Introduction

A principle of NLP is the idea that ‘the meaning given off is the meaning received’, which means that we may think we know what we mean when we communicate; however, we do not know what our audience think we meant and how they construct their maps based on our utterances. Thus, we need a model of communication that operates with these facts. NLP provides such a comprehensive model. When one is leading a change project, one is always involved in sense-making work. Alvesson and Sveningsson (2015) employ the useful metaphor of everyday reframing to explain the function of change leaders at work. In their model, change takes place because of a negotiated discourse between people, through which reality is framed and reframed in a constant cycle of interpretation and re-interpretation.

When thinking about change leadership, Smircich and Morgan (1982, p. 258) argue that ‘Leadership is realized in the process whereby one or more individuals succeeds in attempting to frame and define the reality of others.’ They interpret change leadership as a process fundamentally concerned with the framing of reality when they argue that leaders emerge as authentic: ‘Because of their role in framing experience in a way that provides a viable basis for action, e.g., by mobilizing meaning, articulating, and defining what has previously remained implicit or unsaid, by inventing images and meanings that provide a focus for new attention, and consolidating or confronting, or changing prevailing wisdom.’ The main technology for this process is, of course, language and the main channels for selecting empirical data our sensory system. This chapter builds a model of NLP communication strategies that can enable effective stakeholder engagement during periods of change by understanding social construction processes imbedded in language and exploiting this understanding.

The map is not the territory

An important aspect of every day reframing is that we all live inside a subjective bubble. For example, you could think about your existence as a movie that you have produced, and continue to edit and produce in the theatre of your own mind. Imagine that you are the producer, director, and editor of your own life experience. Life in terms of an objective independent reality is not accessible to you, or to others. Your experience of life is a socially constructed movie made up of edited experiences that you delete, generalize, and distort to make sense of your experience and to act onto the world around you. Your productions are heavily biased in line with your values and beliefs and preferences. You carefully filter experiences for future processing. This is an un-nerving proposition, is it not? Yet it is a reasonable metaphoric description of what happens when we experience life. We are simply mapmakers. It also means that we assume that everyone else sees the world as we see it and that when we describe aspects of our experience to others that they will understand our meaning as they, we assume, live and experience the same world. Unfortunately, this is not the case; it is a dangerously flawed assumption and plagues change projects and undermines well intentioned communication with stakeholders. NLP practitioners are very open and comfortable with this proposition. For example, an important NLP presupposition states that:

The meaning of your communication is not simply what you intend, but also the response you get.

This idea can represent a substantial change in basic assumptions in relation to the unconscious paradigm many change leaders have internalized regarding communication. The accepted premise is the illusion that when we speak we transmit our intended meaning and we assume that others will naturally comprehend our intended meaning. However, there are two elements to our communication:

Every day reframing is a useful model because it implies that aligning meaning systems via communication strategies is a habitual and sensitive process; change leaders need to work hard at it, in a thoughtful way. Everything we say and do and everything we do not say or do can provide meaning to our audience. Some of the meaning our audience construct is aligned with our intentions and, unfortunately, some of it may be misaligned. The literature on communication is vast and it is outside the scope of this book to review it thoroughly. What we can do, though, is identify a model of communication that highlights the main filters that people use to make sense of things. Our filters are the devices we use to decide what aspects of our experience we pay attention to and what meanings we attach to these experiences. We do not make sense of our experience passively. On the contrary, we actively filter, arrange, and compose sense data into what we call in NLP circles our modality structures. In Organizational Science we call these our schemas, or our frames of reference, social constructions, or interpretive frames (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002).

Our filters

It is useful if the change leader has a model of the various filters that their audience will use to give meaning to the messages sent by the change leader. The seven main filters that influence our change leadership communications are:

These filtering tools operate at an unconscious level and generate a powerfully effective unconscious bias that either protects and maintains reality frames and thus ensures we get the same social results or, alternatively, they can enable the production of generative change strategies.

As we are bombarded with an overwhelming volume of sense data that we cannot process, we have developed coping mechanisms which involve distilling sense data through a highly efficient filtering system which involves active deletion of data, distortion of data, and the generalization of data. Sociologists coined the terms selective representation and unconscious bias to explain two very powerful filters that rely on the nature of an individual and a group’s belief and value system.

Selective representation and unconscious bias

When we hold well-formed beliefs that generate our values we tend towards the processes of data which support our belief system and we ignore data that does not support our belief and value system. This process of moving away from, or moving towards something is called a meta-programme. The nature of this meta-programme also reveals our unconscious bias. Here is an example.

I do not believe that the director consciously behaved this way. This was not a subversive strategy she deliberately chose. She was simply operating in line with her meta-programme to move away from the change programme. She was selecting data that supported her belief system that the project was too complicated and not necessary. And she demonstrated an active bias towards discrediting the project. She could not share the update reports because they did not confirm her unconscious bias. In doing all of this she was simply filtering out much of the data, distorting it, generalizing from it, and deleting much of it. This short example shows just how fragile meaning making is. Another significant filter is the representational system that a person relies on as their lead sensory system.

Working with representational systems

NLP has also studied a complementary area of communication, an understanding of which increases the effectiveness of the change leaders’ communicating capabilities. This area of study and NLP practice concerns representational systems which are defined by Dilts and Delozier (2000, 1097) as ‘the neurological mechanisms behind the five senses’. As communication is often cited in the literature as one of the top fault lines undermining change leadership processes then an awareness of the nature of representational systems is of benefit to change leaders.

We all know that we make sense of the world that we experience through our five senses, known in NLP circles by the acronym ‘VAKOG’ (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, olfactory and gustatory). The lead sensory system is based upon which of the five sense systems a person relies to make sense of and convey their sense-making impressions of the world around them. They typically choose from:

As infants we use all of our sensory systems and through time as we mature we start to depend on one or two favourites. In most of cases we settle on our lead sensory system.

Lead sensory system

The lead sensory system will be the one most relied upon. For example, if a person has a general tendency to perceive the world visually then they relate more effectively to another person who is also a dominantly visual sense-maker and communicator. This rapport occurs because not only do we rely on one dominant sensory system to make sense of the world, we also communicate this sense-making through language that is sensory-based in relation to the lead sensory system. The words we employ when using sensory based language are known as predicates.

Predicates

Predicates are sensory-based words. You can identify which is the preferred sensory system by listening to the predicates people employ as they talk. Predicates are sensory based words and phrases such as:

The representational system we prefer operates as a meta-programme and drives the selective representation of reality we apply to the social world as well as influencing our unconscious bias. We are receptive to predicates that belong to our lead sensory system and less sensitive to those that do not. Put simply: we pick up seeing words if we are visually orientated; hearing words if we are audio orientated, and feeling words if we are kinaesthetically orientated. It is thus incumbent upon the change leader to reflect on their own preferred sensory system and practice using the ones they least prefer with the aim of moving easily between all three when communicating with a person or an audience.

If the change leader is engaging in a one-to-one session then they simply calibrate the preferred representational system of the other person and, if required, shift their own to complement their colleague. If the change leader is communicating with a group then they must move between all three representational systems, perhaps saying the same thing three times using different representational systems.

7 + or - 2 messages

Another significant filter is the ability of our conscious mind to process the information in the first place. At any given time, psychologists believe, we cannot manage any more than nine pieces of data and the general rule is that we can comprehend at a conscious level between five and nine separate messages. Thus, we have the communication principle of ‘7 + or - 2’. This means that if, as change leaders, we deliver presentations making the case for change that are enabled through PowerPoint, with dense data expressed in tables, diagrams, video, and text, then the intended audience will simply not absorb many of the intended messages.

If we concentrate on four or five core (meta) messages and we frame each of these using different representational mediums and associated predicates we will have a much-increased probability of getting our message across to our audience. This involves saying the same point in different ways throughout the presentation and ruthlessly cutting down on PowerPoint and dense script and using simple evocative images that are culturally relevant to the topic at hand. For example, let us take the main theme which could be ‘we have a problem that is a collective problem that we need to fix’. For the visual sense makers, the change leader would say:

“Let me show you what our problem looks like and paint a picture of our shared future.”

He may use images that symbolize the problem, maybe a simple graph that plots a dramatic fall in sales.

Then, later, in the short presentation targeting the kinaesthetic sense makers he may say:

“Obviously as we get to grips together with our shared problem and take it apart it’s up to us to decide how best to construct a solution that works for everyone.”

Then, again, for the audio sense makers using audio-based predicates:

“Thank you all for listening to me today. I know things don’t sound good. I also know that the idea of a shared successful future chimes with you, so I am asking you to work with the wider team to build a shared solution that resonates with you as a reasonable approach.”

So, he has made the same point using three different representational systems. He could mix it up as follows:

“Let me show you what our problem looks like and paint a picture of our shared future if we don’t look to solve it together. I know things don’t sound good. I also know that the idea of a shared successful future chimes with you, so I am asking you to work with the wider team to build a shared solution that resonates with you as a reasonable approach. Obviously as we get to grips together with our shared problem and take it apart it’s up to us to decide how best to construct a solution that works for everyone.”

The implications for communicating change leadership messages is that we need to think carefully about how to design our messages using multiple representational systems. If we are communicating to groups a mixed model approach is required. If dealing with an individual, we simply listen to their predicates and adjust our language to tune in to their lead representational system.

The meta-model

The meta-model is a language-based analytical tool that was developed by Bandler and Grinder (1975). Largely due to the incredible amount of sense data we experience, our mind naturally deletes information, generalizes from experiences, and distorts experiences. These three processes are incredibly useful as sense-making tools to enable action from decision making. However, when one is trying to lead change projects, deletion, generalization, and distortion methods can be a significant barrier to diagnosing change, designing change interventions, and leading the successful implementation of a change project. This is because, as change leaders, we need a deeper understanding of the nature of change dynamics so that we may obtain a richer perceptual map of the change territory and problems. We need this to develop greater behavioural flexibility. Another issue with deletions, distortions and generalizations is the way that they can frame reality in such a way that it paints an unfavourable picture of the change project or critical aspects of it.

Working with the meta-model

The meta-model is an NLP tool used to gain a fuller understanding of what people do and say; when used carefully it can trigger reflective thinking on the part of another which naturally takes them into their deeper unconscious mind to explore the richer meaning system called their deep structure that their surface structure meaning construction system filters through distortions, deletions, and generalizations. This process of linguistic exploration using the meta-model can ‘loosen the lid’ on an individual’s reality constructions.

The meta-model provides us with categories of distortions, deletions, and generalizations so that when we hear these being used we can recognize them for what they are. The meta-model also provides corresponding linguistic strategies we can use to guide the reflective process in the form of well-formed questions. O’Connor and Seymour (2002, p. 92) describe the meta-model as consisting of “a series of questions that seek to reverse and unravel the deletions and distortions and generalizations of language.” The meta-model is made up of at least 12 language identification categories each of which has relevant questions that can be applied by the change leader to access the deep structure meanings that underpin surface structure expressions. Distortions are classified in Table 15.1.

A worked example

For example, if a change participant were asked to comment on how they thought the programme was working they could make the following statement:

The above is an example of a meta-model exercise that can be used in an NLP for change leaders course. It is riddled with distortions, generalizations, and deletions. We can invite delegates to identify the meta-model violations imbedded in the text. Then they select appropriate meta-model questions. The meta-model, because of its usefulness for clarifying, challenging, and stimulating new ways of thinking, quickly became a central model used within standard NLP training courses. As an exercise, I invite you to analyse the statement and identify the list of meta-model violations it contains.

The meta-model primarily focuses on the idea that, when attempting to make sense of the world, it is a natural, human mechanism to generalize, distort and delete aspects of our experience; to cognitively filter reality in such a fashion that causes us to be selective in what we pay attention to. We can take a few specific experiences and transform them into broad judgements; twist the facts in a way that significantly alters and changes our representation of an event; and neglect elements of the full story of reality, creating gaps within the conscious recollection of our experience.

By actively listening for ‘meta-model violations’ – a term coined by Bandler and Grinder (1975) to describe linguistic statements containing either generalizations, distortions, or deletions – and then asking questions to clarify and encourage re-evaluation, the change leader can skilfully lead the participant through a process of self-realization and exploration into new and more useful ways of thinking, feeling and behaving. By artfully becoming aware of meta-model distinctions in the utterances people make, and then seeking clarification using the model’s questions, it becomes possible to arrive at an enriched version of their reality; one that is largely free from generalizations, distortions, and deletions. The dominant principle behind the meta-model is that language use to represent reality is only a map of reality, it is not the territory.

Concluding thoughts

Our model of representational systems is based upon the premise that communication between people is akin to tuning in to a radio station. We have all heard the saying ‘he is on a different wave length from me’ or ‘they’re just not on the same frequency’, such sayings are drawing our attention to incongruence between the way people are making sense of their world and communicating this sense-making to others. There can be many different reasons for this; however, one dominant reason is based on the sensory system we use to make sense of and communicate our sense-making to others. Another fundamental reason for lack of congruence is the influence that meta-model violations have on meaning construction. If we depend mainly on a visual sense-making scheme we will most likely communicate our sense-making via visual sensory based words. This could be regarded as the visual frequency. If I were to try to communicate with someone who uses the visual frequency through a kinaesthetic medium, i.e., I made sense of the world through feelings and used kinaesthetic sensory-based words, we would be on different sense-making frequencies and would not be able to tune in to each other, which thus hinders rapport-building opportunities. Therefore, change leaders need to be sensitive to representational channels and adjust their own frequency setting to tune in to the other person. Change leaders also need to be able to work sensitively and competently with meta-model violations.

If one considers the idea that many change leaders are unaware of sensory systems, predicates, frequency channels, filters, meta-model violations, or meta-model questions, then it should come as little surprise that communication is commonly cited as such a significant change management fault line. If change leaders are authentic and desire successful change then they could take time to learn the meta-model and study representational channels and develop highly sensitive listening skills to identify predicates and lead representational systems. Our choice of lead representational system and our decision to rely less on others act as filters to ensure that only selective aspects of experience are paid attention to. Thus, our sensory acuity is impaired by our decision to limit our competence in using all our sensory systems and to rely predominantly on one.

References

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

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

O’Connor, J. and Seymour, J. (2002) Introducing Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Psychological Skills for Understanding and Influencing People, Harper Element.

Smircich, L. and Morgan, G. (1982) Leadership: The Management of Meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 18: 257–273.

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