Introduction
This chapter will address a significant aspect of change leadership which involves building the case for change (McCalman & Potter, 2015). Throughout this chapter I will review NLP analytical models that can support traditional change management tools. The process for building the case for change usually involves analysis of the key change drivers that the organizational leadership has become consciously aware of. This analysis speculates on the influence these change drivers will have upon the organization. The case for change tends to be loosely or tightly built around this analytical process. The major flaw in this process is that it tends to be conducted in isolation by senior managers and can even be what might be described as a desk top exercise. Someone in a strategy position literally sits at their desk and conducts an environmental analysis of change drivers and drafts a change management report for an important stakeholder group. Sometimes, as a tick box exercise they may include some focus groups through which they generate data using traditional MBA strategic planning tools such as SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis, stakeholder mapping, and PESTEL analysis (political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal change drivers) (Johnson et al., 2011). This overtly rational approach is the antithesis to generative dialogue and collaborative working. It is a silo approach to strategic planning and change diagnosis which ensures a clear disconnect is maintained between the ‘thinkers’ and everyone else. This creates a lack of stakeholder engagement and ensures that a rich fault line is created that runs through the cultural and subjective fabric of the change community.
There is nothing wrong with using the strategic tools described above, assuming that you do so in a collaborative way that accesses the collective intelligence of the wider stakeholder group and is based upon interactive strategies, many of which are the topic of this book. However, even if one does this there remains a problem. The problem is the lack of direct association with the actual analysis on the part of key stakeholders. The process is too analytical at a level of dissociation. What is required is a counterweight to the dissociated strategic planning tools; NLP provides such a counterweight which will provide the focus of this chapter. The counterweights are the ‘S.O.A.R. model’ and the ‘S.C.O.R.E. model’.
SOAR model
The SOAR model is an analytical tool that was developed by Artificial Intelligence experts and adapted by Robert Dilts co-founder of NLPU, located within the grounds of The University of California Santa Cruz. SOAR stands for the following.
State: A state is defined as the particular condition that ‘someone’ or ‘something’ is in at a specific time. The SOAR model focuses in upon the following in terms of their states: (1) the environment, (2) behaviours, (3) capabilities, (4) beliefs, (5) identity, and (6) mission. The analysis involves determining the past, current, and desired future state of content elements of each of these variables. This process of comparison enables users to build a shared picture and understanding of the content of their changing environment at the level of strategic vision, culture, behaviours, capabilities, and change drivers. The methodology which will be described later in this chapter may incorporate the abstract and dissociated methods of PESTEL, SWOT and stakeholder mapping with associated techniques such as perceptual position-taking across a timeline and multiple neurological levels.
Operator: The operations that we make that result in changes in states. The operators are rooted within our sensory representations of our neurological levels and the sub-modality structure or sensory characteristics of our perceptions and understandings. An example would be directly associating with an experience and describing its form and content, then directly dissociating from the same experience, and perceiving it either from a distance or from the perceptual position of someone else. This operational move would change how we understand the experience, our intensity of emotional attachment resulting from a shift in the sub-modality structure of the original perception. The insertion of the ‘A’ in the S.O.A.R model simply means ‘And’ which is used as a link to connect the three main elements together. This presents and opportunity to further develop Robert’s model which I think is an interesting idea and in-keeping with the developmental nature of NLP.
The operators are simply the strategies we employ or have employed that have created our past and present results and may well influence or create our future results.
Results: What would a change in state look like? How do we describe and measure success? The SMART model is useful for this stage. In specific terms what would a change in state look like? How do we measure the changes? What activity do we need to undertake? How realistic are our change ambitions? How far down our timeline will the changes take place?
The SOAR model enables NLP practitioners to explore a client’s relationship to fundamental aspects of the ecology that underpin the wider social field. The model can be used to build a picture of the changing field that the organization is operating within to guide the development of change management programmes to ensure the organization evolves in a healthy way in relation to the environmental field. The field is the content of the social domains that constitute society at large. The SOAR model enables analysis of operational situations across the wider environmental field from the vantage points of:
• Perceptual position (first, second and third)
• Timeline (past, present, and future)
• Logical levels (environment, behaviour, capabilities, beliefs/values, identity, and mission)
As an analytical change technique, the SOAR model facilitates reflexivity and sense making regarding:
• The change drivers that have been, are currently or will be active in the environment.
• The type of behaviours that have served the organization well in relation to its environment in the past, in the present and potentially in the future.
• The type of behaviours that have not been resourceful to the organization in relation to its environment in the past, the present and, if allowed, in the future.
• The type of capabilities that have served the organization well in relation to its environment in the past, in the present and potentially in the future.
• The type of capabilities that have not been resourceful to the organization in relation to its environment in the past, the present and, if allowed, in the future.
• The type of beliefs that have served the organization well in relation to its environment in the past, in the present and, potentially, in the future.
• The type of beliefs that have not been resourceful to the organization in relation to its environment in the past, the present and, if allowed, in the future.
• The type of values that have served the organization well in relation to its environment in the past, in the present and, potentially, in the future.
• The type of values that have not been resourceful to the organization in relation to its environment in the past, the present and, if allowed, in the future.
• The type of identities that have served the organization well in relation to its environment in the past, in the represent and, potentially, in the future.
• The type of identities that have not been resourceful to the organization in relation to its environment in the past, the present and, if allowed, in the future.
• The sense of mission that has served the organization well in relation to its environment in the past, in the present and, potentially, in the future.
• The sense of mission that has not been resourceful to the organization in relation to its environment in the past, the present and, if allowed, in the future.
This is an exhausting process. It needs to be completed over a few days and involves total immersion in the process. However, when we consider the cost of change failure due to a combination of lack of engagement and weak beliefs in the case for change then this is a very worthwhile time investment. It does also require complete commitment to fully engaging in the process involved.
A blend of NLP methods
The SOAR Model, originally developed by Robert Dilts, incorporates three major NLP techniques including: (1) timeline, (2) perceptual positions, and (3) neurological levels.
Timeline
Timeline is the process through which we catalogue and store all our sensory experiences (Dilts et al., 2010). We have our past, present, and future. We can imagine that we can float above our timeline and view it from an objective position. This is an amazing capability that all human beings possess; in doing so we can move up and down our timeline. We can also build memories today that we will experience in the future and float down our timeline to fully associate in the events that generate the memories we are programming ourselves to experience. Timeline is an excellent strategic and personal development tool. Timeline is a very effective strategic planning tool for management teams and sits very well with techniques such as the neurological levels framework and scenario planning.
Perceptual positions
Under normal circumstances we tend to predominantly perceive the world from our own subjective perceptual position. In NLP terms, this is called adopting the first perceptual position. When we are in the first position we are directly associating with a social event through our own subjective model. If we rely on our first position to the exclusion of other perceptual positions then this leaves us with a perceptual map that, arguably, is impoverished. To counter this and enrich our perceptual map we can adopt the second or third and fourth perceptual positions through a process of empathetic imagineering. The four perceptual positions are defined below.
First position: This is your own perceptual position as you, yourself, experience it. You are fully associated in the situation and living it as if it is happening right now. An example would be a change leader in the moment experiencing a social situation such as a strategy meeting.
Second position: This is the perceptual position that is the position of an ‘other’. It is as if you are in the shoes of the other person and you are walking, seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking, believing, etc., as if you are this person. An example would be the change leader identifying with a colleague and empathizing with their unique model of the strategy meeting from their perspective.
Third position: From third position, you are like an interested, but not directly involved observer of the other two. It is a useful position for gathering information and noticing relationship dynamics going on between them. An example would be the change leader identifying with an objective outsider and empathizing with their unique model of how they see the change leader and their colleague making sense of, expressing and inter-reacting at the meeting.
Fourth position: This is a perceptual position which is a synthesis of all the others, a sense of being the whole system. From this position, you can see the genesis and effects of all the other positions and their interactions, and notice large patterns which transcend individual identities, parts, and relationships.
Switching between these different positions provides us with multiple vantage points from which to perceive a phenomenon of interest and, thus, enrich our map of reality thereby giving us greater sense-making resources. It also enables the development of empathy and greater rapport between conflicting stakeholders. Finally, it increases our behavioural, cognitive, and emotional flexibility and choices.
The Logical Levels Model
The SOAR Model is made up of six conceptual ‘floors’. Each floor represents an element of the Dilts Logical Levels Model shown in Figure 8.2.
The logical levels are an analytical tool that was developed by Dilts (2003), although based on the earlier ideas of Gregory Bateson. The principle that underpins the neurological levels model is that we are all part of a system and a change in one aspect of this system can and will result in a change in the other elements. Let us look at the following example.
Karen works as Head of Strategy for a major public-sector organization. Traditionally, for over 30 years, the government has ‘gifted’ the services the organization provides to the public with no requirement to compete for the work through a competitive tendering process. Karen undergoes the SOAR model as part of a strategic change workshop. She considers the environment within which the organization operates. Karen notices that there is a trend of questioning the legitimacy of public sector organizations to deliver services that they have not competed for. This questioning process was being driven by austerity cuts following the financial crisis of 2008, conducted through the media with headlines such as those seen in Figure 8.3.
Stage 1: Karen recognized a fundamental change driver was re-shaping the business environment and that her organization needed to learn how to compete against other service delivery models and prepare for the eventual competition.
Stage 2: It was necessary to consider how this change in the state of the environment would influence behaviours. Historically and in the present most of her senior colleagues behaved as if there was no need to internalize a culture of commercial logic aimed at building defensive strategies based on market forces. These behaviours needed to unfreeze, remodel then refreeze to support the changes in the strategic environment.
Stage 3: This stage involved Karen thinking through the past and present capabilities that were directly associated with the state of the environment when lacking competitive drivers. She knew that her colleagues needed to develop marketing capabilities and change management capabilities involving cultural change work if they were to be able to operate competitively and, thus, successfully in the future.
Stage 4: Karen reflected upon the nature of the values and related beliefs that had maintained the behaviours and capabilities of the past rooted in the belief that there was no need to compete for the work and that the government would simply provide this. This change would involve the generation of a new belief system that supported the need for valuing skills such as change leadership and marketing.
Stage 5: Karen also understood that there was now an important strategic question emerging from this analytical process: What kind of organization are we to become? She was concerned about the issue of organizational identity. This suggested thoughts about branding and the ways in which the organization’s stakeholders identified with the organization. For example, how did the general staff identify with the organization? Did they see it as a department or as simply their employer? Karen felt that the idea of creating sense making channels with the staff to create a common identity perhaps based upon the idea of the organization as a ‘businesses’ was now required.
Stage 6: This stage involved revisiting the mission of the organization. The mission offered a strategic vehicle for uniting key stakeholders behind the commercial logic and emergent strategy of the organization. The need for developing commercial capabilities and new behaviours integral to a new identity based upon recognition of strategic change drivers in the environment to justify redefining and energizing a common mission, Karen felt, was a strategic priority.
The jungle gym
Dilts and Delozier (2000, p. 698) describe the SOAR model as a jungle gym, a tool through which we can complete a conceptual workout focusing in on past, present, and future states and developing NLP-led interventions to change the nature of the states under examination if required. In their work Encyclopedia of Systematic Neuro-Linguistic Programming and NLP New Coding (2000) they present a robust description of the SOAR model and how to apply it as a change process. They recognize and describe no fewer than 45 different analytical frames that a participant could create as they work their way through the jungle gym that is the SOAR model. For example, if we take the first phase which involves the first timeline stage of ‘past’ we can follow each of the five operations involved in creating the frame.
1 First perceptual position associating with a past frame of the environment.
2 First perceptual position associating with a past frame of organizational behaviours.
3 First perceptual position associating with a past frame of organizational capabilities.
4 First perceptual position associating with a past frame of beliefs and associated values.
5 First perceptual position associating with a past frame of the self and organizational identity.
We could include a sixth operation from Dilts’ neurological levels model which is mission. The next two phases of completing the jungle gym would involve the participant repeating the above process though concentrating on the present and the future aspects of the organizational timeline. This deeply involved analytical process develops an extremely rich perceptual map of the change issues facing the organization and their dynamics.
Phase 2 concentrates on the second timeline stage of ‘present’ time and, again, the participant would go through each of the five operations described in Phase 1.
Phase 3 concentrates upon the second timeline stage of ‘future’ time and, again, the participant would go through each of the five operations described in Phase 1.
The overall result is a composite multidimensional and extremely rich perceptual map of the challenges facing the organization that are deeply meaningful to those who undertook the jungle gym SOAR Model exercises. Whilst this process may not be practical regarding involving all stakeholder groups in totality, it is practical in regard to a representative sample of key stakeholders. It is also a practical model for involving a core representation of senior and middle management to build a powerful sense of a shared case for change and a specific view of what needs to change, why it needs to change and even when it needs to change. The next part of the process would naturally involve designing the content and form of the overarching change technologies, many of which are described in this book to actualize the change process.
Summary of the SOAR model
The SOAR model as an analytical device also enables enhanced understanding of key stakeholders’ perceptions and attitudes towards the project. It enables skills audits to be conducted at various stages in the project life cycle. It also facilitates reflective learning and the identification of the skills required going forward down the life cycle of the project. In terms of identity building it is useful in determining the specific role of each team member at each period of the timeline and reflexive thinking. As an analytical device, the SOAR model facilitates reflexivity regarding changes in the operating environment and the type of behaviours, capabilities, beliefs, and values that are required throughout the project life cycle. Finally, it also serves as an enabling device to build a sense of shared mission throughout the wider project team.
The SCORE model
An NLP methodology that can support the application of the SOAR model is the SCORE model developed by Robert Dilts and Todd Epstein in 1987. This model can be used by a management team involving representatives of key stakeholder groups in a collaborative workshop to build a shared picture of significant challenges facing an organization. The acronym SCORE stands for
• Symptom
• Cause
• Outcome
• Resources
• Effect
The process is straightforward. It would involve an audience of 10 to 200. The audience would be brought together to participate in a SCORE conference. The purpose, aims and methodology of the conference would be communicated in advance of the participants coming together. The meta-aim would be to draft a SCORE change diagnostic and action sheet. Trained NLP coaches would facilitate the collaborative process. The process involves the following steps:
• CEO of the organization would set the scene by delivering a summary report detailing the overall performance of the organization.
• NLP Coaches would set up the collaborative process.
• Participants would be allocated into conversational circles of 10.
• Each team would be allocated an NLP coach.
• The NLP coach would work with the team to review each aspect of the SCORE model in relation to a range of organizational variables.
• Each team would engage in dialogue regarding how best to populate each space in the SCORE change diagnostic and action sheet.
• The findings would then be shared across groups for further discussion and contribution.
• The similarities would be noted, outliers marked for further discussion and duplication distilled down to a baseline agreement regarding interpretation and proposed actions.
• The trainer would then end for the day and reconvene within seven days to review as a team the composite SCORE change diagnostic and action sheets and agree a mandate for a change programme.
Detailed below is an example of a SCORE change diagnostic and action sheet from a client we worked with. Their actual name has been anonymized.
Closing comments
The purpose of this chapter was to highlight the various ways that NLP can be used as a strategic planning tool. Its deeply collaborative and engaging character helps to dilute the tendency for an ethnocentric approach to strategic change diagnosis and planning which plagues change management projects. The SOAR model can either be used in its totality, or its constituent parts, namely perceptual position mapping, strategic time line and logical levels, can be used as independent change management tools. For example, perceptual positioning can be used alongside stakeholder mapping to develop richer perceptual maps regarding the beliefs, values, and attitudes inclusive of expectations that stakeholders may hold that could either conflict with or enable the aims and ambitions of the change programme. The SCORE model can also be used collaboratively to obtain the total system in the room. These analytical applications are excellent tools for the organizational development practitioner to make sense of their dynamic environment and build a compelling case for change.
References
Dilts, R. (2003) From Coach to Awakener, Meta Publications.
Dilts, R., DeLozier, J. and Dilts, D. (2010) NLP 11The Next Generation, Meta Publications.
Dilts, B.R. and Delozier, J. (2000) Encyclopedia of Systematic Neuro-Linguistic Programming and NLP New Coding, NLP University Press.
McCalman, J. and Potter, D. (2015) Leading Cultural Change, Kogan Page.
Johnson, G., Whittington, R. and Scholes, K. (2011) Exploring Corporate Strategy. Text and Cases, 9th edn, Prentice Hall.