personality disorders’,
Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 10, pp 378 – 388
Beck, A., Steer, R., Brown, G (1996) ‘Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II’ San
Antonio, TX, Psychological Corporation
Bergin, A., Lambert, M (2004) ‘The evaluation of therapeutic outcomes’, in Duncan, B. L.,
Miller, S. D., Sparks, J. A. (2004) The heroic client: A revolutionary way to improve
effectiveness through client-directed, outcome-informed therapy, San Francisco, JosseyBass
Bostic-St Clair, C., Grinder, J (2001) Whispering in the wind, Ca, J&C Enterprises
Acuity Vol.4
75
Davis, D., Davis, S (1991) ‘Belief change and neuro-linguistic programming’, Family
Dynamics of Addiction Quarterly, 1 (2) pp 34 – 44
Duncan, B., Miller, S (2008) ‘When I’m good I’m very good; when I’m bad I’m better: A
new mantra for psychotherapy’, Journal of Psychotherapy in Australia, downloaded
from www.heartandsoulofchange.com on 28/11/2012
B. L. Duncan, S. D. Miller, B. E. Wampold, & M. A. Hubble (1999), The heart and soul of
change: delivering what works, Washington DC, American Psychological Association
Duncan, B., Miller, S., Reynolds, L., Sparks, J., Brown, J., Johnson, L (2003) ‘The session
rating scale: Psychometric properties of a “working” alliance scale’ Journal of Brief
Therapy, 3 (1), pp 3–12
Garfield, S., Bergin, A (2004) Handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change: An empirical
analysis, 5th Edition, p139 – 189, New York, Wiley
Genser-Medlitsch, M., Schütz, P (1997) ‘Does neuro-linguistic psychotherapy have effect?
New results shown in the extramural section’, ÖTZ-NLP, Wien, Austria
Goodman, R. (2001) ‘Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (SDQ)’ Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 40, pp 1337 – 1345
Gowers, S., Harrington, R., Whitton, A (1999) ‘Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for
Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA): Glossary for HoNOSCA score sheet’ British
Journal of Psychiatry, 174, pp 428 – 433
Gray, R (2010) ‘NLP and PTSD: The visual-kinesthetic dissociation protocol’ Suppose, pp 25
– 42
Haynes, R (2002) ‘What kind of evidence is it that evidence-based medicine advocates and
wants health care providers and consumers to pay attention to’ Biomedical Central
Health Services Research, 2 (3), p1-7
Koziey, P., McLeod, G (1987) ‘Visual kinaesthetic dissociation in the treatment of victims
of rape’, Professional Psychology; Research and Practice, 18 (3), pp 276 –282
Lambert, M. J. (1999) ‘Yes, it is time for clinicians to routinely monitor treatment outcome’,
in B. L. Duncan, S. D. Miller, B. E. Wampold, & M. A. Hubble (Eds.), The heart and
soul of change: delivering what works, Washington DC, American Psychological
Association
Lambert, M. J., & Ogles, B. (2004) ‘The efficacy and effectiveness of Psychotherapy’ in M. J.
Lambert (Ed.) Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change, 5th
Edition, pp 139 – 193, New York, Wiley
Miller, S., Duncan, B (2004) The Outcome and Session Rating Scales: Administration and scoring
manual, Fort Lauderdale, FL, ISTC
Miller, S., Duncan, B., Brown, J., Sparks, J., Claud, D (2003) ‘The outcome rating scale: a
preliminary study of the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a brief visual
analogue measure’ Journal of Brief Therapy, 2 (2), pp 91 – 100
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2005) Depression in children and
adolescents – Identification and management in primary, community and secondary care.
London: NICE.
76
Made to Measure
Roth, A., Fonagy, P (2006) What works for whom – a critical review of psychotherapy research,
2nd Edition, New York, Guilford Press.
Sargent, P., Thurston, M., Kirby, K (2004) ‘An evaluation of the ‘Living with Cancer’ Project:
Using neuro-linguistic programming techniques to maximise the coping strategies of carers
and patients living with cancer in Ellesmere Port’ Chester, University College Chester
Schaffer, D., Gould, M., Brasic, J (1983) ‘A children's global assessment scale (CGAS)’
Archives of General Psychiatry, 40, pp 1228 – 1231
Stanton, H (1996) ‘Self-empowerment and the 15 minute solution’, Australian Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis, 24 (2), pp 137 – 144
Stipancic, M., Renner, W., Schutz, P., Dond, R (2010) ‘Effects of neuro-linguistic
psychotherapy on psychological difficulties and perceived quality of life’,
Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 10 (1), pp 39 – 49
Acuity Vol.4
77
Levels and Loops of
the Learning Organisation
Joe Cheal, MSc
This article is designed to introduce the reader to the concepts of the learning organisation
& organisational learning and to explore the role and potential value of Dilts’ Levels of
Change model (1996) in this context.
Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation
Throughout the literature there appears to be a lack of agreed definitions of the terms
‘organisational learning’ and ‘learning organisation’ (e.g. Garvin 1993). Organisational
learning is described by Dixon (1992, p29) as referring “to learning at the system rather
than the individual level,” and that “learning in an organisation must necessarily occur
through individuals, but also… that organisational learning is more than the sum of the
learning individuals.” Does Dixon mean that organisational learning is gestalt or that is a
paradox? Argyris (1977, p116) states that “organisational learning is a process of detecting
and correcting error” which is also his description of single loop learning. Does that mean
that organisational learning can never be double loop? Jones and Hendry (1994) define
organisational learning in rather more pragmatic and measurable terms as “the sum total
of learning taking place and its impact on the organisation and its activities” (p154).
Senge (1993) describes the learning organisation as “organisations where people
continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire” (p.3) or “an
organisation that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future” (p.14).
It would seem that although linked, the learning organisation is not the same as
organisational learning. According to Jones and Hendry (1994) organisational learning is
“an aspect of the learning organisation” (p157). If one is an ‘aspect’ of the other, this would
imply a hierarchy of levels.
78
Levels and Loops of the Learning Organisation
Levels of the Learning Organisation
Working from the idea of Bateson’s ‘Levels of
Learning’1, Dilts developed the ‘Levels of
Change’2
model
(in
his
book
Visionary
Leadership, 1996). Change is a key component of
the learning organisation and so it would seem
the model is worth exploring in the learning
context. The model consists of six hierarchical
levels comprising of Spirit (bigger picture
purpose beyond the individual organisation)
which is supporting and is supported by
Identity which is supporting and is supported by Beliefs and Values and so on through
Capability, Behaviour and Environment (see Fig 1). According to Dilts (1996, p22), one of the
principles of the model is that “each level of change involves progressively more of the
system... Each level involves different types of processes and interactions that incorporate
and operate on information from the level below it”.
Perhaps Dilts’ model could shed further light on the learning organisation/organisational
learning distinction: ‘organisational learning’ would appear to fit on the level of capability
and ‘learning organisation’ would fit on the level of identity (for example “we are a
learning organisation”). Table 1 (below) gives examples of the Levels of Change in the
learning and development of organisations.
Table 1. Levels of Change of the Learning Organisation
Level
Spirit
For Whom?
Identity
Who?
Beliefs/Values
Why?
Capability
How?
Organisational
Learning & Development
Vision Statements eg.:
“Learning to make the world a better
place”
“Learning to benefit the environment and
community”
Mission Statements eg.:
“We are a learning organisation”
“We are developing people”
“We are an ‘Investors in People’ company”
Value statements eg.:
“We value training and development”
“Learning helps us to become more
effective/competitive/ profitable”
“Developing people is important”
Appraisal/performance review leading to
learning & development plans (individual
and organisational)
Effective training, coaching, facilitation on
offer.
Support from manager before and after
learning event.
Resources provided.
People open to learning.
Individual
Learning & Development
If not supported by
level directly above
Transferable skills/knowledge to
take outside work to make a
better family/ community.
?
I am a learning, developing self.
Organisation is learning
without a shared context,
learning for the sake of
learning.
L&D Value statements are
perceived as empty
‘management speak’, lip
service (manipulation rather
than motivation)
L&D becomes valueless and
aimless. Training and
coaching may happen here
and there but is not believed
in. Appraisal, training etc.
seen as a waste of time.
Self belief & confidence:
Learning and being able to learn
makes me more employable and
aid my progress. Learning keeps
life fresh and interesting.
Improving skills, knowledge,
experience in specific areas.
Openness to learning.
Acuity Vol.4
79
Behaviour
People attend/turn up to training/coaching
sessions
Ground-rules set, people respect each
other (eg. “no question is a stupid
question”)
Environment
Learning environment (eg. Training room)
away from distractions, safe, comfortable,
stimulating, refreshments and breaks.
Specific time allocated for learning &
development
What?
Where/When?
Attending courses, sessions,
reading/listening to relevant
material.
Asking questions, listening,
evaluating,
Putting learning into practice.
Appealing to individual’s learning
style, opportunities:
to try things out
to observe and discuss
to draw conclusions and
to plan,
… in a safe, comfortable,
stimulating environment.
Behaviours and skills learnt
do not embed back in the
workplace due to lack of
support/resources/ time.
People feel as if they have
been sent as punishment.
People may not turn up.
People may be disruptive or
passive/ disengaging/
unwilling to learn
When ‘chunked down’ in this way using Dilts’ Levels of Change, the concept of the
learning organisation becomes more practical and realisable. It gives an opportunity to
appraise the current situation and then set goals and actions at each level.
The Learning Organisation... Thing or Process, Goal or Journey?
Tosey (2005) suggests that the learning organisation could be perceived as a mythological
thing. It is, at best, a journey but there seems to be no tangible destination. In this sense, it
could be argued that term ‘learning organisation’ is a nominalisation (i.e. an abstract,
intangible noun whose meaning is reliant on the mind and interpretation of the beholder).
Perhaps we should leave the learning organisation ‘denominalised’ as a process.
Jones and Hendry (1994) also suggest that the learning organisation is a direction rather
than a goal. The author would go further in suggesting that the learning organisation is
represented by all the organisational Levels of Change moving from current state to
desired state. Perhaps the current lack of clarity about defining a learning organisation is
due to a lack of well formed outcomes (if it is a direction and not a goal) and also the more
abstract ‘non measurable’ aspects of the higher levels (beliefs/values and identity). Fig 2
proposes a visual representation of a learning organisation using the Levels of Change as a
framework.
THE LEARNING ORGANISATION
CURRENT STATE
DESIRED STATE
Fig 2. Shifting Levels of Change of a Learning Organisation
80
In figure 2, the change from one state to another suggests that Dilts’ levels move through
time. This might also be represented as a triangular prism where time (‘when?’) becomes
separated from the level of environment (‘where?’):
The Role of Values and Alignment in the Learning Organisation
“Implicit values that are deeply embedded in the culture of an organisation and are reinforced by
the behaviour of management can be highly influential, while espoused values that are idealistic and
are not reflected in management behaviour may have little or no effect.”
Armstrong (2001 ,p206)
As Armstrong (2001) notes, values need to be believed in and lived to produce results. An
organisation may have value statements but if no-one buys into them or acts upon them,
they are simply words on paper. Values appear in a variety of organisational models (e.g.
Dilts 1996, Waterman et al 1980, Johnson 1988, Armstrong 2001) and are integral to the
culture of an organisation.
In order for learning and development to be transferred, it must be seen and felt as
important. If it is simply seen as writing on paper, learning and development will not be
seen as a priority. Hence it will slip to one side and be regarded as a ‘nice to do, but not
essential’. For an organisation to consider itself a learning organisation, learning and
development must be truly embraced, valued and applied.
The Levels of Change model can be utilised in determining if there is alignment at the
different levels and if not, diagnosing where the misalignment is taking place. Any task,
change, project or objective needs to be aligned in order to serve the organisation; so does
learning & development. Misalignment can cause interference, conflict and paradox
within the organisation (Cheal 2012).
In order for alignment to happen and for values to positively affect transfer of learning,
there needs to be organisation-wide clarity and awareness as to what the learning values
of the organisation actually are. For more information see the ‘Levels of Change and Loops
of Learning’ below.
Acuity Vol.4
81
In practical terms, in order for learning and development to be aligned (and hence to take
place):
•
•
•
The organisation needs to give training opportunities
Training needs to be timely and relevant
Managers need to create opportunity for individuals to apply learning, so transfer of
learning can take place.
The Levels of Change and the Loops of Learning
The Levels of Change and the Loops of Learning (LCLL) model is a diagrammatic
representation of how learning (and hence change) takes place. It could apply to an
individual or an organisation, but for this exercise we are looking at an organisation.
The LCLL model is a dynamic model designed to show the movement necessary for
learning to take place. Learning and change require motivation and the model should give
the practitioner a tool to prepare and promote such learning and change by helping to
show:
 the difference between temporary change and permanent change,
 where and how learning might get blocked.
There are two phases in the LCLL model, Re-evaluation and Revolution. The first phase is
the realisation that change is desired and learning is required; and then motivation is
gathered to create the change/learning. The second phase is the actual process of
embedding learning (and hence more permanent change).
Phase 1: Re-Evaluation
The Re-evaluation Phase occurs when there is a desire to be different
from the current state. It may begin at Spirit, Identity or Beliefs/Values.
The desire will tend to be stronger and the learning/change more likely
when the process begins higher up the levels. There is then a drive
through the other levels down to Environment. Think of it like a six
storey building with a water tank at each level. When water comes
down from the top floor, there will be a greater pressure at the first
floor than if the water came from the second floor. The stronger the
pressure, the easier and more successful phase 2 (Revolution) is likely to
be.
82
As an example, the levels might be expressed: “The expectations of those we serve are
changing (spirit) and we want to be the customer’s number one choice (identity). It is
important to us to be of service (values) and so we need to be ready (capability) to deliver
(behaviour) to a 21st century marketplace (environment).”
In the context of organisational change, the Re-evaluation phase would be the time for
defining, planning, informing, briefing and involving. This phase alone however, without
phase 2, will lead only to surface level, short term readiness for change and learning. If
this is not followed up quickly by phase two, the motivation will wane and the process
will be considered ‘lip service’ and without substance.
Key Questions
Once the desire has been established, there is a flow from top to bottom, where the
following questions need to be asked and answered:
Spirit:
Who are we here for and how are they changing? How is our purpose
changing?
Identity:
Who do we want to be? How do we want to be different?
Beliefs/Values:
Why do we want to be that? What needs to be more important to us?
What beliefs will help us?
Capability:
How will we achieve that? What skills/knowledge do we need?
Behaviour:
What do we need to do to get those skills?
Environment:
Where/when will we do this?
It would also be wise to do an ecology check at each level. For example: “what could be
the potential consequences, implications and risks of changing this level and how will we
put contingency plans in place to cater for any foreseeable issues?”
Possible Blocks at Re-evaluation Phase
The learning/change is likely to fail if:
 the desire or will is not really strong enough to drive all the way down to the
Environment level,
 the ecology is unsound leading to negative reactions systemically. This could be for
example, people/parts resisting or a contradiction created with other parts of the
system.
Acuity Vol.4
83
Phase 2: Revolution
The Revolution Phase consists of a number of loops that progress back up the levels. Each
loop may need to be repeated a number of times in order for the learning to take place. In
order for the looping to take place, there needs to be some motivation. This motivation
usually comes from a sense of purpose, values, benefits or consequences of not learning. It
could be said that the process needs to be driven by the ‘higher’ levels.
Loop 1: Practicing
 This loop entails action that affects the surroundings in some way. The
result of the action provides feedback which reinforces success and allows
correction of errors. This stage correlates to ‘conscious incompetence’.
 The process of going round this loop is called practicing.
 This process can be accelerated by time/opportunity to practice,
effective instruction, direction, training/coaching and verbal feedback.
Loop 2: Developing Ability
 This loop entails using the practiced behaviours in such an elegant way
that it is now considered a skill. The behaviours now become unconscious,
though there is still consciousness of learning. This stage correlates to
‘conscious competence’.
 The process of going round this loop is called developing ability.
 This process can be accelerated by time/opportunity to develop the
ability, management/trainer support, feedback and coaching.
Loop 3: Building Belief
 This loop entails the ability becoming effective enough that the internal
belief grows. This may be belief in oneself, the organisation, the learning or
the change. The learning also develops true value and becomes a part of
the culture. Capability becomes unconscious leading to ‘unconscious
competence’.
 The process of going round this loop is called building belief.
 This process can be accelerated by time/opportunity to build the belief,
effective hands off coaching and support.
84
Loop 4: Integrating
 This loop entails the beliefs and culture embedding to the point where
it becomes inseparable from the organisation. The learning/change is no
longer considered external as it is part of the system.
 The process of going round this loop is called integrating.
 This process can be accelerated by time/opportunity for integration,
continued support and encouragement.
This
model
works
for
both
active/applied/kinaesthetic
skill
development
and
passive/visual/auditory knowledge development. Knowledge development still goes
through the same loops, where data (environment) becomes information (internal
processing/behaviour) becomes knowledge (capability). Knowledge, in this context, would
also include learning the unseen/unwritten culture and social rules of an environment.
Sometimes, skill learning comes before knowledge learning and sometimes vice versa.
This will depend on the individuals/organizations learning styles and metaprograms.
Possible Blocks at Revolution Phase
The learning/change is likely to fail if:
 There is poor training/coaching or lack of support/resources provided,
 There is a negative experience in a loop that is strong enough to halt progress,
 There is a break or too great a delay in a loop.
Conclusion: Real-ising the Learning Organisation
“Yes, that’s all very well but it doesn’t help my particular situation.”
Charles Handy (1993, p.15)
Handy (1993) puts these words into the mouth of a pragmatic manager in response to the
academic’s theories. Indeed, a general big picture criticism of the learning organisation
literature and concept (e.g. Handy 1993, Senge 1993, Argyris 1977 & 1994) is that it is too
general and big picture! Perhaps the very paradox of the learning organisation is that it is
a big picture, big chunk concept. This can create abstract theories, jargon and metaphor.
Handy’s pragmatic managers may not find any practical use in grand ideas like ‘learning
organisations’ if they struggle to apply such concepts to their specific situations. This
suggests a need for some small chunk steps of how to get from ‘a’ to ‘b’?
Acuity Vol.4
85
For the ‘learning organisation’ to become a graspable reality (e.g. for Handy’s pragmatic
manager), it needs to be chunked down to the level of:
•
•
•
workable systems,
‘common sense’ attitudes and ‘common practice’ behaviours,
knowledge and skills that are relevant, manageable and applicable.
Dilts’ model can help to bridge the gap between high level concept and practical action
planning. Not only does it give us the opportunity to assess where we are and where we
want to be, the model also allows us to explore the alignment between the levels and take
appropriate action if necessary.
Notes
1. For more information of Bateson’s Levels of Learning, see Hall (2001) and Tosey
(2006).
2. The Levels of Change model is a development of Dilts’ original Neurological Levels
model (published in Changing Belief Systems with NLP, 1990). Dilts originally
claimed that his model represented logical levels as outlined by Bateson (2000). A
true hierarchy of logical levels is where the level above is a category and the level
below is the collection of items that fit into that category. For example, the category
of transport contains: cars, vans, bicycles, trains etc. Whilst the Neurological Levels
model has been criticised for not representing ‘true logical levels’ (e.g. Hall 2001,
Bostic St. Clair & Grinder 2001), it can be extremely useful when used as a tool for
exploration and problem resolution, particularly in its developed form as ‘Levels of
Change’ which is not defined in terms of logical levels (in this article at least). Whilst
I agree with these criticisms, I am still happy to consider the components as
hierarchical levels (like a hierarchy of criteria) or layers (e.g. of concentric circles like
Satir’s ‘Self Mandala’ – in Satir et al 1991).
Biography
Joe Cheal has been working with NLP since 1993. As well as being a master trainer of
NLP, he holds an MSc in Organisational Development and NLT, a degree in Philosophy
and Psychology, and diplomas in Coaching and in Ericksonian Hypnotherapy,
Psychotherapy and NLP. He is also a licensed EI practitioner.
He is the author of ‘Solving Impossible Problems: Working Through Tensions and Paradox in
Business‘ and co-author of ‘The Model Presenter: Developing Excellence in Presenting and
Training’.
86
Joe is a co-founder of the Positive School of Intrinsic Neuro-Linguistic Psychology
(www.psinlp.com)
and
a
partner
in
the
GWiz
Learning
Partnership
(www.gwiztraining.com), working as a Management & Organisational Development
Specialist.
References
Argyris, C. (1977) “Double-Loop Learning in Organisations,” Harvard Business Review,
Sept-Oct, pp 118-119.
Argyris, C. (1994) On Organisational Learning, Blackwell: Cambridge, Mass.
Armstrong, M. (2001) A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice 8th ed., Kogan
Page.
Bateson, G. (2000) Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry,
Evolution and Epistemology, University of Chicago Press
Bostic St. Clair, C. & Grinder, J. (2001) Whispering in the Wind, J & C Enterprises
Cheal, J. (2012) Solving Impossible Problems: Working Through Tensions and Paradox in
Business, GWiz Publications
Dilts, R. (1990) Changing Belief Systems with NLP, Meta Publications
Dilts, R. (1996) Visionary Leadership Skills, Meta Publications
Dixon, Nancy (1992) “Organisational learning: a review of the literature with implications
for HRD professionals,” Human Resources Development Quarterly, Vol.3 No.1, Spring,
pp. 31-32.
Garvin, D. (1993) “Building a Learning Organisation”, Harvard Business Review, July-Aug,
pp. 78-91
Hall, L.M. (2001) Going Meta, NSP
Handy, C. (1993) Understanding Organisations 4th ed., Penguin Books.
Jones, A.M. & Hendry C. (1994) “The Learning Organisation: Adult Learning and
Organisational Transformation,” British Journal of Management, Vol. 5, p.160
Johnson, G. (1988) “Rethinking incrementalism,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.9 pp.
75-91
Satir, V., Banmen, J., Gerber, J. & Gomori, M. (1991) The Satir Model, Science & Behavior
Books
Senge, P. (1993) The Fifth Discipline Century Business.
Tosey, P. (2005) “The Hunting of the Learning Organisation: A Paradoxical Journey”
http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/1188/1/fulltext.pdf (accessed 17/05/2013)
Acuity Vol.4
Tosey, P. (2006) “Bateson’s Levels of Learning: a Framework for Transformative
Learning?” http://www.som.surrey.ac.uk/NLP/Resources/BatesonLevels2006.pdf
(accessed 17/05/2013)
Waterman, R. Jr., Peters, T. and Phillips, J.R. (1980) “Structure Is Not Organisation”
Business Horizons, 23, 3 June. pp. 14-26.
87
88
Distinguishing the Psychologies Between Psychotherapy and Coaching
Distinguishing the Psychologies
Between Psychotherapy and Coaching
L. Michael Hall
There are two different kinds of psychologies. There is a psychology for people who need
healing and peace and there is a psychology for people who need to be challenged and
stretched. These very different psychologies study the needs, drives, motivations, life
scripts, etc. of two very different populations of people. And from these two different
psychologies come two very different helping professions.
The helper in the first
profession is a psychotherapist and his or her work is that of healing people. The helper in
the second profession is a coach and his or her work is that of challenging people.
Now I’ll be the first to admit that the line between these two different psychologies, these
two different populations, and these two professions is not the clearest of lines. There are
some gray areas and there are some exceptions that make one or the other more desirable
with certain people. In fact, the whole area of counselor seems to exist in that gray area
between therapy and coaching. Sometimes a person in that gray area needs a bit of
counsel, consulting, gentle acceptance and nurturing with a bit of challenge.
Yet in spite of this gray area and the ambivalence of where to draw the line, and the fact
that there is a lot of confusion between therapy and coaching, I offer the following as one
way to distinguish them.
The Psychology of Psychotherapy
Almost everybody knows about the psychology of psychotherapy. This is what people
immediately think about when they think about “psychology.” They think about the
understanding of people, of human nature, of mind and emotions, of memories and
beliefs, etc. and how people can get hurt, wounded, and traumatized, and how
“psychology” can help. And indeed, Sigmund Freud began his brand of psychotherapy as
a way to understand and bringing healing to people in hysteria after discovering that
medical science really was not able to bring much relief.
Therapy is about healing. That’s what the word means, “to heal.” And just like the body
can be hurt, damaged, and traumatized— so can a person’s thoughts, emotions, sense of
Acuity Vol.4
89
self, understandings about the world, expectations, hopes, and so on. Yet the “hurt” and
“trauma” of the psyche (self or person) is not external and obvious as a physical hurt. So
what really gets hurt? In our common language, we say that someone “hurts my feelings.”
So what is hurt?
We say that we have had some bad experiences and now we are
disillusioned, depressed, unable to trust, unable to enjoy ourselves, fearful of people, etc.
So what is this internal hurt?
What actually hurt is a wound or violation of our mental maps about the world. We had
thought one thing, and then experienced something very different.
We anticipated,
expected, hoped for, wanted, desired, etc. one thing— but it didn’t happen, it was blocked,
someone else got it. We didn’t expect the undesirable event (war, rape, mobbed, attacked,
home destroyed by fire, bankruptcy, divorce, etc.) and so when it happened, we were not
prepared, We didn’t know what to do. We didn’t know how to cope.
The hurt occurs and our emotions register that hurt as we experience the “negative”
emotions— fear, anger, stress, frustration, disappointment, disillusionment, depression,
anxiety, paranoia, shame, guilt, and a whole host of such emotions. And what these
emotions register is that there is something wrong with our world (i.e., our sense of the
world, our model of the world). Somehow, in some way, for some reason— our mental
model of the world is not working as it “should.”
And if we do not have the ability to use the “negative” emotion to explore and adjust our
mental maps about things, we get stuck in the symptoms— the negative emotions
themselves, the negative states and experiences, and if we don’t understand how to cope
effectively and to master the environmental situation— we can actually make it a lot worse
for ourselves. We might drink to get rid of the pain. We might attack others thinking that
will make us succeed. We might deny, repress, pretend, be a victim, and in a multitude of
ways multiply the problem that creates the hurt.
Psychotherapy is the profession of choice to deal with all of this. That’s because when
people get hurt in these ways, they usually lack the very resources that they need for selfhealing. And this is all the more true when the hurt occurs during childhood or in the
formative stages of young adulthood. Here are the basic factors that are generally true of
this population.
∙
The person is hurt in his or her sense of self. They do not feel okay. They do not feel
worthwhile, valid, honorable, important, a somebody, etc. a person may be
wounded and hurt, even traumatized in his or her self-definition, self-confidence (sense
of empowerment and competence), and self-esteem (sense of personal value and
worth), and social-self (how they sense that others experience them).
90
∙
The person is hurt in his or her understanding of what’s going on. They feel confused,
overwhelmed, unsure, ignorant, mis-informed, etc. They want to know “Why is
this happening?” “Why did that happen to me?” “What’s wrong with me?”
“What’s wrong with them?”
∙
The person is hurt in his or her resources for coping. The person feels tired, worn out,
defeated, and without the ego-strength to keep facing and dealing with the situation.
The person is hurt in his or her sense of time. The person seems to be living in the
past and not fully present to the here-and-now or to the future.
These are the conditions that generally refer to as the conditions that call for
psychotherapy. Someone who is not okay in oneself, living in the past, without the egostrength to be challenged, and feeling unable to change his or her beliefs really needs
someone who will accept him, care about her, listen like no one has ever listened, support,
help in enabling with new coping skills, help in finding new meanings, etc. In a word, the
therapist loves and reparents the person back to health.
What does a person need to learn to do psychotherapy and what competencies does a
person need? There are many, many “Schools of Psychology” for this. I began with
Psychoanalysis, moved to Jungian, then to Adlerian which I really liked, then to
Transactional Analysis which I stayed with for years and learned from some of the
originators. Then I found Rational Emotive (Ellis) and Cognitive Psychology and it is in
that tradition that NLP arose. In terms of skills— you have to be very patient and loving,
able to diagnose, recognize personality disorders and be on the guard less a person do
themselves more harm. The book that I wrote in unison with some other NLP authors is
The Structure of Personality: Ordering and Disordering Personality Using NLP and NeuroSemantics.
The Psychology of Coaching
By way of contrast, once a person achieves the fundamental goals of therapy and 1) feels
good about oneself and is “okay,” 2) is living in the present, in the here-and-now and
ready for the future, 3) has the ego-strength and the resources to ask, “What’s next?” “I’m
ready for a challenge.” and 4) has a strong ability to unlearn what no longer works or is no
longer relevant and learn new things in adjusting his or her mental maps— that person is
ready for coaching.
Acuity Vol.4
91
What’s the difference? The big difference is that in psychotherapy a person needs love,
acceptance, understanding, gentleness, and homeostasis in stabilizing the world. But in
coaching a person needs challenge, stretching, disorientation, and disequilibrium in
shaking up the world and inventing new possibilities.
The psychotherapist loves the person back to health and wholeness and often by reparenting the person by being kind of “authority figure” that the person needs in order to
cope effectively in the world. The coach challenges the person to go beyond just meeting
the lower needs of surviving, being safe and secure and stable, getting love and affection,
feeling value and worth in oneself to moving up to the higher meta-needs of giving. These
needs are just as innate as the lower drives, but the drive us to contribute— knowledge,
meaning, justice, peace, love, beauty, mathematics, making a difference, etc.
So the population for coaching are those who are basically and generally okay and
psychologically health. If they do not stretch to their next level of development, they can
become unhealthy in a new and different way. They can lose the drive and joy of living a
life of challenge that seeks to keep on unleashing more and more potentials. If they don’t
move there, they can become comfortable and bored and focused on the lower needs of
getting.
This psychology came into existence in the 1940s as Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers
began exploring “the healthy side” of human nature. In the late 1930s Maslow taught and
wrote a book on Abnormal Psychology documenting all of the horrible ways that human
life can go wrong. In that work he repeatedly made side-comments as he wondered about
“the healthy side.” Later he choose his mentors Ruth Benedict and Max Wertheimer as
two “wonderful, wonderful human beings” as “good specimens” of humans to begin his
modeling of self-actualizing people— people living at the height of their potentials and
passions and making a difference in the world. From that the human potential movement
arose, Humanistic Psychology and Positive Psychology— all strength-based psychologies
focused on the bright side of human nature.
What does a person need to learn and what competencies does a person need to be able to
effectively coach?
The psychology is that of Self-Actualization Psychology so I’d
recommend Maslow’s works, Toward a Psychology of Being, Motivation and Personality, and
Roger’s works on Client-Centered Therapy and, of course, my books, Self-Actualization
Psychology and Unleashed.
92
In Summary
The Psychology of Therapy is a Remedial Psychology that provides insights about
how to nurture, support, listen, enable the expression of the person’s story, to
facilitate transference, to avoid counter-transference, to re-parent and love the
person back to health.
It is a conversation of that involves an independent–
dependent relationship moving the client to more and more independence.
The Psychology of Coaching is a Generative Psychology that awakens, disturbs,
challenges, and stretches to unleash more and more potential talents and
possibilities. It is highly confrontative, direct, and explicit. It is a dialogue of
colleagues and involve inter-dependent roles.
The Therapist is working to develop okayness in the client, to get him or her up to
okay, to strengthen the person’s ego-strength, to finish the so-called “unfinished”
business of the past and get the person up to now— in the present and ready for
taking on life’s challenges.
The Coach is working to move the self esteem to a totally unconditional status so the
person does not have to prove anything to be fully and completely okay, and now
ready for a new restlessness— a dis-equilibrium to think more, feel more, be more,
say more, do more, have more, and give more.
Acuity Vol.4
93
THERAPY AND COACHING
Therapy
Coaching
Psychology of hurt, wounds, trauma.
Psychology of challenge, disequilibrium,
unleashing potentials.
Time: Clients living entirely or mostly in the past
Clients living in the present with an eye on the
future
State: Experiencing internal hurt, wounds, traumas.
Experiencing the “negative” emotions.
Experiencing an anxiousness and restlessness
for more, internal well-ness, and health.
Intention: Wanting safety, equilibrium, quietness,
peace.
Wanting disequilibrium, adventure, challenge,
to be stretched.
Self: Lacking ego-strength to face the world or a
particular challenge, fearful of “reality.”
Fearful of what might be true.
Has the ego-strength to face what is in one’s
world, a friend to reality, not afraid to candidly
speak the truth.
Lacks sense of value, worth and esteem for self.
Has unconditional self-value and worth, or “high”
self-esteem even though conditional.
Feels like a victim and has much or lots of victim
talk and mentality.
Feels high level or completely at cause,
response-able and empowered.
Power: Needs to be re-parented, easily experience
transference to the helper as if a new “parent.”
Fully able to be an adult in thinking, feeling,
accepting responsibility.
Needs “fixing” — remedy for problems of self.
Does not need “fixing” or any remedial solutions,
wants generative change.
Change: Resists change, fears to change, defends
self against change.
Embraces change, wants it, plans for it, gets
excited about changing.
Reactive, defensive, fears to be open, vulnerable.
Proactive, open, disclosing, self-aware.
Biography
L. Michael Hall, Ph.D., doctorate in Cognitive Psychology with a minor in
psycholinguistics, a psychotherapist in practice for 20 years, then became a modeler of
psychological excellence using NLP and Neuro-Semantics, studied the modeling of
Abraham Maslow in studying “the healthy side of human nature” in self-actualizing
people and authored three books on Self-Actualization Psychology. Co-founded NeuroSemantics and Meta-Coaching System, author of over 46 books.
www.neurosemantics.com;
www.self-actualizing.org;
www.meta-coaching.org.
94
Using NLP for Pain Management and Physical Recovery
First Person Life History Account of Using
NLP for Pain Management and Physical
Recovery Post Traumatic Accident
Lisa Wake
Introduction
The aim of this article is to provide a first person case study of the applications and
experience of using a range of NLP tools and techniques. I hope that this study will
provide insight to others on how the processes described can be used in a clinical context. I
provide a meta perspective on my experience through the eyes of a trainer and researcher.
The Clinical Picture
At the beginning of January, I had a ‘freak’ accident that resulted in severe dislocation and
multiple fractures to my left leg. This necessitated air ambulance to hospital, 5 attempts at
manipulation to reduce the fractures and ensure blood supply to my leg, 2 operations
involving external fixation with a rather interesting meccano set and then internal fixation
5 days later, with 12 pins, 2 plates and loads of wire to hold my malleolus in place.
Basically there wasn’t a lot of bone structure left so my leg is held together with a load of
titanium.
The Psychological Picture
Prior to the accident I had experienced significant emotional trauma in the preceding year.
During that time I had said to myself that I would give myself permission for my body to
collapse once a specific milestone had been reached. In my place of ‘making the best
choice at the time’, this was the only way I could stay focussed enough to get through the
emotional trauma without giving into the emotions and in my world, ‘losing everything’.
Acuity Vol.4
95
As the phrase goes: ‘be careful what you wish for’, because 36 hours after the milestone,
my body literally collapsed.
First Person Case Study
Case study as a research methodology can be either qualitative or quantitative. Within
qualitative methodologies, this study provides a holistic single case study and could be
viewed as a life history case study based on the experience of just one individual.
Plummer (1983) and Yin (2009) propose that first person phenomenological cases studies
provide a humanist perspective on the subjective nature of individual experience. It is
recognised that this study is not representative of any experiences other than those of the
author and as such cannot be used to make generalisations. It is hoped that learnings can
be taken from this case and that theory may be informed by this report.
Literature Review
NLP has a limited evidence base for its effectiveness and no Level A studies to date (Wake,
Gray, Bourke, 2012). I have reviewed where possible and included research studies that
are relevant to the processes of pain management, post trauma stress responses and
rehabilitation.
There are two studies reviewing the effectiveness of NLP in pain management. Bowers
(1996) conducted a randomised control study that was Cochrane reviewed, comparing
NLP with regular chiropractic care of patients with acute pain. She used the Visual
Analogue Scale to measure pain reduction across the two groups. Findings show a
reduction of 6.2 in the NLP treatment group compared to the non-treatment group
showing a reduction of 1.7 over the same period of time. Bowers discusses the limitations
of this study being group size, lack of control on degree of patient participation and
therapeutic judgement. Olson (1985) as part of their Masters thesis conducted a study
looking at the application of pacing and anchoring in pain management. Full copies of this
paper are not available therefore no comments can be offered as to the validity or the
chosen methodology.
Other studies relevant to this case study include the extensive research into the use of
submodalities, notably with post-traumatic stress and anxiety disorders (Ferguson, 1987;
Hale, 1986; Koziey et al 1992; Krugman et al, 1985; Field, 1990). Gray (2010) has expanded
on this work with his further development of memory reconsolidation theory working
96
with veterans using the V-K Dissociation protocol. Allen (1982), Einspruch and
Forman(1988), Kammer et al (1997) and Liberman (1984) have all demonstrated the
effectiveness of variations on the NLP phobia cure. Gray (2009) has also published
research on the use of submodalities, anchoring and goal setting with offenders who also
use substances.
Imagery for goal realisation (Hossack and Standidge, 1993) has been demonstrated to be
effective. Weaver (2009) and Gray (2009) both demonstrate the effectiveness of utilising
outcomes with clients, Weaver from a neurolinguistic psychotherapy perspective using
CORE (clinical outcomes in routine evaluation) and Gray using the well-formed outcome
frame to access future preferred states. More widely than existing NLP literature are the
studies of Locke (1968) and Tubbs (1986), both of whom provide further evidence for the
effectiveness of goal setting and motivational factors in enabling achievement of results.
Mirror neuron studies (Gallese 1996, 2007, Glaser et al, 2004), although not core to NLP,
can be considered to underpin the modelling and rapport processes within NLP.
Recognising that the discovery of mirror neurons occurred after NLP was developed and
established, nonetheless their role is significant in rehabilitation work. Ramachandran
(2009) has used the activation of mirror neurons in stroke rehabilitation and has
demonstrated the role that mirror neurons play in the rehabilitation process. Swets et al
(1990) proposed that modelling may be effective for development of motor skill.
From a wider rehabilitation perspective, NLP has been used with patients post cardiac
incident (Sumin et al, 2000). The test group in this study demonstrated higher exercise
tolerance and lower reactivity of central haemodynamics in exercise tests.
There are only a few books that discuss the applications of NLP in a health care context.
Walker (2004) has written a highly accessible book on the applications of NLP in medical
practice from his perspective as a General Practitioner. He provides an excellent context of
the applications and makes suggestions on how NLP can be used to manage clinical
disorders such as depression, anxiety, habit disorders, pain control and cancer
Submodalities, anchoring and pain
I experienced pain at a number of different levels during the immediate accident and
recovery period. At the time of the accident, I was very aware that I was lying in a wet
field, had only light clothing on and was a long way from help. My previous nursing
experience enabled me to recognise that shock, lack of blood supply to my foot and
Acuity Vol.4
97
hypothermia were my biggest risks. I was very keen to manage the shock and not allow
this to take over my body and I knew that if I felt the pain I would go into shock more
quickly. Interestingly I immediately recalled a programme about language, pain and
swearing that I had watched with Stephen Fry and Brian Blessed on Planet World
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01614w9). They demonstrated that if you swear,
your capacity to tolerate pain is significantly enhanced. I also knew that dissociation
would help. So for the next 20 minutes I bit my glove, stared into space and started
swearing. This became like a mantra and as long as I stayed in that state, I felt little pain.
My friend was excellent at staying dissociated and giving grid references to the emergency
services. Two walkers who happened upon us were delighted that after 20 years, their
bivvy bag was finally being put to use. It was also great that she was a nurse and he was a
retired emergency services controller.
The air ambulance arrived 20 minutes later (the road ambulance had got stuck in a field!).
When the paramedic asked me my pain threshold out of 10, I said 3. Medics use a scaling
system to calibrate pain levels and to monitor for increasing levels of pain. I don’t think
they believed me and suggested I should have IV morphine before they attempted to
move me. I knew that the next period of time stabilising me and transferring me to
hospital was going to be challenging, so I mentally calibrated the submodalities of my ‘3’
state so that I could return to that if I needed to. I also recall being very aware that the
paramedic ‘Andy’s’ voice was incredibly calm and reassuring. As they attended to me and
started to remove my trainer and turn me to apply a brace to my leg and put me on the
stretcher, my pain level increased and I recall that the level 3 state had been small, far
away and had a frame around it. It had now become fully associated, all encompassing
and in full colour. I was able to shrink the picture and put a frame round it but could not
move it away. I became aware of hyperventilating and shaking and at that point was
given Entonox.
This eased the pain, however it also made me start to lose consciousness. As I began to
‘black out’, which is actually a misnomer for me, because I was being drawn towards a
white light, I heard my friend’s voice panic as she called for the paramedic’s attention. I
heard Andy speak and I used this as an anchor. I remember saying to myself that as I long
as I stayed hooked to Andy’s voice I would be ok. I came around as they were about to put
me onto the stretcher. My pain was back down to a 3 and I remember reframing myself
‘well girl, you wanted to learn about trust, here’s your chance’. This ability to reframe
stayed with me and I can remember one of the 6 people who carried me on the stretcher to
the ambulance asking how I could joke at a time like this in response to my comment
“you’ll know how much Christmas cake I’ve eaten”.
98
As I was placed into the helicopter, Andy asked me if I wanted more morphine and I
refused. I was determined to stay conscious and use my internal resources to manage the
situation. I knew where ‘3’ was, I also completely trusted Andy and knew that if I could
stay anchored to him, I would be ok. It took some time for the aircrew to decide where to
take me (Harrogate landing site was flooded). A call was made to fly to Leeds as it was
closer and my need for emergency treatment was pretty immediate. As the helicopter
started up, the vibrations escalated the pain in my leg. I felt panic arise in me, I was
frightened of blacking out again so I fixed my eyes on Andy. I stayed anchored to him, his
voice and his eyes throughout the short flight.
As we landed and I was lifted from the helicopter I blacked out again. The details of the 5
manipulations, and failed IV propofol, a hypnotic amnesic drug, remain insignificant to
this study, other than to say that submodalities and manipulation of a multiply fractured
leg without anaesthetic do not work.
Anchoring remained a significant part of my immediate operative journey. I recall
anchoring to certainty in people’s voices, the registrar in A&E, my friend, the anaesthetist.
As long as I could hear certainty I knew I would be ok.
The next time submodalities played a significant part was in the 2-3 days post first
operation. I reacted badly to the analgesia prescribed, experiencing hallucinations and
muscular contractions in my leg. I also kept getting flashbacks of the accident and kept
rerunning the video of it and also a video of ‘what if I had lost my leg’. My first priority
was to stop the flashbacks. I used the VKD model three times over the space of three days
and have only experienced one flashback since. It was easy to use and I included a process
of spatial anchors for myself as I was both the operator and the client. This helped me run
the process cleanly and anchored me into the right place to begin and end the movie. To
the left of me was the end of the trauma, to the right was the safe place before it happened.
I held a hand in each place and could use these anchor points to remind myself which way
I was running the movie.
With regard to pain management, I elicited the submodalities of the present pain state and
played with each one in turn to work out which one, if changed, had the biggest impact.
As I worked out which one it was, I suddenly had a huge insight. That all that changing
submodalities does is give you a conscious reframe on an unconscious experience. I was
completely fascinated by this and had never before recognised that this was a reframing
process between conscious and unconscious mind.
Acuity Vol.4
99
The final place where I used submodalities was in the management of the hallucinations.
Some of them were amazing and well worth the trip, e.g. floating inside giant chocolate
Aero bubbles! Others were considerably more distressing. I recall one occasion when my
bed was being moved and I suddenly felt as if I was on a cherry picker crane high above
the sky scrapers of New York. I felt panic arise in me and I became very scared. The friend
that was with me at the time unconsciously used a combination of auditory anchors
(certainty in her voice and a here and now state) and submodalities, moving the image
away, to ease my fear and bring me out of the hallucination. She has had some training in
NLP, but was not consciously aware of deliberately applying it.
I continued to use submodalities to manage my pain throughout the recovery period. I
have been told off by my physiotherapist for not taking pain killers. I genuinely didn’t
need them and most of the time adjusting the submodalities has enabled me to manage
well.
Mobility and mirror neurons
My leg was immobilised in a cast for six weeks. I was then given an airboot to use for a
further 3-6 weeks. Once my cast was removed, I was very keen to walk again and regain
full mobility as quickly as possible. I was required to use the airboot and crutches and
gradually build up strength in my leg. Three days after having the airboot fitted, I was
walking along the lane next to my house with a friend and my dog. I realised that I was
limping substantially and that my left leg was using a completely different movement to
my right leg. I set the intent to model what my right leg was doing and see if, by using
mirror neurons, I could get my left leg to model my right. This took some concentrating,
yet within a couple of minutes my left leg had modelled it. I was still using crutches and
yet my stride changed and my friend had to ask me to slow down because I suddenly
upped my pace. I decided to continue to use the process of modelling for all my walking
back to full rehabilitation.
From a recovery point of view, at my 12 week outpatient appointment, I was walking with
just a slight limp from torn tendons in the outer aspect of my ankle, my mobility is
significantly further ahead than others who had a similar injury at the same time. At 4
months post-operative I was back on my mountain bike and walking 4 miles unaided. At 5
months, I walk with no limp, have 90% flexibility back in my ankle, I am up to 20 miles on
my bike and 5 miles cross country walking.
100
Modelling
I researched and modelled what others who have had similar injuries have done. I
changed my diet to increase my protein intake. I added antioxidants, chondroitin,
glucosamine, Echinacea, to my supplement list.
Other components of recovery
Goal Setting – from the outset I was very clear that I wanted to return to the things that I
love doing, hill walking, mountain biking, touring cycling and running. These are
activities that I loved as a youngster, had lost during my time bringing up a family and
had recently reconnected with, with great passion. I set myself goals very early on. Most of
them were much too ambitious. I decided I would be walking around the house without
an airboot after 1 week – it took me 2 weeks. I decided I would be back on my mountain
bike by Easter, it took me a further week. I decided I would walk a mile on crutches with
my leg in plaster and non-weight bearing at 3 weeks post-operative. I did half a mile. I
kept setting myself stretch goals. I disappointed myself that I didn’t quite reach them, but
surprised my friends, family and medical professionals that I have achieved the goals that
I have. I have always believed that I can do more than I can in reality. This has always
been a motivation for me and this ‘towards’ strategy seems to have served me well in this
context, as well as my natural trait of taking responsibility for myself.
Values and Beliefs - My values and beliefs have changed beyond recognition as have some
of my metaprogrammes. I felt that I had lost trust in everything and everyone because of
the previous emotional trauma that I had gone through. I don’t do things by half measures
– so I set myself a very valuable lesson in deconstructing trust to the level of survival in
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and literally learnt to build it up again. My beliefs in what I
can do and what is possible if you set your mind to it have changed immeasurably. I
thought I knew it before, I now know that I know it. My values in what is important to me
and my life are now concrete and very real. I am making significant changes in my life and
old established patterns of not being good enough; it being my fault; me not being
important; me being wrong; being a workaholic; being scared of asking for what I want
are all going or have gone.
Strategies – my strategies for who I am and how I behave and respond are changing.
Metaprogrammes – my metaprogrammes of introversion, sort for others, dissociation,
auditory digital have all changed.
Acuity Vol.4
101
Probably most importantly, I have learnt what true friendship and love for the sake of it,
human to human, really is.
Acknowledgements
I would like to give a huge thank you to Yorkshire Air Ambulance service; the walkers
and farmers who helped at the time of my accident; BBC camera crew for their nonintrusive and sensitive filming; Professor Giannoudis and his team at the Leeds General
Infirmary; Nurse Becky at LGI; Phsyiotherapists Stephen, Claire and Ryan at Harrogate
General Hospital; my daughter Rebecca who provided so much love and support and
patience during my recovery that goes above and beyond the call of duty as a daughter;
Mum for fussing over me, nagging me and loving me; friends across the UK who have
shared their stories as ways of encouraging me; my partner Chris who’s limitless energy,
authenticity and love got me through some very dark times; my clients and students who
postponed or changed appointments, asked after me and put up with my hobbling and leg
elevation.
To Richard Bandler and John Grinder, Steve Andreas and Robert Dilts for creating and
developing NLP so that it can be used when it really matters.
Biography
Lisa Wake, Master Trainer of NLP, is accredited by the UKCP as a neurolinguistic
psychotherapist and has an MSc in Advanced Clinical Practice focusing on the applied
psychology of NLP. Lisa is currently studying towards a PhD in Psychology at Surrey
University.
As a psychotherapist, Lisa has served as both Chair and Vice Chair of the UKCP Lisa’s
recent groundbreaking publication, Neurolinguistic Psychotherapy: a Postmodern
Perspective on the applied psychology of NLP is currently being utilised by the US and
Canadian Military to inform the development of a programme to manage PTSD for the US
Veterans Association. Her subsequent publication for the UKCP series with Karnac, The
Role of Brief Therapy in Attachment Disorders attracted the support and contribution of
Betty Alice Erickson, family therapist and daughter of Dr Milton H Erickson, renowned
Psychiatrist and Hypnotherapist. She has added to her list of publications as Lead Editor
for the Clinical Effectiveness of NLP, a clinical review book that required collaboration
with leading NLP clinicians and academics across the world in bringing together a review
102
and critique of the clinical effectiveness of NLP. Lisa has also written a book for
practitioners and trainers who want to be informed of the evidence base and applications
of NLP in a generic business and coaching context, NLP Principles in Practice.
References
Allen, K. L., (1982) An investigation of the effectiveness of Neurolinguistic Programming
procedures in treating snake phobics. Dissertation Abstracts International 43(3), 861-B
University of Missouri at Kansas City.
Bowers, L.A., (1996) An Exploration of Holistic and Ontratraditional Healing Methods including
Research in the use of Neuro-linguistic Programming in the Adjunctive Treatment of Acute
Pain. Dissertation Abstracts International. 56 (11):6379
Einspruch, E.L., & Forman, B.D. (1988) Neurolinguistic Programming in the Treatment of
Phobias. Psychotherapy in Private Practice. 6:1, 91-100
Ferguson, D. M., (1987) The effect of two audiotaped Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) phobia
treatments on public speaking anxiety. Dissertation Abstracts International
Field, E.S., (1990) Neurolinguistic Programming as an Adjunct to other
Psychotherapeutic/hypnotherapeutic Interventions. The American Journal of clinical
hypnosis 32 (3) pp.174-182
Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996) Action recognition in the pre-motor
cortex. Brain. 119. pp.593-609.
Gallese, V. 2007) Intentional Attunement: Mirror Neurons and the Neural Underpinnings of
Interpersonal Relations. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 55 (1) pp.
131-175.
Glaser, D. E., Grezes, J.S., Calvo, B., Passingham, R.E., Haggard. P., (2004) Functional
Imaging of Motor Experience and Expertise During Action Observation. University
College, London.
Gray, R. (2009) The Brooklyn Program: Applying NLP to Addictions. Current Research in NLP:
Volume 1. Proceedings of 2008 Conference pp.84-94
Gray, R. (2010) PTSD: Extinction, Reconsolidation and the Visual-Kinesthetic Dissociation
Protocol. Traumatology.
Hale, R. L., (1986) The effects of Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) on public speaking anxiety
and incompetence. Dissertation Abstracts International 47(5)
Hossack, A., & Standidge, K. (1993) Using an imaginary scrapbook for neurolinguistic
programming in the aftermath of a clinical depression: a case history. Gerontologist.
33(2):265-8
Kammer, D., Lanver, C., Schwochow, M., (1997) Controlled treatment of simple phobias with
NLP: evaluation of a pilot project. University of Bielefeld, Department of
Psychology,unpublished paper
Acuity Vol.4
103
Koziey, P. W.; McLeod, G., (1987)Visual-Kinesthetic Dissociation in Treatment of Victims of
Rape (Research and Practice) Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. American
Psychological Association.
Krugman, M., Kirsch, I., Wickless, C., Milling, L., Golicz, H., Toth, A., (1985) NeuroLinguistic Programming Treatment for Anxiety: Magic or Myth?. Journal of Consulting &
Clinical Psychology. 53(4):526-530
Liberman, M. B., (1984) The treatment of simple phobias with Neurolinguistic Programming
techniques. Dissertation Abstracts International 45(6), St. Louis University.
Locke. E.A., (1968) Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives. Organisational
Behaviour and Human Performance. Vol 3 (2), 157-189
Olson, J.A. (1985) Application of Neurolinguistic Programming Techniques of Pacing and
Anchoring in Pain Management. Thesis. M.S.N. Kent State University. Dissertation
Abstracts International.
Plummer K. (1983) Documents of Life: An Introduction to the Problems and Literature of a
Humanistic Method. London: Unwin Hyman.
Ramachandran. V.S., Depalma, N., Lisiewski, S. (2009) The Role of Mirror Neurons in
Processing Vocal Emotions: Evidence from Psychophysiological Data. International Journal
of Neuroscience. 119 (5). Pp.681-691 (11)
Sumin, A. N., Khairedinova, O. P., Sumina, L., Variushkina, E. V., Doronin, D. V.,
Galimzianov, D. (2000) Psychotherapy impact on effectiveness of in-hospital physical
rehabilitation in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Klin Med (Mosk) 78(6): 16-20,
Swets, J. A., & Bjork, R. A., (1990) Enhancing Human Performance: An Evaluation of "New
Age" Techniques considered by the U.S. Army. Psychological Science 1(2): 85-86,
Tubbs, M.E. (1986) Goal Setting: A Meta-analytic Examination of the Empirical Evidence.
Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 71 (3) 474-483
Wake, L., Gray, R.M, Bourke, F., (2012) The Clinical Effectiveness of Neuro Linguistic
Programming. London: Routledge.
Weaver, M. (2009) An Exploration of a Research-Based Approach to the Evaluation of Clients’
Experience of Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy within a Private Practice Making use of the
CORE Model. Current Research in NLP: Proceedings of 2008 NLP Conference. Vol 1.
pp67- 83
Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage Publications.
104
An investigation of the effects of using Clean Language to support employees
An investigation of the effects of using
Clean Language to support employees
through organisational change
Fe Foreman
Abstract
This study investigated the effects on well-being of using clean language to explore
employees’ experiences of organisational change at its best in a UK Special Health
Authority facing ambiguity and rapid change.
Following Lawley et al (2010) a clean language research methodology was applied to
explore whether there was a connection between metaphorical exploration of
organisational change at its best and well-being, whether the impacts of group and 1:1
interventions differed and whether patterns could be detected to provide insight about
resourcing individuals through change.
The quasi-experimental study involved control, 1:1 and workshop groups in an
interrupted time-series comprising initial, post-intervention, and twelve-week post
intervention well-being measures. The study included exploration of lived experiences of
organisational change and of experiences of the study interventions. The study provides
evidence of clean language efficacy in a business change setting, providing practitioner
guidelines for exploring metaphor.
Introduction
This study investigated empirically whether, and phenomenologically how, the
exploration of metaphor using clean language impacted well-being during a period of
organisational change. The current study was prompted by anecdotal evidence of the
benefits of using metaphorical approaches during a period of change in an NHS Special
Health Authority.
In the study organisation, internal change to improve efficiency and effectiveness had
coincided with the implementation of radical change across the NHS and a challenging
fiscal situation nationally that required deep, sustained spending cuts. The organisation
was operating in an increasingly fast-moving, complex, and ambiguous environment.
Acuity Vol.4
105
The organisation development (OD) team worked to support leaders in making sense of
the changing environment both externally and internally because they were expressing
discomfort and distress about the degree of change and how to lead others through it.
The OD team used metaphor repeatedly. This included facilitating individuals and
groups to generate their own metaphors to make sense of their experience, introducing
metaphors to elucidate concepts, and facilitating the sharing of metaphors between leaders
and the wider organisation. Anecdotally, these interventions had a positive impact,
individuals reported feeling more at ease, making sense of events more readily, and
increased motivation.
The study informs the body of OD knowledge and contributes to psychotherapeutic
understanding of the impact on well-being of using clean language. The study is relevant
to NLP given that clean language is an approach modelled out using NLP techniques, and
is closely associated with the NLP community, being featured at NLP conferences and as
part of some NLP trainings.
Literature Review
This section briefly defines well-being and examines the impact of organisational change
on it. It goes on to explore the meaning of metaphor and its centrality in human meaningmaking, before introducing clean language and reviewing the literature about its efficacy
in supporting well-being.
Defining well-being
Ryan and Deci (2001) note that well-being is usually described in one of two ways, as
positive affect or happiness (hedonistic definition), or as finding meaning / fulfilling
potential; the degree to which the individual is fully-functioning (eudemonic definition).
The two constructs refer to different aspects of well-being, the first how one feels, the
second how one functions. In the workplace, Marks (2005) defines well-being for an
employee as
“their experience of their quality of life” (pg 21)
and within this includes both satisfaction and personal development. This study follows
Marks by considering well-being to encompass hedonistic and eudemonic dimensions of
human experience.
The impact of ambiguity and change on well-being
There is literature that argues the point that organisational change can have a detrimental
effect on well-being (Miller 2011, Cheal 2009a, Cheal 2009b, Jordan 2004, Schabracq and
106
Cooper 1998) and that change management interventions can mitigate this deleterious
impact (Fredrickson 2009, Kiefer 2002, Bridges 1987, Callan 1993, Martin et al 2005). This
section provides a brief insight into this literature.
Miller (2011) provided results from an organisational survey indicating that job insecurity
and the scale of organisational change is weighing heavily on the UK’s workforce. The
report indicated 40% of public sector organisations were planning redundancies and that
this was connected to employee stress and anxiety, negatively impacting well-being.
Miller (2011) indicated that the most common public sector causes of stress are the amount
of organisational change and re-structuring.
Cheal’s (2009a) study of the nature and impacts of paradox on people in organisations
used qualitative methods to explore the experience of eighteen managers from a number
of organisations. Cheal defined paradox as dilemmas, tensions, double binds, conflict and
vicious circles. He found that paradox has a range of effects, and that the effects of
paradox were without exception negative.
Cheal (2009a) connects paradox to change, noting that as the pace and amount of work
rises more paradox occurs in the form of conflicting priorities and dilemmas that
employees need to resolve quickly. Cheal (2009b) likens the impact of paradox to learned
helplessness, which Seligman (2003) contends can cause depression.
Jordan (2004) indicated that change is an inherently emotional process, producing a range
of feelings in individuals including excitement, enthusiasm, creativity, anger, fear, anxiety,
cynicism, resentment and withdrawal.
There are a range of interventions that support well-being through change (CIPD 2011,
Schweiger and De Nisi 1991, Litchfield 2011), including those that support resilience
(Liossis et al 2009), and positive psychology interventions (Lyubomirsky 2007, Sheldon
and Lyubomirsky 2006).
Metaphor, Meaning-making and Well-being
A strong theme running through the literature about effectively supporting well-being
during change is meaning-making (Kiefer 2002, Bridges 1987, Mobray 2011). This section
explores how metaphor is relevant to this.
Metaphor is defined by Lakoff and Johnson (1981) as:
“thinking of one thing in terms of another” (pg 5)
Classical theorists since Aristotle have referred to metaphor. Traditionally metaphor was
seen as an expression of thought, rather than as the basis of thought itself (Lakoff 1993).
Lakoff explains that the way metaphor is perceived has developed to recognise that
thought is metaphorical in its nature.
Acuity Vol.4
107
Lakoff and Johnson (1999) express this idea more strongly, saying that cognitive science
indicates:
“the mind is inherently embodied. Thought is mostly unconscious. Abstract
concepts are largely metaphorical” (pg 3)
Geary (2001) builds on this theme, observing that:
“metaphorical thinking – our instinct for not just describing but for comprehending
one thing in terms of another, for equating I with an other – shapes our view of the
world, and is essential to how we communicate, learn, discover and invent” (pg 3)
Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2011) conducted a study of the impact of metaphors on the
solutions study participants suggested for reducing crime in a fictional case study. The
study involved presenting the same data with different metaphorical frames (a virus or a
beast), and explored the way participants responded to them.
Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2011) demonstrated that the metaphorical frame applied
influenced the nature of the solutions participants suggested. A single word referencing
the metaphor was enough to prompt processing that fitted the metaphorical frame offered.
They found that the metaphor was only impactful if it was presented within the context of
the study and that a metaphor introduced early was more impactful than one introduced
at the end of the case study. Finally, they noted that participants were not aware that their
thinking was being influenced by the metaphor used.
Lawley (2011) commenting on Thibodeau and Boroditsky’s study argues that once we buy
into a metaphor we are constrained to follow its logic, and that we may not realise that our
choices are limited to what makes sense within it. This concurs with Morgan (1997) who
hypothesises that metaphors create insight and have strengths, but that they also distort.
He notes that:
“the way of seeing created through a metaphor becomes a way of not seeing” (pg 5)
The author contends that this makes working with metaphor a useful intervention to
explore in managing change.
Defining clean language and symbolic modelling
David Grove, a counselling psychologist, developed a clinical approach for resolving
clients’ traumatic memories in the 1980s (Lawley and Tompkins 2000). Grove worked with
clients in a way that honoured their choice of words rather than paraphrasing, devising
questions which contained as few assumptions and metaphors as possible (Sullivan and
Rees 2008).
108
Grove’s approach enabled his clients to explore their naturally occurring metaphors,
gaining an understanding of their inner world. Referred to as their metaphor landscape,
Grove found that when his clients worked in this way, they could be at choice about
whether and when to seek to change, and when they did it enabled the resolution of their
issues.
Grove’s approach was modelled by Lawley and Tompkins (Tosey 2011). Lawley and
Tompkins distilled the approach into the clean language questions to codify Grove’s work.
Clean language questions presume only metaphors of time, space, form, and perceiver, the
raw materials of symbolic perception (Lawley and Tompkins 2000), leaving all other
metaphorical content to emerge from the individual’s metaphor landscape.
Grove (1998) indicated that the facilitator’s role is to visit the client’s model of the world
and unfold solutions contained within the language and logical boundaries of that world.
He believed that every ‘negative’ symptom has within it a solution that can emerge to
become a resource. He summarised his approach by saying:
“clean language engages and interrogates symptoms until they confess their
strengths” (pg 2)
Clean language is essentially a set of questions, they can be used in a variety of contexts
from marketing to police investigations, anywhere that the benefit of eliciting information
without introducing metaphors from outside is useful (Sullivan and Rees 2008). Given
Thibodeau and Boroditsky’s (2011) findings about the ease of influence available through
metaphor introduction, the author considers this approach potent for research and
facilitation purposes.
Lawley and Tompkins codified and extended Grove’s work (Sullivan and Rees 2008) and
called the therapeutic methodology they developed Symbolic Modelling.
The effect of clean language on well-being
Clean language practitioners claim that use of clean language has an impact on well-being
(Lawley and Tompkins 2000, Tompkins and Lawley 2004, Doyle 2010, Sullivan and Rees
2008).
Lawley et al’s (2010) study employed clean language to explore six participants’
experiences of work-life balance. Participants undertook a one-hour session exploring
their experiences of work-life balance at its best and not at its best. A follow-up session
further explored their metaphor landscape, and their experience of the intervention.
While the study did not aim to make any changes in participant’s well-being, there were
effects for participants. The authors found that some interviewees were deriving real
benefit from the experience of exploring, describing and drawing their metaphor
landscapes. Furthermore, the technique led to a growing awareness of work-life balance
Acuity Vol.4
109
and some participants decided to make changes following the intervention. Lawley et al
(2010) present qualitative data that makes clear that participants perceived that they
derived benefits from their experience.
The literature about the effectiveness of using metaphor (Jacobs and Heracleous 2004, Abel
and Sementelli 2005), clean language and symbolic modelling (Lawley and Tompkins
2000, Tompkins and Lawley 2004, Sullivan and Rees 2008, Lawley et al 2010, Doyle 2010,
Walker 2006), tends to be qualitative, anecdotal, and not specific to an organisation change
context. The current exception to this is Doyle et al (2010). The current research addresses
this gap in the literature.
Methodology
This study deployed a combined quantitative and qualitative methodology. The quasiexperimental aspect of the study provided an interrupted time series with a nonequivalent control group to establish whether a significant relationship could be found
between clean language interventions and levels of well-being. Phenomenological
methodology was used to examine lived experience of organisational change by exploring
participant metaphors and participant experiences of the interventions and their impact on
well-being. Phenomenology is the study of how we experience the world, suggesting that
reality is unknown because all humans have is subjective perception (Schulz 2004).
The study objectives were to establish whether there was a connection between
metaphorical exploration of organisational change at its best and well-being, whether the
impacts of group and 1:1 interventions differed and finally whether any patterns could be
detected to provide insight about resourcing individuals through change.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the methodology. Three well-being measures were
taken, before, after and twelve weeks after the interventions. Two intervention groups
were engaged, one attended a ninety-minute clean language workshop, the other a sixtyminute symbolic modelling session. There was also a control group. Post-intervention
three participants from each intervention group were interviewed about their experience
to gather phenomenological data.
110
Control Group (17)
One-to-one Group (5)
Workshop Group (17)
Pre-intervention well-being measure
One-hour symbolic
modelling “Organisation
change at its best’
90-minute workshop
learning and using clean
questions to model
Post-intervention well-being measure
One-hour semistructured interview
with 3 participants
One-hour semistructured interview
with 3 participants
3-month well-being measure
Statistical and Qualitative Analysis
Figure 1 – Methodology Overview
Measuring well-being
For this study, a well-being measure was sought that focused on positive functioning
rather than a lack of well-being, encompassed both hedonistic and eudemonic aspects of
well-being and was simple, face-valid for participants, and reasonably quick to complete.
The measure selected was the Ryff Well-being scales. Figure 2 provides a summary of the
six constructs measured (Ryff 1989).
Self Acceptance: holding positive attitudes towards oneself and one’s
past life.
Positive Relations with Others: warm, trusting
relationships, the ability to love and feel empathy.
Autonomy: self-determination, independence and
behaviour from within, an internal locus of evaluation.
interpersonal
regulation
of
Acuity Vol.4
111
Environmental Mastery: ability to advance in the world, to choose and
create environments, active participation in and mastery of the
environment.
Purpose in Life: purpose and meaning in life, goals, a sense of
directedness and intentionality.
Personal Growth: continuing to grow, to develop one’s potential and
expand as a person.
Figure 2 – Ryff Sub-scales constructs (Ryff 1989)
The Ryff scales used were the fifty-four item scale, with each of the six sub-scales made up
of nine items. Participants answered each item using a six point Likert scale that has an
ordinal scale for analysis. This results in a global measure of well-being based on the
mean of the participants’ responses, as well as a mean score for each sub-scale.
One-to-one intervention
For the one-to-one group, the intervention was a one-hour symbolic modelling session.
The study echoed Lawley et al (2010) by using clean language questions to explore
experiences of organisational change at its best, but did not echo the previous study by
contrasting this with exploring experiences of it not at its best. The hypothesis was that
this positive focus might support well-being.
In this study, following the one-hour interview, the participants were asked immediately
to draw a representation of their metaphor. This is standard practice in symbolic
modelling (Lawley et al 2010).
Workshop Intervention
Groups of five or six participants were introduced to the basic clean language questions.
The ninety-minute workshop comprised a short demonstration, and participants working
in pairs supported by the author as needed. At the end of the workshop, participants
were asked to draw a representation of their metaphor.
The workshop was designed using the 4MAT system of training (McCarthy 1990). First
the context was explained and the benefits of learning about clean language were
articulated. Next, learners were introduced to the clean language methodology. There
was then a demonstration, before participants experimented, supported as needed. Finally
the group explored how they might apply their learning outside the workshop. McCarthy
(1990) notes that this cycle is a change cycle as much as a learning cycle, making it
112
particularly relevant for this study. As with the one-to-one group, participants captured
their metaphor visually at the end of the workshop.
The intended outcome of the workshop intervention differed from the one-to-one
intervention. The one-to-one enabled exploration at depth. Having less depth, the
workshop was designed to build skills participants could apply day to day to enable them
to explore their own and others’ experiences. Rather than solely being modelled, this
group was being given a succinct introduction to modelling.
Data analysis techniques
Quantitative Analysis
The data created was analysed to evaluate whether it supported the hypothesis that
exploring metaphorical representations of experiences of organisational change would
increase well-being.
To analyse the data, a well-being score was created for each of the six well-being subscales and the overall total. Data was analysed in an IBM SPSS statistical analysis
programme.
As the score created was a scale measure there was a possibility of using parametric tests,
which tend to be preferable to non-parametric tests. Each data-set was analysed to check
which test result could be relied upon. Throughout analysis, significance was tested at the
95% significance level (p < 0.05) in line with standard statistical procedures (Field 2009).
To establish if the interventions affected well-being overall, an across-group analysis of the
effects of the different interventions was performed. A separate variable was created for
each of the six scales and for overall well-being based on the difference in means between
the measurement points. Analysis was then conducted using an independent T-test
(parametric) and Mann-Whitley test (non-parametric) to compare the intervention and
control groups.
To compare the effects of one-to-one and group interventions, the first test completed for
the control group and two intervention groups separately was for the movement of means
over time. For comparing two points in the time series (T1-2 and T1-3) the parametric test
used was the dependent t-test and the non-parametric the Wilcoxon Signed (Field 2009).
Given there were three groups, a one-way ANOVA (parametric) and Krustal-Wallis (nonparametric) was carried out to provide an indication of whether the change in means over
time differed by intervention type.
Acuity Vol.4
113
Qualitative Analysis
An inductive approach was taken to analysing the transcriptions of the semi-structured
interviews, exploring participant experiences of the interventions to ascertain whether
patterns and themes could be ascertained. In line with Cheal (2009a) individual comments
were isolated, and then a process of sorting them into themes was undertaken by
grouping together similar comments, and using commonly used words as labels for them.
Limitations
Study population
The study organisation was subject to a significant amount of change during the research,
and unsurprisingly was taking steps to manage this change. This does mean that events
outside the study could confound the well-being results. This limitation was mitigated as
far as possible by randomising the three study groups.
The small size of the one-to-one group made quantitative analysis challenging. A larger
study group would have been preferable.
Study Design
The workshop intervention used in this study involved teaching clean language questions,
rather than using clean language to develop a group metaphor. The latter approach would
have been more comparable with the one-to-one intervention. With hindsight, the
contrast in interventions in the view of the author risked over-complicating the study.
Study robustness could have been enhanced by having the data analysis checked by an
independent research statistician. In addition, the transcripts/recordings could have been
vetted for the author’s adherence to the principles and practices of symbolic modelling
and clean language. Lastly, the quotations extracted from the transcripts could have been
reviewed for reasonableness of choice. Lack of budget prohibited bringing such resource
during the study.
Researcher Expertise in using Clean Language
In their 2010 study, Lawley et al note that the competence of the interviewer in using clean
language is important to ensure that the interview remains true to the methodology. The
author in this study had spent eleven days studying clean language with James Lawley
and Penny Tompkins. While competent in its use, the author did not consider herself to be
an expert; this may have impacted the quality of the findings. This limitation was
mitigated by seeking advice from Rupert Meese, a member of the Lawley et al (2010) team.
114
Researcher’s dual role
During the study period, the author was an employee of the study organisation, working
in the organisation change arena. Some participants knew the author and this relationship
might have impacted their responses in questionnaires and during interventions.
These limitations have been mitigated by the author’s reputation as a coach within the
organisation, and her demonstrating confidentiality and ethical consideration in
relationships generally. In addition, written information explaining the study method and
confidentiality measures and the use of clean language as a research methodology have a
mitigating effect, because clean language avoids introducing researcher content into the
dialogue.
Results
Quantitative Results Summary
In summary, the quantitative analysis demonstrates a number of significant well-being
correlations:
12 weeks after the intervention, there was a statistically significant difference in the way
overall well-being had changed for the intervention groups compared to the control
group (p=0.047).
12 weeks post-intervention, Personal Growth (p=0.034) and Environmental Mastery
(p=0.035) subscales demonstrated a significance well-being difference for the
intervention group compared with the control group.
12 weeks post-intervention, the Positive Relations with Others sub-scale showed a
statistically significant difference across the three groups, one-to-one, workshop and
control.
Post intervention, the Autonomy sub-scale (p=0.020) showed significance in the change
in well-being for the one-to-one group.
At twelve weeks, the Positive Relations with Others sub-scale was close to significance
(p=0.058) when comparing the control and interventions groups. This was also true
post-intervention for overall well-being for the one-to-one group (p=0.080)
It should be borne in mind that this study is quasi-experimental, and causation is not
demonstrated by these results, they indicate correlations only.
In this paper, the quantitative results are presented graphically only. The full statistical
results can be accessed in the longer version of this paper available online (Robinson 2013).
Acuity Vol.4
115
Comparison of Control and Intervention Groups
Post-intervention control group overall well-being fell, and for the intervention group it
rose, demonstrated in figure 3. Only respondents completing both measurement points
are included in the data. This difference was not statistically significant.
Mean Difference, Group A and
Group B for T1 to T2
B
A
-0.04 -0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Figure 3: Mean Difference, Group A and Group B for T1 to T2
Twelve weeks post-intervention, analysis was conducted including those respondents
who had provided data at all three measurement points only. By this point, there was a
difference in the way well-being had moved between groups; the control group’s overall
well-being again fell, and the intervention group’s rose. Figure 4 illustrates this difference,
which is more marked than at T2, and is statistically significant (p=0.047).
Mean Difference, Group A and
Group B for T1 to T3
B
A
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Figure 4: Mean Difference, Group A and Group B for T1 – T3
Breaking down the statistics to each well-being scale, there was a significant difference
between control and intervention groups for Personal Growth (p=0.034) and
Environmental Mastery (p=0.035). Positive Relations with Others narrowly missed
significance (p=0.058).
This data shows that for the first study objective, establishing whether the interventions
impact well-being, the data indicate that there is a correlation between interventions and
changes in well-being.
116
Group A, B1 and B2 Results
Post-intervention, when analysing the intervention groups separately the only significant
correlation is for Autonomy (p=0.020) for the workshop group. For the workshop group
the overall well-being correlation significance was p=0.080, narrowly missing significance.
Figure 5 shows that mean overall well-being for the control group fell post-intervention (0.272). The mean for the workshop group increased (0.0414), the mean for the one-to-one
group also increased (0.1296). While the changes are not significant it is apparent that
well-being has increased, and increased more for the group undergoing the more intensive
intervention.
Mean Difference in Overall
Well-being from T1 to T2
B2
B1
A
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Figure 5 – Mean Difference in overall well-being from T1 to T2
The mean well-being score for the control group fell by twelve-weeks to a larger degree
than it had post-intervention (-0.976). The mean for the workshop group increased
(0.1173), the mean for the one-to-one group increased slightly more (0.1296). While the
changes are not significant it is apparent that well-being has declined for the control
group, and increased for intervention groups, with minimal difference between one-to-one
and group interventions. Figure 6 shows these results.
Mean Difference in Overall
Well-being from T1 to T3
B2
B1
A
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
Figure 6: Mean Difference in Overall well-being from T1 to T3
Acuity Vol.4
117
At twelve-weeks, the change in well-being is significant for the Positive Relations with
Others sub-scale looking across the groups. This indicates differential correlations across
the different interventions. Figure 7 illustrates this data.
Mean Difference, T1 - T3 for Scale C
(Positive Relations with others)
B2
B1
A
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Figure 7: Mean Difference T1-3 for Scale C (Positive Relations with Others)
In considering the second study objective, establishing whether one-to-one and group
interventions have a differential effect, the data in this section indicates that while the
overall well-being effects are not significantly different, there is a significant difference at
the sub-scale level.
Qualitative Results
Six individuals were interviewed about their experience of the study interventions, three
from the one-to-one intervention and three from the group intervention.
In the interviews, participant drawings were used as a starting point to revisit metaphor
landscapes of ‘organisation change at its best’, and clean language questions were used to
elicit information about participant experiences of the interventions.
Participant comments were analysed for patterns, this section summarises the themes. In
the six semi-structured interviews, all participant metaphors had changed substantially. A
case study is presented for one workshop participant to illustrate their experience and its
effects.
Group
Clean
language
workshop
Experience
• Openness
• Listening
• Safety
Effects
• Insight
• Exploration
• Positive
well-being
118
(B1)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Connectedness
Challenge
Enjoyment
Different experience
Revealing
Osmotic
One-to-one
Symbolic
Modelling
Session
(B2)
Figure 8 – Summary of Themes from interviews
•
•
•
impact
Use of clean language
post-workshop
Insights
Positive Affect / Mood
Case Study
The participant’s metaphor for
organisational change at its best in the
workshop was a trawler with a net of
people being dragged along behind
the trawler, many of whom didn’t
want to come.
Figure 9 - Group B1 Workshop C Participant Drawing
In contrast, during the follow-up
interview the participant talked
about “allowing people to come
along at their own pace” and
being “just as comfortable with
those people remaining where
they are.”
Figure 10 - Group B1 Workshop C Same Participant
Follow-Up Interview Drawing
Figure 10 - Group B1 Workshop C Same Participant
Follow-Up Interview Drawing
The metaphor had developed into
a “collective” of people who “have
all got different skills” on a walk
together in a landscape of “flat
plains and high mountains” that
“provides you with your own
milestones and goals to just keep
going.”
Acuity Vol.4
119
The metaphor change was transformative for this participant’s energy; she was much
slower and calmer in delivery as she described celebration, warmth and sustenance as part
of her new metaphorical landscape.
The participant described the brief clean session by saying:
“it un-clutters my messy mind and stops my racing thoughts.”
She also reported that she was picturing not thinking, this had an impact for her:
“my baggage comes in thoughts rather than pictures so my baggage instantly
went.”
and as a result she felt:
“energised, happy, still but not dead.”
she reported that:
“it’s not an arrival, it’s just I’ve landed somewhere and there is something else out
there.”
She was emotional in the interview, noting that:
“much as I am having an emotional reaction, it is a cathartic reaction.”
When asked if there was a relationship between the intervention and their well-being she
said:
“absolutely, categorically yes.”
In the view of the author, the individual had experienced a noticeable shift in the way she
made meaning of past change experiences between the workshop and the follow up
interview. This is an sizeable impact from a twenty-minute exploration facilitated by a
colleague who had just learned the clean language questions.
Discussion
Well-being impacts
Various studies have indicated that organisational change negatively impacts well-being
(Miller 2011, Cheal 2009a, Jordon 2004). This study supports these suggestions. The
control group’s well-being fell both post-intervention and at twelve-weeks postintervention.
The negative impact of organisational change was apparent in two of the interviews, with
participants exploring the personal impact of on-going organisational changes. One re-
120
framed their experience through the intervention, for the other it remained a source of
dissatisfaction.
The control to intervention group comparison demonstrated that while there was not a
significant change in well-being shortly after the intervention, twelve weeks later there
had been. Addressing the first question of this study, this indicates a positive correlation
between metaphorical exploration using clean language and well-being. The difference
was significant when the difference in groups was analysed, and not significant looking at
groups in isolation. This is because of the control group’s well-being falling in contrast to
the intervention group’s rising.
The positive well-being finding supports the case study reports in Tompkins and Lawley
(2004), Lawley et al (2010), Doyle (2010), Sullivan and Rees (2008), and Walker (2006)
which suggest positive effects of different kinds for intervention participants.
All six of the participants interviewed post-intervention had metaphors at this stage that
were different to those they explored in the original intervention they took part in. It is
interesting to note that well-being overall for the intervention groups increased at the
same time as their metaphors were evolving. The connection between well-being levels
and evolving metaphors is worthy of further research in the opinion of the author.
The evolution of metaphors over time fits with the pattern of well-being rising over a
period of time rather than immediately. This reflects the finding in Tompkin and Lawley’s
(2004) case study where a participant was experiencing positive effects from symbolic
modelling some six months post-intervention.
Comparing the intervention and control groups after twelve weeks, Environmental
Mastery and Personal Growth were significant correlations, indicating that participants
were more positive about growing and expanding as a person, and their ability to advance
in the world and choose and create environments. This supports Callan’s (1993)
contention that the effects of organisational change are mitigated by empowering
employees and encouraging them to take action.
The only significant result shortly post-intervention was for the one-to-one group, for
Autonomy. This scale measures self-determination and an internal locus of evaluation.
Given the focus of clean language described by Grove (1998) and Doyle (2010), holding
that self-generated solutions and client wisdom are primary, this result is perhaps
unsurprising. Group interventions were conducted by participants, not experienced clean
facilitators, which may account for the lack of effect in this sub-scale when the workshop
group participants are included.
A predominant theme in the literature was the need for assistance in meaning-making
during organisational change (Kiefer 2002, Bridges 1987, Mobray 2011). Both the
Acuity Vol.4
121
workshops and one-to-ones provoked thought and enabled insight, this was a strong
qualitative theme.
Lakoff (1993), Lakoff and Johnson (1999) and Geary (2001) point to the power of metaphor
to enable meaning making. Lawley and Tompkins (2000) indicate that symbolic modelling
enables an individual to build a coherent metaphor landscape, this reflected the
experience of a one-to-one participant who found that they “built up a story, a whole
picture.”
This study confirms the potential for clean language interventions to support well-being in
the context of organisational change; the author contends that its efficacy in supporting
meaning-making is a prime reason for this.
One-to-one and Group Interventions
The second research question asked whether there was a difference between the effects of
an one-to-one or group clean language intervention.
Post-intervention, the one-to-one intervention had a stronger correlation with well-being
than the group intervention, but not to the level of significance. Twelve weeks later the
effect of both interventions was positive and of similar magnitude, again not reaching
significance.
Qualitative data reflected a positive impact on well-being for five interviewees, with the
last one reporting no impact but presenting in a way that indicated frustration.
Considering the quantitative and qualitative evidence this author contends that the
magnitude of effects of the one-to-one and group interventions were broadly similar.
However, differential experiences were noted.
Comparing the control and two
intervention groups after twelve weeks, Positive Relations with others showed a
difference between interventions, with the largest positive correlation in th one-to-one
group. Stiles et al (2006) note the power of the therapeutic alliance in individual therapy;
this may have been a factor in enabling the change in the scale measuring ability to form
warm, trusting relationships. Workshop participants stressed creating a climate of
listening was important in enabling openness and safety, accounting for the positive
correlation seen in the data. However, they did not have the opportunity to connect for
the period or at the depth experienced in one-to-ones.
The one-to-one intervention had a significant correlation with autonomy postintervention, encouraging independent thought; the data do not show the workshop
having this effect. In contrast, qualitative data revealed that the workshop intervention
led to more conscious application of learning with participants using clean language while
the one-to-one intervention provoked insights but led to only one interviewed participant
consciously experimenting.
122
The nature of the intervention differed, no new skill was being taught in the one-to-one
intervention that participants could readily go and apply, their shifts were more in
meaning than at the level of skills. This difference is significant in guiding OD
practitioners, if personal insight and meaning-making is desired then the symbolic
modelling intervention provides this, if behavioural change is the goal, this study found
that the clean language workshop was more efficacious. Further research could combine
the two approaches to see if there was an additive effect or not.
Intervention Guidelines
The final research aim was to identify any patterns in participant experience that provide
intervention guidelines for those supporting others through organisational change.
Three significant themes emerged. Firstly, metaphors and meaning changed between the
intervention and the follow-up interviews. This fits with the quantitative findings of the
study indicating that well-being effects take time to emerge, and also with the usual
pattern of symbolic modelling interventions, which usually happen as a series (Lawley
and Tompkins 2000). The qualitative results suggest that interventions that recur are
likely to be more helpful in supporting well-being. In addition, metaphors evolving
happened concurrently to well-being being sustained relative to a control group,
indicating that metaphorical work is a useful intervention.
The second theme that emerged was that themes occurred in the metaphors produced in
workshop groups, indicating that individuals influence each other’s metaphors. The
study also found that the themes across participant metaphors resonated with the
metaphors used in the organisation before the study. The author has no way of knowing
whether the similarity in metaphors is coincidental or causative, however given the
findings of Thibodeau and Boroditsky’s (2011) in their crime study; recognising that the
metaphors one uses have a marked effect on the way people process has implications for
OD practitioners and therapists.
Lastly, in terms of the nature of the interventions, safety that enabled openness and came
from listening were strong themes from the workshop group, with the one-to-one
intervention providing guidance and enabling information to be revealed. These themes
reflect Tompkins and Lawley (2004) in which the participant noted the process provided
safety and support. In any intervention that may be a different experience for participants,
which was the case in this study, this climate of safety, and openness will be important.
The nature of clean language makes it ideal to create these conditions.
Acuity Vol.4
123
Conclusions
This study has found that exploring metaphorical representations of organisational change
at its best correlated significantly with increasing well-being during a period of
organisational change; potentially mitigating the deleterious effects of change and causing
a small well-being uplift.
It is clear that the well-being change took time to emerge, indicating that change
management needs to take place over a period of time, supporting employee meaningmaking.
Group and one-to-one interventions showed similar well-being correlations over a threemonth period, indicating that either may provide some benefit during change. However,
the nature of the effect was different, with insights and positive affect the prime outcome
for the one-to-one intervention, and workshops additionally leading to experimentation
with new skills.
There are four implications of this study for clean language / therapeutic practitioners.
Firstly, clean language and symbolic modelling interventions are suitable as part of the
change management mix to support employee well-being. Secondly, metaphorical
interventions have effects over time, undertaking interventions over a period is
recommended. Thirdly, creating an open, safe environment for exploration and insight is
key to supporting well-being. Finally, teaching clean language will enable application of
learning into other contexts. Using one-to-one interventions may require more sessions to
lead to behavioural change.
Future Research
This study has indicated that clean language interventions may have a positive effect on
well-being during organisational change. Future research areas to expand understanding
could usefully include a study with varying numbers of interventions to establish the
optimum duration and depth of intervention. In addition, using a different workshop
format to facilitate exploration of the group together rather than teaching clean language
skills directly to participants. Finally, a study with more diverse participants to test
whether results can be generalised.
Biography
Fe Robinson founded Buddleja Transformations to support individuals and businesses in
bringing to life what matters to them. Fe is a UKCP Accredited Psychotherapist as well as
a Chartered Fellow of the CIPD, accredited member of the International Coach Federation,
124
and an INLPTA-trained Trainer of NLP. Fe, based in Durham (UK) sees therapeutic
clients privately and in the NHS, and works independently as a coach and organisation
development consultant supporting a wide range of organisations in the public and
private sectors.
References
Abel, C F and Sementelli, A J (2005) Evolutionary critical theory, metaphor and
organizational change in Journal of Management Development 24:5, 443-458.
Bridges, W (1987) Getting them through the Wilderness – A Leader’s Guide to Transition.
Larkspur California (William Bridges and Associates)
Callan, V (1993) Individual and organizational strategies for coping with organizational
change in Work and Stress 7:1, 63-75.
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2011) Developing Organisation
Culture: Six Case Studies. Available online
(http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/Transforming%20culture%20(PROOF).pdf) Accessed January
2012.
Cheal, J (2009a) Exploring the role of NLP in the management of organisational paradox in
Current Research in NLP Vol. 1 – Proceedings of the 2008 Conference p33-48
Cheal, J (2009b) Dilemmas and Tensions and Binds: Oh My! Managing Paradox in
Organisations sourced from http://www.gwiztraining.com/ArticlesNLP.htm in August 2011
Doyle, N (2010) Creating the Conditions for Agency, presented at British Psychological
Society's Division of Occupational Psychology Annual Conference. Available at:
trainingattention.co.uk/category/article-archive. Accessed August 2011
Doyle, Nancy, Tosey, Paul & Walker, Caitlin (2010) Systemic Modelling: Installing
Coaching as a Catalyst for Organisational Learning, The Association for
Management Education and Development – e-Organisations & People, Winter 2010,
Vol. 17. No. 4 Downloaded from: http://api.ning.com/files/-pCJ-ZbcKSDyL5RJxhyBLw41ziCbplcfSK6KGV*gsXGFiM1FHxwXZPjASdiZoaysxSuepuCWY0bAW8jxboJ6AZuPP1SN7U/Coverandcontentsonly174P.pdf
Field, A (2009) Discovering Statistics using SPSS. Third Edition London (Sage)
Fredrickson, B (2009) Positivity. Groundbreaking research to release your inner optimist and
thrive. Oxford (Oneworld publications 2009).
Geary, J (2011) I is an other, New York (Harper Collins)
Grove, D (1998) The Philosophy and Principles of Clean Language. Available online
http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/38/ Accessed October 2011.
Jacobs, C and Heracleous, L (2004) Constructing Shared Understanding – The Role of Embodied
Metaphors in Organisation Development, Switzerland (Imagination Lab Foundation)
Jordan, P (2004) Dealing with organizational change: can emotional intelligence enhance
organizational learning? In International Journal of Organisational Behaviour 8:1, 456471
Acuity Vol.4
125
Kiefer, T (2002) Understanding the Emotional Experience of Organizational Change:
Evidence from a Merger in Advances in Developing Human Resources 4:1, 39-61.
Lakoff, G and Johnson, M (1981) Metaphors we Live By Chicago (University of Chicago
Press)
Lakoff, G and Johnson, M (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh, New York (Basic Books)
Lakoff, G (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor in Ortony, A Metaphor and Thought
Second Edition. Cambridge (Cambridge University Press)
Lawley, J (2011) Balancing Brain Hemispheres. Available online
(http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/blogs/42/Balancing-brain-hemispheres.html).
Accessed February 2012.
Lawley, J and Tompkins, P (2000) Metaphors in Mind, London (Developing Company
Press)
Lawley, J, Meyer, M, Meese, R, Sullivan, W and Tosey, P (2010) More than a Balancing Act?
‘Clean Language’ as an innovative method for exploring work-life balance, England,
(Clean Change Company and University of Surrey)
Liossis, P L, Shochet, I M, Millear, P M, and Biggs H (2009) The Promoting Adult
Resilience (PAR) Program: The Effectiveness of the Second, Shorter Pilot of a
Workplace Prevention Program in Behaviour Change (2009) 26:2, 97-112.
Litchfield, P (2011) Mitigating the impact of an economic downturn on mental well-being
at BT Group Plc in Well-being, Good Work and Society – Time for Change. The
Business Well-Being Network Annual Report 2011/2012. (Purchased from Robertson
Cooper.)
Lyubomirsky (2007) The How of Happiness, Great Britain (Sphere)
Marks, N (2005) Good Jobs: well-being at work in Reflections on employee well-being and
the psychological contract. London (Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development.) Document available online (http://www.cipd.co.uk/hrresources/research/employee-well-being-psychological-contract-reflections.aspx). Downloaded
January 2012.
Martin, A, Jones, E, S and Callan, V, J (2005) The Role of psychological climate in
facilitating employee adjustment during organizational change in European Journal
of Work and Organisational Psychology 14, 3, 263-289
McCarthy, B (1990) Using the 4MAT system to bring Learning to Schools in Educational
Leadership 48, 2, 31-7.
Miller, J (2011) Under pressure – the stressed workforce in Impact Issue 37, November
2011. London (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development).
Morgan, G (1997). Images of Organisations. Sage Publications Inc (USA).
Mowbray, D (2011) Nurture Resilience - Leading HR thinkers offer their game-changers in
People Management Magazine. Available online
(http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/articles/2011/09/leading-hr-thinkers-offer-their-gamechangers.htm). Accessed October 2011.
Robinson, F (2013) How does exploring metaphorical representations of organisational
change at its best affect levels of well-being in an ambiguous and rapidly changing
126
public sector work environment? Available online
(http://cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/332/)
Ryan, R M and Deci E L (2001) On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of
Research on Hedonic and Eudiamonic Well-being in the Annual Review of Psychology
2001.52.141-166
Ryff, C D (1989) Happiness is Everything, or is it? Explorations of the Meaning of
Psychological Well-being in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1989, 57:6,
1069-1081.
Schabracq, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Toward a phenomenological framework for the
study of work and organisational stress in Human Relations, 51, 625-648.
Schweiger, D M and Denisi, A S (1991) Communication with employees following a
merger: A longitudinal field experiment in Academy of Management Journal, 54, 10,
110-135
Schulz, F (2004) Relational Gestalt Therapy: Theoretical foundations and dialogical
elements. Accessed online at
http://www.gestalttherapy.org/_publications/RelationalGestaltTherapy.pdf in August 2012
Seligman, M (2003) Authentic Happiness, Great Britain (Nicholas Brealey Publishing)
Sheldon, K M and Lyubomirsky, S (2006) How to increase and sustain positive emotion:
The effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible selves in The
Journal of Positive Psychology 1:2, 73-82.
Sullivan, W and Rees, J (2008) Clean Language: Revealing Metaphors and Opening Minds,
Wales (Crown House Publishing Ltd)
Stiles, W B, Barkham, M, Twigg, E, Mellor-Clark, J, and Cooper, M (2006) Effectiveness of
cognitive-behavioural, person centred and psychodynamic therapies as practiced in
UK National Health Service Settings in Psychological Medicine 2006, 36, 555-566
Thibodeau, P H and Boroditsky, L (2011) Metaphors we think with: the role of metaphor
in reasoning in PLoS ONE 6(2), e16782
Tompkins, P and Lawley, J (2004) The Jewel of Choice, NLP News, 9.
cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/15/ Accessed .August 2012
Tosey, P C (2011) ‘Symbolic Modelling’ as an innovative phenomenological method in
HRD research: the work-life balance project, presented at the 12th International
Conference on HRD Research and Practice across Europe, University of
Gloucestershire, 25th – 27th May 2011. Full text is available at:
http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/7135/
Walker, C (2006) Breathing in blue by Clapton duck pond, Counselling Children and
Young People, Dec 2006, 2-5. Download from:
bacp.co.uk/admin/structure/files/pdf/3214_ccyp_winter06a.pdf
Acuity Vol.4
127
Neuro Linguistic
Programming
October 2013
Vol. 4
“For a field based on a Communication Model and that seeks to make “the structure
of experience” explicit, NLP can only thrive when there are journals that provide
open, respectful, and professional exchanges by those who lead the way in creating a
collaborative community. And that’s why I’m delighted to see Joe Cheal and ANLP lead
out in the creation of Acuity.”
L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.
Developer of the Meta-States Model
“It is with a great sense of ‘at last!’ that I welcome the publication of Acuity. For a good
while now there has been a piece missing in the jigsaw that is NLP. Acuity fills the
gap, and it does so in many ways. It motivates authors from around the world to write
illuminating in-depth articles. It brings together a range of diverse topics thereby giving
the reader an opportunity to make unexpected associations. And by publishing highquality reviewed papers it serves to raise the game of the whole field. Congratulations
to Joe Cheal and the Association for NLP for making a contribution that, like a butterfly’s
wings, might just start a flurry of co-inspiration - long may it last.”
James Lawley
co-author, Metaphors in Mind: Transformation through Symbolic Modelling
Acuity is published by the Association for NLP
www.anlp.org
Tel: 020 3051 6740
Apsley Mills Cottage
Stationers Place
Hemel Hempstead, HP3 9RH

Neuro Linguistic Programming

Transcription

Similar documents

Basic NLP Training 1 - upm : pejabat penasihat undang

it`s the world`s most difficult job.

Virtual Tour

eMag PDF.

Franz Schubert Impromptus, Moments Musicaux, Klavierstücke for

TheLordoftheRings.LEGO.com

Measuring positive mental health in Canada PDF Document 2.33

10 of the Coolest Most Powerful Useful NLP Techniques I`ve Ever

safeti advanced modelling

Pimp my memory - Temple University