Introduction

NLP is ideally suited to enabling conscious change leadership because it is broadly based on social construction processes. The philosophy that underpins conscious change leadership is that ‘The map is not the territory’ which basically means all our perceptions are simply maps of a potential reality rather than actual reality – and imperfect maps at best. This is known as an interpretivist ontological position. Ontology is defined as the nature of being (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). The contrast to the interpretivist position is the positivist position which assumes that reality is accessible in an objective sense and can be measured and underlying principles can be identified for analysis (Denzin, 2001). As conscious change leadership involves how one manages one’s subjective experience and that of others, an interpretivist approach offers greater flexibility. This is because organizational change works through social construction processes which can be managed more effectively if we have ways of working with our internal representations of reality constructed within the theatre of our minds. This chapter will consider one aspect of conscious change leadership as a process of reconstructing our mental models of the world as we perceive it. NLP as a change technology is ideally suited to support such a project which is called reframing. Throughout this chapter I shall review two models of change leadership: (1) the transmission model; and, (2) the diffusion model. The concept of ‘everyday reframing’ as a significant conscious change leadership process will also be examined and connected with NLP applications.

The map is not the territory

My reality model may not reflect your own even when we are talking about the same situation we both experienced. This is because we operate similar perceptual filters but with different selection criteria. We delete, distort, and generalize our experience based on the selection criteria wired into our perceptual filters. Our perceptual filters are the constructs through which sensory data is sifted and sorted and organized into sense impressions. We filter our empirical experiences through our:

If we consider all of the above as kinds of perceptual filters but each one unique in terms of its selection criteria we can understand why often the map is not a shared territory let alone the territory. Consider Table 4.1, which profiles the selection criteria of three members of a management team who are discussing the idea of designing a management development programme.

As the three managers engage in the meeting, everything that is said and expressed will be filtered by each person and the empirical data organized by the criteria unique to each of them; thus, the maps that they create of the meeting, whilst they may have similarities, will also have differences. Often conflict emerges out of these different maps. This is because we literally live in our own subjective bubble, our own model of the world. The following is an excerpt from the creative work by Carlos Castaneda Tales of Power (1974, p. 246):

Sorcerers say that we are inside a bubble. It is a bubble into which we are placed at the moment of our birth. At first the bubble is open, but then it begins to close until it has sealed us in. That bubble is our perception. We live inside that bubble all of our lives. And what we witness on its round walls is our own reflection.

Model of the world

A useful way to think about this concept is to consider a typical change management team meeting. Let us say the managing director addresses a group of 20 managers from across the business. The meeting lasts for one hour and the MD speaks for 45 minutes off and on. After the meeting, a team of researchers meet with each participant. They ask each participant for an account of what they heard, saw, and felt about the meeting and the core message imparted by the MD. The chances are that the research team will build models of the meeting content that share similarities and those that contrast sharply. This is because we all create our own models of reality – our own models of the world – that are dependent on our filters. Our filters are our meta-programmes, values, beliefs, relationships, representational systems, gender, class, and personal history, that filter experience and organize the filtered experience into our own unique model of what occurred. Meta-programmes are the thinking strategies we use to guide our interactions with the world around us. They heavily influence our world views. Our representational systems concern which sensory system (visual, auditory, or kinaesthetic) we rely upon the most to make sense of social situations. This concept of perceptual filters obviously has significant implications for the communicating of a change management agenda which involves navigating a cultural landscape made up of multiple subjective bubbles, or world views.

World views

Our world views are our interpretive frames of reference regarding what we assume to be true. Our world views are the individual frames of reference we symbolically construct that combine to form our model of the world. They construct the content of our bubble. Our world views are based upon our beliefs and values and are expressed through our attitudes. For example, if we view the world outside our own country as dangerous and unstable then the likelihood is we will avoid travel abroad. In a change leadership role, if we hold the world view that financial returns only motivate staff then this will significantly influence the kind of culture we promote through the decisions we make.

Our world views are the social constructions we create of social reality. For example, we may build a reality model of what leadership looks like, feels like and, yes, sounds like. We then, at an unconscious level, present ourselves against this reality model and judge others against it. Reality models are very important as they provide ontological stability to social groups and their individual members. However, they can also lead to perceptual, emotional, cognitive, and behavioural inflexibility. NLP is based upon the premise that we can access these reality models at a level of meta-thinking and review their resourcefulness and, when required, change their content and form to adjust their meaning so that we may change our strategies and create different results.

Reframing

An important activity in which NLP practitioners engage is the practice of reframing which is defined by O’Connor and Seymour (1990, p. 127) as follows: “The meaning of any event depends on the frame you put it in. when you change the frame you also change the meaning”. Reframing is the magical part of the NLP tool box. This is a truly amazing resource application that can transform the experience of individuals and groups. There are two main reframing strategies in NLP: (1) content reframing; and, (2) context reframing.

Content reframing involves shifting our perspectives regarding the content of a social situation. For example, let us consider a typical change management meeting. The content would involve the activities, ideas, people, aims, and outcomes that are operationalized within the meeting. So, it may be the case that participants see the meeting as a place that stress is generated and additional work is created. Alternatively, an NLP-trained change leader may interpret the content as resources that can help build a coaching container, a space where all participants feel psychologically safe and can be authentic in their interactions.

Context reframing involves shifting our perceptions regarding the operational context that a social situation is occurring within. Context is defined as the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of how it can be fully understood. For example, a change management meeting could be framed in terms of context as an event created by senior management to further their own careers. Alternatively, it could be reframed as an event created by the leaders in the organization to enable genuine collaboration across departments to co-create a strategy in response to threats that are important to all stakeholders.

The important issue regarding reframing is that it involves meta-reflecting which simply means being able to consciously reflect on the frame one has created in terms of content and context and how the meanings associated with your frames are influencing your emotional, cognitive, and behavioural states. Meta-reflection involves questioning the resourceful nature of our frames and, if necessary, reframing by re-programming the modality structure of our interpretations: our modality structures.

Reprogramming

NLP practitioners are attached to the idea that we can re-programme our sense impressions that are the basis of our memories; this process involves changing through an editing process the symbolic content and form of our modality structures through targeting their sub-modalities. We can reframe the content and context of our modalities using dimensions such as distance, time, colours, size, locations, sounds, feelings, beliefs, values, and the personal importance we place on the characters or events involved. This process we call programming.

Modalities

Modalities are the primary sense-making systems such as visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, gustatory, olfactory. These modalities are used to gather empirical data or sense impressions, the sum of which we understand to be memories. They are very important as they have meanings attached that we unconsciously assume to be fixed and these meanings drive our attitudes towards things and, thus, our emotional states and social strategies.

Sub-modalities

Modalities have a structural composition. They have sensory characteristics such as: colour, sound, smell, taste, time, location, purpose, characters. These aspects of the modality structure are known as ‘sub-modalities’.

Restructuring sub-modalities

As stated above, our meaning system is based upon filtered visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and kinaesthetic experiences that we call sense impressions. These experiences we may consider as symbolic materials that we make sense of and arrange internally to give meaning to our existence. As we are the artists to our meaning systems, i.e., our artistic accomplishments are our modality structures, it follows that as creators of meaning we can intervene retrospectively and reframe the meanings we attach to a previously constructed modality structure. This may involve changing the intensity, character, and form of sub-modalities. This is a very powerful aspect of NLP as it can be applied to so many aspects of our subjective experience and, thus, impacts considerably the quality of our lives. It follows that if we are experiencing rapport difficulties with someone we dislike then perhaps if we recognize our power to change from dislike to like and thus send out alternative meta-messages to the other this will improve our chances of building positive rapport with this person or with a group. We know that reframing through altering the structure of our modalities works and that it has a longstanding scientific tradition in sociology and anthropology.

Social constructivism

Social constructivism is a theory of sociology that was advanced by Berger and Luckman (1966) with their book The Social Construction of Reality. The main premise of the theory is that all reality is a social construction and that we have no objective access to reality due to the limited power of our senses. As all reality is constructed symbolically and as we are essentially meaning-makers we are then all social constructivists. NLP practitioners assume that as we socially construct reality we can deconstruct our constructions and reconstruct our meaning systems. Social constructivism is the basis of explaining the dynamic nature of organizational culture. It also explains why reframing, as a NLP technique, works so effectively. It is important to internalize the idea that what we put inside our subjective bubble is our creation, our meaning systems, and thus what we socially create in terms of frames of reality we can deconstruct and change, if we choose to.

The leadership challenge: ethnocentric map making

One of the main challenges facing organizational leaders of change projects is the established paradigm of transmission as the core model managers use to advance change in their organizations. This model involves managers designing ethnocentric maps that they then try to impose on others with disregard for their own maps. This is ethnocentric in nature because the manager operates solely from the first perceptual position which is their own model of the world, from their own subjective bubble. Conscious change leaders, in contrast, break free from their first perceptual position and enter the second perceptual position to understand other people’s maps. In doing so they obtain far richer perceptual maps, which gives them greater behavioural, cognitive, and emotional flexibility as change leaders. It makes sense that managers who set out to advance their ethnocentric map as the only map are operating from an impoverished position and research indicates that this strategy produces weakness in the stakeholder collaboration and commitment to the overarching change agenda.

The transmission model of change leadership advocates the idea that change management is a rational, even intellectual, activity that simply needs the effective transmission of legitimate authority throughout the organizational structure for change to happen. This is a very flawed model and, arguably, somewhat discredited in critical management journals. The transmission model is arguably based upon a positivist philosophy. It is a clear case of one group, or one person, attempting to force their model of the world onto others. We know that when the wider majority is excluded from the diagnostic stage of change management, i.e. map making, they tend to disengage with the case for change and retreat into the comfort of their own reality bubble. This process of ontological alienation emerges as a serious case of resistance and blocks dialogue and the development of collaboration based on mutually inclusive maps.

The dominance of established ‘How to achieve successful change’ articles and books, which are mainly based on the transmission model, prevent a change in basic assumptions emerging throughout organizations towards an alternative change leadership model we call diffusion. The diffusion model is based on the idea that change strategies should be based on collaboration, enabling collective intelligence, aligning identification processes and active generative and authentic dialogue. This process requires collective map making and it involves conscious change leaders functioning as meaning-makers or, rather, meaning-brokers based on NLP methods such as pacing experience, matching experience, eliciting resourceful states, calibrating states in action and leading sense-making processes as meaning-brokers. Thus, what we need are tools that can enable a shift in the mindset of both managers and change teams to embrace the effective model of diffusion and relinquish the flawed model of transmission. The first important tool is appreciating the principle of ‘the map is not the territory’.

Eminent academics who produce excellent insights for practical managers are Alvesson and Sveningsson (2016) who are experts regarding cultural change issues facing managers in the world today. These two scholars have studied longitudinal cultural change programmes in detail by participating in the cultural processes and studying change close-up. They are particularly sensitive to the way language patterns frame everyday reality for organizational members. Their findings are illuminating and, below, I have listed the top 12 fault lines that they have identified that can undermine, to various degrees, sincere cultural change efforts.

It is clear from their critical research that the compounding effect of these factors creates an organizational mindset that disables well intentioned change efforts. My argument is that it is ethnocentric practices within management communities involving efforts to dominate the subjective map-making process and produce models of the world that are to dominate all competing models on the part of the elite that creates many of the fault lines identified above. If we adopt the interpretivist paradigm, respect the model of the world held by others, aim to generate dialogue through conscious change leaderships and encourage collective map-making horizontally and vertically throughout the organization, then the case and motivation for change will diffuse throughout the social system and provide a solid basis for collective action.

One could argue that Western management communities have adopted an orientation from classic management thinking that orientates them towards a paternalistic leadership style or towards the identity of benevolent autocrats. These two identities are synonymous with the transmission model of change leadership. The assumption which underpins these identities is that managers are somehow better at problem solving and identifying flaws in organizational performance that need to be corrected. This assumption is so deeply imbedded in management thought that they would generally be unaware at a conscious level that they think this way. However, if we study managers at work what we often see is that they demonstrate the influence of this assumption through the ways in which they give feedback. They are programmed to see the flaws, point these out and prescribe corrective actions. To make sure that they do this they are also emotionally attached to such social strategies as their identities as managers are inexplicably connected to the performance of issuing corrective guidance. This strategy is effective and has served management communities well over the last 100 years. However, we live in different times and, as Google have identified, we need different leadership traits and tactics which are more appealing to group formation and enabling towards generative dialogue and collaborative working.

It is, unfortunately, the case in many organizations that relationships are impaired by the totalizing influence of hierarchical structures and the pursuit of power and influence throughout the organization. One could define organizations as ‘Sites of contested meaning’ through which people compete to be heard and for influence and power. The source of these tensions is the struggle for recognition. Also, the transmission model is based on the allegedly smart people doing the strategic thinking for the rest of the people and then simply transmitting their ideas throughout the organizational structure and expecting things to happen. This model encourages monologue and passive audiences. It also very much reinforces the feeling throughout that psychological safety is not present and silence is a safe tactic. The diffusion model, in contrast, does the opposite; it encourages dialogue and highly participative audiences in the strategic sense-making of the organization. NLP technologies and philosophies such as reframing can disrupt the orthodox transmission model and enable the introduction of the diffusion model of change leadership.

Concluding thoughts

In this chapter I have argued that we all create and hold onto our own personal subjective maps of the world. These maps are based upon our perceptual filters which delete, distort, and generalize reality. All our filters have unconscious bias built into their functionality. A common mistake that plagues management teams and affects change leadership outcomes is the practice of ethnocentric map making and efforts of imposing, unreflectively, our maps of reality onto others. This is an act of applied domination and often leads to conflict and tension in the workplace. Social constructivism, which is an accepted field of scientific enquiry and theory, is the main theory and practical model that NLP practitioners refer to as change agents. The fact that we actively socially construct our maps and if we can acknowledge the maps of others and develop our skills as critical thinkers we will access far greater behavioural, cognitive and emotional flexibility and be able to match and pace stakeholders more effectively leading to greater rapport and the lowering of conflict and tension. NLP provides the habits of mind that can greatly enable this dialogical process.

References

Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S. (2016) Changing Organizational Culture, Routledge.

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality, Penguin.

Castaneda, C. (1974) Tales of Power, Touchstone.

Denzin, N. (2001) Interpretive Interactionism, Sage.

O’Connor, J. and Seymour, J. (1990) Introducing NLP Neuro Linguistic Programming, Mandala.

Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002) On Organisational Becoming, Rethinking Organisational Change. Organisation Science, 13: 567–585.