International Association of Facilitators
1999 Annual Meeting
Williamsburg, Virginia, USA
January 14-17, 1999
Thread #2: Group Planning
Lisa J. Marshall
Senior Vice-President,
SYNTAX Communication Modeling Corp.
1365 Hamilton Street, NW
Washington, DC 20011
202 829-0795 f: 829-5324
http://www.syntx.com
Sometimes, while trying to coach someone, you feel sheer frustration. You think you are exchanging facts, yet there seems to be a ripple in the fabric of reality. Though neither of you is consciously throwing obstacles in the way of the communication, something is blocking progress.
The problem may come from the way certain phrases can distort the facts, a phenomenon called "sleight of mind." There are certain ways of thinking that unnecessarily limit the possibilities for action or problem solving. These mental patterns are so common that, without the symptom of frustration, we may not notice them at all. Here we will explore verbal moves you can use during coaching to explore these limitations and determine which are real and which are imaginary.
SYNTAX has been coaching people to work together more effectively since 1981. We use a combination of NLP (neurolinguistic programming) skills and Fernando Flore's work on "language for action." This article on unlocking hidden limitations is drawn from our book, Smart Work: The Syntax Guide for Mutual Understanding in the Workplace.
Imagine you are coaching a manager who feels unsupported by his management. You ask for clarification and get: "We've sent up four different proposals about the type of new hardware that we need. On each one management has refused the request, with different explanations each time. Thus, I believe that it is highly unlikely that a fifth proposal could get funded."
Compare that to, "There's no point. Management never gives us what we need." Notice how the word choices affect possibility. Although the facts in the situation are the same, the first example gives specific data, data with which you can work. With such data, it might be possible to find out under what conditions management would approve the purchase of new hardware. In the second you're only getting generalizations. As a coach, if you buy in to such a client's view of reality, you may lose your ability to help. You'll need to gently probe. By helping the client relinquish such limiting language patterns, the facts more accurately present themselves. And possibilities can emerge.
A person's "mental map" is his or her picture of the world, the product of both "hardwiring" and lifetime experiences. Mental maps determine what possibilities he or she perceives in a given situation. While not consciously eliminating options, people who have experienced a situation as always being a certain way, or think that their ideas would never be accepted, automatically fail to consider other possibilities. Such thinking patterns grow out of experience and the filtering pattern called "generalization".
Generalization allows us to understand and utilize basic concepts, such as "a chair is something you can sit on when you're in a house or office," so that we don't have to constantly rediscover what to sit on. Obviously, generalizing is a very useful skill, and yet it can also be a source of blindness for us. People with these unconsciously limiting patterns of generalization, for example, may also discourage others from trying something creative or different. After all, why try if you know it can't work? As coaches, we need to recognize these language patterns. As we explore our client's language patterns, we free them to explore all the options at their disposal.
The good news is that this kind of "limited" thinking will quite consistently be reflected by certain language patterns -- phrases and expressions people use that tell you something about their mental maps, about what might be going on beneath the surface statement. Figure 1 presents six common kinds of limits language patterns: universals, necessities, impossibles, mindreading, cause-effect, and either/or. Each limit has its own typical phrasing or language .
Universals contain the words "all", "always" or "every," as in "Everyone does it that way." The assumption or mental map behind universals is that the universality is both real and justifies accepting the limitation.
Necessities hide behind words like "have to" or "must," as in "It must be done this way." The limitation is in the assumed lack of choice. "It must be done by noon" is a typical statement of necessity.
Impossibles indicate a belief that there is absolutely no way something can be done. Such thinking is revealed by words such as "can't" or "impossible." "That can't be done" is a typical impossibles statement.
The next three patterns are harder to spot, particularly when they correspond to your own habits of thinking. They are important because they distort not just the facts, but the relationship between one thing, or one person, and another.
Mindreading is an implicit command masked by unsubstantiated third-party attributions. Phrases like "he thinks" or "they feel" imply that the listener must respond to what the speaker imagines "he" or "they" think or feel, rather than what "he" or "they" actually said or did.
Cause-effect occurs when people give over power to other people or forces beyond their control. The mental map is that they are helpless to resist or alter their responses. The language pattern is "He/she/they/it make(s) me..." as in "He makes me crazy," or "She makes me mad when she is late," or "It makes me sick when they do that."
Either/or assumes a binary world. Things are right or wrong, black or white, and there are only two alternatives in any situation. "Either we meet specs or we lose the contract," is a typical either/or statement.
Limits patterns are ways of thinking that forestall learning. Each mental pattern was based on some real experience, but as Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosopher pointed out, "In a time of drastic change, it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists." Mental patterns that represent conclusions drawn from the past avoid new learning. They may equip you with information about what has already happened, but they open no new possibilities.
As coaches, directly confronting our client's verbal limits patterns is a good way to start an unproductive argument. The limits of our maps -- the borders of our belief systems, our assumptions about the world -- are soft tissue and must be handled with care. Be sure that the relationship is strong and rapport exists before probing such limits. When you hear a limits pattern and your response gently poses a question that directs the discussion back toward the possibilities, you can reopen doors that have been closed. At the same time, you can find out the basis for the conclusion. Often, when you break up the limiting pattern, the information you receive leads you to the same conclusion as your client. But you get there based on information, not by accepting another person's generalizations. And when the information uncovers new and different possibilities, you have done your client a major service.
Each "limits" language pattern has a corollary response to determine its reality base and perhaps uncover new possibilities. The initial goal here is to determine whether the perceived limit is rooted in reality. Again, it is important to have rapport before beginning such questioning. Coaches who poke roughly at the edges of a client's map may evoke a violent reaction. Use good judgment to determine if probing an implied limit is dangerous, even if you are certain that the limit is not real. Genuine concern and curiousity are required. Voice tone and facial expression will give away any other mindset. Assuming you have maintained rapport and are not making a career limiting move, here are ways to probe limits. (See Figure 1.)
The probe for a universal is to gently feed the key word back to the speaker as a question. "All?" "Everyone?" "Well, maybe it's just the people in accounting/marketing/ R&D/operations," is a typical response. If you get a firm "Yes, everyone in this organization agrees on this priority," the limit may be real -- if you believe the person is not mindreading, which we will get to in a moment.
When you hear an impossible such as "It can't be done by then," ask "What prevents it from being done by then?" Leave the edge out of your voice, and don't sound impatient. Follow up with a series of "how" and "what" questions to make sure you understand the situation, such as "how, specifically, does the policy preclude us from doing it this way?".
Likewise, if you get a necessities response such as "It has to be done this way and it must be done by tomorrow," you can ask, "What would happen if it were not done this way, and it were not done tomorrow?" Of course, your tone will express concern and curiosity, not a secret conviction that their concerns are trivial.
Cause-effect is an especially good limit to probe because you are, in essence, bestowing a gift. Since the hidden limit is the belief that others can control their responses, helping people understand they are in charge of their responses can empower them. Listen to this conversation:
Jim: "They make me so frustrated I feel like quitting the project."
Coach: "How, specifically, do they make you so frustrated you feel like quitting?"
Jim: "Well, they have these useless meetings that drag on for hours where nothing ever gets done."
Coach: (note the use of specifics to explore further) "How do the meetings make you feel frustrated?"
Jim: "Well, maybe they don't make me, but I can't stand wasting time! We're under serious time pressures, and everyone sits around saying 'What if?' and not making any decisions. We've got to get rolling, or this project is dead in the water!"
Coach: "So your frustration is a response to the group's failure to make a decision, right?"
Jim: "Yeah!"
Coach: "Tell me, what exactly do you do to get the group to make a decision?"
Jim: "What I do? Why should I do anything? Isn't it the group's job to make a decision?"
Coach: "The group is made up of people, and you're one of them. What prevents you from proposing that it's time to make a decision and get rolling?"
Jim: "I never thought of that. I guess I always assumed the project leader should or would do it, and got irritated when no one did. Maybe I had some choice in the matter after all. Interesting. Next time we have a meeting, I'll tell them we need to get going and watch what happens."
Notice how careful probing combines a variety of verbal patterns on the coach's part and gives Jim options he was unaware of. Those options can empower him to get the results he wants. This does not always happen -- there are plenty of real limitations out there. But in an era when resources are scarce, it is easy to fall into the trap of believing our options are scarce as well.
Mindreading is a different kind of limit. It implies that we know what goes on inside others' minds and should base our response on that. Some people verbalize their mindreading, others keep it to themselves. If not questioned, mindreading can become the accepted "reality" about someone else's thoughts and the justification for endless unproductive behavior.
Questions for responding to a mindreading statement such as "Management thinks we can't do the job," or "She feels they're incompetent," are "How do you know they think we can't do the job?" or "How do you know she feels they're incompetent?" Since you are after specific information, you can follow up with "What specifically did you see or hear that told you they think/she feels that way?"
Either/or is another perception about possibility. The task here is to unhook the client from the binary mode and get her or him to consider the existence of multiple possibilities. Hence, your response is-- again, gently -- "What other possibilities might there be?" You may hear, "There aren't any. Management says do it by Friday or we'll lose the client." Equally likely, however, is "I don't know. I hadn't thought about that, but maybe we could negotiate an extension and keep the client or postpone another project."
Review these language patterns and notice if any of them feel particularly familiar to you. As you listen for these language patterns in people you coach, you will begin to notice yourself using them as well. Consider how often these limitations appear in our internal dialogue, the conversation going on inside our heads. While you recognize and probe them in clients, you can do yourself the same favor! You may discover even more possibilities when neither you nor your client is making unnecessarily limited assumptions.
Subtlety is important in asking these questions. If someone says "It has to be done this way," your first response as coach might be a quick "So what if you don't do it that way?" You are sending a message of defiance, not curiosity and understanding. Instead, remember to take the coaching position -- other people's perceptions are valid, and that your job is simply to better understand them.
This is tricky when you are trying to get behind an apparent distortion of the facts. Don't get hooked on proving that what you believe is true, because the client may experience you as self-righteous. Only real curiosity yields learning instead of arguments. "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours." Experiment with not arguing for or against limitations; simply question them and greater possibilities will be yours – and, ultimately, your client’s.
The importance of maintaining rapport during this sort of coaching cannot be overemphasized. Explain why you are asking these questions -- that you can be more effective as a coach when you understand your client's assumptions. And, that you can serve your client better by identifying assumptions that aren't helping him/her. If you think you are losing rapport, stop probing immediately and restore the relationship before you continue. Otherwise the chances of generating major resistance skyrocket.
Have you ever felt a speaker was subtly manipulating you, even though you could not put your finger on how it was happening? Frequently, you are unconsciously responding to the deletion, distortion, and generalization of base data. All the skills of unlocking hidden limitations can also be used to transmit high-quality information. Your observations and rationales are far more persuasive when you provide the data that inspired them. Your coaching clients like to make up their own minds; give them the information as well as the conclusions and you avoid triggering unnecessary resistance.
Language is one of our most explicit forms of behavior. Yet, compared to actual experience, it rarely seems to do what we want: reveal our world to others. This may be because of the confusion of cause and effect relationship that "sleight-of-mind" language patterns build into our communication process. Good coaching demands that we constantly bridge worlds. Recognizing and understanding the built-in limitations of language permits us to bypass those limitations. By gathering additional information about the other person's experience, we create a solid and reliable coaching relationship that engenders mutual understanding and mutual learning as well as opening a whole new world of possibilities.
Bach, R. (1977). Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah. New York: Delacorte Press.
Hoffer, E. (1973). Reflections on the Human Condtion. New York: Harper & Row.
Marshall, L. & Freedman, L.(1995). Smart Work: The Syntax Guide for Mutual Understanding in the Workplace. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
Lisa Marshall is Senior Vice-President of SYNTAX Communication Modeling Corporation, focusing on collaboration, change management, leadership development, and team building. She was an educational and documentary film-maker for twelve years. She is the co-author of Smart Work: The Syntax Guide for Mutual Understanding in the Workplace (Kendall/Hunt, 1995).