Thursday, May 18, 2017

Can you analyze and agree at the same time?

What do these words mean to you? The Meta Model classifies them as distortions and generalizations. But to the people who put them on these sticky notes, they represented a very specific shared experience.

Part of the reputation of NLP was established by its approach to language. The Meta Model promises to help you look beneath what people are saying to discover what they really mean. It's based on understanding language as a distortion of reality.

Even if it were accurate (I wouldn't argue that), it's a framing that is almost bound to get you into trouble unless you remember one cardinal rule (most people don't). The rule is this: you can only dig deeper with permission and you can only tell you have permission when you are spending most of your attention building agreement.

As a coach, I sometimes work with high performers on analyzing their patterns of thought or behaviour so that we can identify leverage points for change. This is stressful, but the stress is tolerated by high performers because they are expert enough to assume that there will be points they can strengthen and determined enough to manage the stress in pursuit of improvement.

If you're not dealing with an expert, continually prodding at someone's language is likely to destroy rapport and result in a "challenge" to a "distortion" being met as challenges are usually met: with equal and opposite energy.

Language works best when you are willing to explore how it takes experience and creates a word that allows us to pull that experience into awareness when it will be helpful. The word is a handle, not a mirror. Within a context of shared exploration, the meta model and other analytical tools can be used with a light touch to develop more specific shared understanding.

Most of the time, this is not what people want from the meta model. They are looking for a tool that allows them to reveal what someone else has hidden or distorted. It makes the person being modelled feel self-conscious at best and attacked at worst. 

Like fire and sharp knives, it should be used carefully.



Sunday, May 07, 2017

Can You Be Clear And Connected At The Same Time?


I wonder if you've ever struggled to stay connected to someone as you were communicating something important to you? It often seems that connecting to someone is a distraction from our message, rather than the purpose for it.  It's hard to stay clear about what we want to say when we also have to be clear about what someone else will hear in our words.

This is the central paradox of communication: for a message to be clear, the sender of that message must hold onto their own vision while connecting with someone else's. There's a benefit to this paradox. As we become less sure of what we want to say, we are more likely to engage in shared thinking. We come up with ideas together when we communicate in ways that are unclear enough to encourage participation.

As you struggle to be both clear and connected, think about this. If you had to sacrifice either clarity or connection, which would be most important? Giving up clarity makes room for collaboration. Giving up some measure of connection allows you to focus on giving clear expression to an idea you don't want to change in transmission. Knowing what you want allows you to make good choices about how much energy you put into getting your message exactly right or thoroughly understanding the motivations of your listener or reader.

Your default should probably be to say what you mean as clearly as possible. This doesn't always mean that others will connect to your message. It does mean that the one person who is most affected by your words will pick up a clear, strong signal. That person is you.