Introduction

As a change leader, I adopt a social construction perspective. This means that I understand that both the social and the empirical world are not accessible to me in a real and concrete sense. In NLP circles, we all implicitly adhere to this philosophy which is imbedded in one of our more famous presuppositions; ‘the map is not the territory’ (Bandler & Grinder, 1975). We build interpretive maps of reality using symbols and their interrelated meanings to construct our maps. Our maps are also products of a filtering process. This filtering process involves us deleting, distorting, and generalizing our experience through our beliefs, values, and representational systems. Therefore, our maps are always just our maps; also, as we constructed our maps, we can deconstruct these and then reconstruct them if we choose to do so.

The contrast to social construction is positivism. A positivist philosophy assumes that we can access reality, that our maps are representations that reflect reality. This means that often change leaders who are in the positivist position completely believe that their perspective or model of the world is the correct one. If others compliment their models of the world then they quickly build rapport, however if they do not then rapport is less likely. This problem plagues change projects and often leads to conflict either covertly or overtly. If our maps are challenged by others this can generate real anxiety as our subjective competence as a leader is interpreted as being under attack. How we choose to react to this will determine the kind of relationships we experience with stakeholders and the quality of psychological safety that can or will emerge in the change teams.

This chapter will explore NLP methods for generating ontological flexibility, which basically means the ability to hold multiple models of the world simultaneously, to respect and pace the models held by others and to facilitate a reframing process through which a shared model can be built by the change teams through dialogue that presents a basis for collaboration and action.

Sense-making fault lines

As previously discussed Mats Alvesson has studied change projects acutely over the last 20 years and, along with Stefan Sveningsson of the University of Lund in Sweden, identifies a myriad of micro fault lines that collectively weaken the foundations of a change programme to the point of collapse (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2015). What is interesting in their study is that they focus in on the intersubjective nature of sense-making mediated through belief and value systems that influence general attitudes and thus behavioural strategies towards change agendas. They have developed the idea of toxic symbolism to explain the way in which apparently pedestrian actions can be interpreted and socially constructed and transmitted as mini narratives that, taken together as a whole of their parts, frame the nature and credibility of the change programme, its developers, and sponsors in the eyes of the broader change community. This framing process often happens at two levels: at a conscious level mediated through conversations both internal and external to the self, and secondly at an unconscious level of thought. Thus, for change leaders to be successful they need to operate at two levels:

Presented below is an example of multiple stakeholder frames regarding the prospect of strategic change taken from a company that operates Soft Facility Services in the USA.

Analysis

As we can see there are at least five alternative models of the world that are competitors to each other. We can further analyse this and assume that each of the actors holds certain beliefs and associated values that generate their world view and create their reality frame specific to Karen’s case for change. This, of course, includes Karen. If we accept the NLP presupposition that everyone comes from a positive place then we can also conclude that the root of this integrity is their belief system. Their beliefs can be assumed at this stage; although, through qualitative research adopting semi structured interview methods and incorporating the NLP techniques called meta-model questions we can accurately determine the beliefs and values a person holds and deconstruct their internal paradigm or meta-world view. This is often what happens in a NLP coaching session with an executive manager. However, at a level of assumption, we can assume that detailed in Table 12.1 are the values and beliefs held by each stakeholder in the case study example.

The challenge for the change leader

Traditionally the advocates of strategic change have relied on their legitimate authority to push through their ideas for change. This is what Alvesson and Sveningsson (2015) refer to as the ‘Transmission Model’ of change leadership; top down transmission of authority to lead. What seems to happen, often, is that general stakeholders do not authentically collaborate. Rather, they appear to agree to agree and at a surface level engage with the strategic change agenda. However, there is a substantial difference between image and substance. If the emphasis is on image rather than substance then the degree of collaboration may be very thin. Both practitioner and academic research point towards mindset and culture as significant change blockers in these instances. However, mindset and culture are processes; the problem is that change leaders often nominalize these processes which convert what are verbs into nouns. They assume in doing so that mindset and culture are fixed entities rather than fluid processes which are social constructions rooted in sense-making that are open to change ‘if’ the change leaders know how to create psychological safety in change teams. Change leaders are required to be sensitive to nominalizations and reverse these back to their authentic states as verbs. If we view social constructions as processes that we author, rather than as ‘things’ that control us, then we can greatly enhance our agency to influence the social world as change leaders. This process naturally involves the NLP methodology of content and context reframing which involves changing the meanings we attach to content and context of a given situation to elicit a change in our emotional, cognitive and behavioural states.

The change leader also needs to be able to access their powers of empathy to break free from their own world view and frame of reality and access the frames of others and to understand the beliefs and values that are feeding and supporting their sense-making frames. The technique of perceptual positioning can facilitate such a process.

The change leader would either identify an external coach to guide them through the perceptual positioning process or, alternatively, they can create an ‘internal coach’ which involves accessing their unconscious mind and establishing a relationship with a self-identity part of one’s unconscious mind and granting it the authority to act as an internal coach. This may seem a rather odd notion. However, if one stops to think about it when we experience internal conflict related to, let us say a decision we must make, we do engage in internal dialogue with multiple parts. For example, going to the gym. One part of our unconscious mind might be reluctant to go and even question if it is worth the effort; it may suggest to us that we can postpone the gym in that moment and catch up another day. Another part might say that we should go to the gym and that going in the moment will be good for us. This is an example of a parts conflict and our inner voice, or inner chatter is the expression of the independent nature of the apparently conflicting parts. What I am suggesting is that we can create an internal part that we can refer to as our internal coach so that we can leverage our capacity for generating internal dialogue to create a resource to self-manage internally referenced NLP techniques such as perceptual position mapping. The pattern is described below.

This is a very simple yet effective technique to be able to build an understanding of:

If we think about Karen and if we imagine she can internalize perceptual position mapping as a change leadership strategy we can appreciate the ontological, behavioural, cognitive and emotional flexibility she can access as a change leader in such a situation.

Each person, we assume, will be emotionally attached to their own model. They will most likely try to defend and advance their own model. Also, they are all, we assume, authentic constructions, each person holds these with integrity. In NLP terms, we would say that each person has a positive intention behind their attitudes and behaviours. We can also add that in the moment each person decides on their world view based upon the resources available to them at the time. So, for Karen, we would invite her to respect the reality model of each person, to pace their experience implicit in the symbolism of their model. This approach involves Karen adopting an empathetic and understanding attitude towards her stakeholders rather than a judgemental and defensive stance.

All the above, at first attempt, take time and practice. However, after a while you will literally imbed the technique into your cerebral muscles and use it unconsciously and this level of emotional intelligence will greatly enhance your capability as a change leader. There is no guarantee that this approach will ensure that the stakeholders agree to reframe in line with the frames held by the change leader; however, there is a far greater prospect that psychological safety will be created and the diffusion model of change leadership enhanced leading to collaborative dialogue and, perhaps, the emergence of a shared reality frame that enables a basis of coherent stakeholder action.

The change leader may use NLP techniques such as perceptual mapping to authentically engage with the reality frames held by others and establish an understanding of stakeholders’ emotional and cognitive states. This strategy will enable access to COACH state and the avoidance of the related CRASH state that often results from conflicting models of the world in an atmosphere of low tolerance.

The change leader cannot avoid the challenge of every day reframing as a meaning-maker, as a map maker. The requirement is to provide change leaders like Karen with the cognitive, emotional, and behavioural flexibility to do these activities competently.

Framing of experience

As we experience the empirical world, we distil an endless stream of sense data. Through the use of language we structure the symbolic composition of selected sensory experiences into ‘experiential frames’ (Bandler & Grinder, 1982). These frames can be thought of as metaphors, i.e., as with a portrait in a frame. Our symbolic constructions are akin to paintings we frame and store in our memories. We attribute meanings to these framed experiences and these meanings drive our attitudes and, thus, our behaviours. This means that how we frame experience can be correlated with the social results we experience through our interactions. For example, if one’s early framing of educational experience was one which suggested you were not academic and, thus, not suited to advanced scholarly study then one may select an attitude that generates behaviour which avoids situations where academic study is required. One may also frame academics as, somehow, not practical people who have no role to play in one’s life. This kind of framing of experience has a limiting effect not only on the person doing the framing but also, perhaps, on others who are influenced by this person. It is important for rapport-building purposes that we are sensitive to the frames through which we make sense of and operate in the world around us, in particular, for rapport purposes, the social world. If we can critically reflect on our framed experience and its content and functions then we can intervene and socially reconstruct our frames of reference, change our associated attitudes and generated behavioural strategies and thus influence our social results.

Reframing

An important activity for change leaders to master is the practice of reframing. This is defined by O’Connor and Seymour (1990pp234) as “Changing the frame of reference around a statement to give it another meaning”. In chapter 4 I discussed both content and context reframing. For now I wish to consider reframing as a change leadership strategy. Change leadership involves reframing processes. To be blunt, if a person cannot collaborate with others to create an atmosphere of psychological safety which leads to a group COACH state enabling a reframing project as a basis for coherent group action then they have failed as a change leader. The process of perceptual position mapping helps build the internal resources the change leader requires to enable a reframing process at both an individual and group level. However, it is the sum of the multiple parts of our model for building psychological safety that influences change leadership efforts at enabling a reframe in others.

If we revisit the case of Karen as a potential change leader we can see that she can identify with the reality frames held by the key stakeholders and the beliefs and values supporting these. We know that she can prepare herself for the reframing process by pre-programming strategies that will provide her with behavioural, cognitive, ontological, and emotional flexibility. We also know that in NLP terms we can rely on ‘The Law of Requisite Variety’ to support Karen in her leadership efforts. As previously discussed The Law of Requisite Variety implies that the person with the greatest behavioural, cognitive, ontological, and emotional flexibility within the social system will prevail. If we then add to Karen’s change leadership toolkit the additional soft skills of our model, she will be adequately prepared for the reframing process. A simple yet powerful re-framing technique is the A to E method which is explained below.

Phase A = Adversity event

Let us say the change leader is to host an event where they are to deliver an important speech and they are experiencing a lack of confidence which triggers negative emotion.

Phase B = Belief system

People often hold limiting beliefs about the negative situation that are counter productive and reduce clear thinking. The belief in this case may be that the change leader believes that their audience will not be receptive to their message.

Phase C = Consequences of the irrational belief

The belief then functions like a self-fulfilling prophecy generating irrational and limiting thoughts which produce negative consequences. The change leader is creating these anxieties through their initial framing of how they believe their audience will respond, yet they have no way in advance of knowing how they will respond. Research indicates that the expectation one establishes in one’s mindset of others can and often does manifest in reality (Dweck, 2006).

Phase D = Disputing irrational thoughts and beliefs

The aim of this phase is to challenge the irrational beliefs in a clear and direct manner. This is important to replace the negative and unrealistic thinking with a more realistic and adaptive appraisal of challenging situations. This is the opportunity to re-frame. If the change leader connects with one’s internal coach (internal part) they can experiment with different assumptions as regards the speech:

When you play around with these reframing strategies, it is helpful to adopt the perceptual positioning strategy to experience triple perceptual description (first, second and third, perceptual positions) which will bring about a state change. This gives you confidence that the group state can and will change depending on your own state.

Phase E = Effects of changing one’s interpretation of a situation

In this phase, the client is more open and more approachable to new solutions they use to react to the situation. They may feel optimistic, eager to deliver and confident that they can connect with their audience in a very open and resourceful way and they will do the same by return.

You can also practice this technique with the support of a colleague who acts as your coach using the following process.

The participant will sharpen his or her skills of self-awareness and will learn a method of how to positively influence his or her state. This ability will help the participant to steer their team successfully through difficulties and challenges, including conflict, diversity, and inclusion issues within the team.

Concluding thoughts

Change leaders, according to Alvesson and Sveningsson (2015), need to engage thoughtfully in the active process of everyday reframing of the values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours they expect others to model. NLP, as demonstrated above, provides methodologies that enable such a process. For corporate NLP trainers, change is often concerned with transforming the symbolic nature of the meaning systems that managers employ to make sense of their environments. This is a significant finding of Alvesson and Sveningsson who developed their idea of everyday reframing of social reality through the modelling of desirable attitudes and behaviours. This is a very personal and introspective process for managers. It stands in sharp contrast to technical change that managers can, in the main, stand apart from in a very calculating and overtly rational way, characteristic of the transmission model of change leadership. Change leaders need a framework of action-orientated methods that they can internalize and practice daily to stimulate reframing processes in others that do not create a space for toxic symbolism and the associated narratives that undermine change projects. NLP provides such a model.

References

Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S. (2015) Changing Organizational Culture, Routledge.

Bandler, R. and Grinder, J. (1975) The Structure of Magic, V1, Science and Behaviour Books.

Bandler, R. and Grinder, J. (1982) Reframing, Real People Press.

Dweck, C.S. (2006) MINDSET: How You Can Fulfil your Potential, Robinson.

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