'CONVERSATIONAL CHANGE' is a seminar subject dear to the heart of many who wish to affect or direct others. What do we mean by 'conversational'? What kind of 'change'? Is it possible for anyone to use the same kind of transformational language as a therapist or counsellor and get away with it? Which of these questions are open and which are not? (ref. 1)
Most NLP trainings teach the 'Meta-model' of language as a tool for the direct elicitation of specific, high quality information, and the unspecific 'Milton-model' to communicate indirectly with a person's unconscious resources. These are sophisticated language patterns for use in structured, largely therapeutic, settings.
Some trainings also teach a conversational reframing model called 'Sleight-of-Mouth'. Robert Dilts developed his dialectical patterns of guided conversation in 1987 by applying Bandler and Grinder's Meta-model to the dialogues of Plato and Socrates. Many students find Sleight-of-Mouth hugely complex. They promise themselves they'll get round to it again after their training, and never quite do.
Meanwhile the world is changing. The ancient Greeks may have expected their moral philosophers to have the right answers, but modern teachers are increasingly required to come up with the right questions. I believe the time has come to up-date our dialectical approach to conversational change and to work from a less directive, more reflective, model.
'Reflective questioning' is a use of language that respects one of our fundamental freedoms - the right to make our own mistakes. It neither interprets nor seeks to replace a person's meaning or belief, but rather aims to highlight it. David Grove's 'clean language', as used in metaphor therapy, is an excellent example (ref. 2). But what we might call the 'Metaphor-model' of language, with its nine basic questions delivered in a particular rhythm and with a certain syntax, is a highly structured therapeutic technique. Conversational it isn't.
My aim here is to present a colloquial variant on the metaphor model which organises the principles behind several counselling models into a simple framework which can be used by anyone anywhere. If NLP is a philosophy of experiential constructivism, the 'Mirror-model' deconstructs experience and reflects it in such a way that it returns ready-reconstructed. Change is inevitable. Read on. All shall be revealed.
A woman introduces herself at a party. "Hello, I'm Winona." You talk about the weather, you slag off the host ... and you're just about to take the exchange onto a deeper, more meaningful level when you realize you've forgotten her name. It was only one word. It was only a few seconds ago. Winifred? Ramona? OK, you weren't listening, you were watching her instead, something about the way she tucked her hair behind her ears ... but one word? And while you're worrying about that you realize you've missed more information. What did she say about getting in touch? What exactly? Dammit, it was only a sentence.
In metaphor therapy we pay close attention to the very first thing a client says. Even before they think they've started. After all the client is demonstrating their pattern to you as they walk through the door - they can't help it. And we pay particularly close attention to their answer to the first question - typically
Often we write the answer down, verbatim:
This first reply will have immense structural significance. Whether it's short, apparently simple and about the way they process, or whether it's long, rambling and all about what happened at the supermarket. The statement will itself be a metaphor for the client's underlying pattern. And if it's recorded precisely it will be available as a reference at any time. Half-way through the session you might want to check the progress of your work against what the client actually said at the start, rather than trying to remember what they said, or guessing what you believe they may have said. And particularly when you're totally convinced you know what they said. All that stuff about connections, relationships ... what was it? I need to chain my wife?
Whatever the context (consulting room, office, bus stop) and whatever the other person's first words ('I can't go on like this', 'The photocopiers giving me a hard time', 'What lousy weather'), if they seem to have a problem and you want to be helpful, the chances are that your first interventions will be at a conversational level. Where do you start? You have infinite choice.
My approach to teaching conversational change on Organisational Healing's Community NLP trainings had originally been based on the Sleight-of-Mouth model, Dilts' systematic way of challenging a person's limiting reality in order to facilitate change or to loosen a neuro-linguistic stuckness. I'd never been entirely comfortable with 'Sleight-of-Mouth'. My own trainers taught the model reluctantly (it seemed to me), and pleaded for it to be used with a light touch. The name is, of course, a play on 'sleight-of-hand', a phrase I'd always felt said more about manipulation than manual dexterity. Yet 'sleight-of-hand' derived from the French legerdemain, literally 'light of hand'. For a while I tried thinking of conversational change as '(S)l(e)ight of Mouth', but this gave only temporary relief.
Dilts' model is based on the Socratic method of leading the listener in a predetermined direction - one determined by the questioner, whose outcome is to change the listener's perception. The methodology can be very effective for the comprehensive demolition of Cause and Effect beliefs or Complex Equivalence statements, but I'm not sure if demolition experts are the right people to be designing and installing new structures.
There was another inhibition. Dilts' 1987 model has 18 categories of challenge with a clever, convoluted diagram of ladders and arrows and boxes and triangles to show how they all fit together. Not easy to follow. Sid Jacobson's 1993 version has an admirable list of 14 'patterns', or "challenges with attitude" as he used to call them, but I could never memorise lists. Hall and Bodenhamer (1997) offer 20 'directionalizations' or 'Mind-Lines', nicely thought out with Out-frames, Re-frames, Pre-frames, Post-frames, De-frames, Counter-frames and Analagous-frames (are you still with me?). It all seemed rather complex. My students are smart enough, but they're a varied lot - academics, therapists, hairdressers, rugby players - and what they need is a simple, practical, non-directive guide to conversational change which they can adapt to everyday use.
Hall and Bodenhamer's figurative notion of 'framing' appealed to me, so I made the metaphor literal and organised my thinking into 6 visual frames (see below), within which there are various sub-categories. Each of the frames contains a series of Open Questions. If you want to condense the model further you can forget the sub-categories. But hold on to the colloquial tone of the questioning, which is simpler than Hall and Bodenhamer's multi-level procedures and kinder (I like to think) than the Socratic method.
Socrates may have tried to influence others for good, but if you've read Plato's account of the old man's methods you'll know that he did it by leading his pupils up the garden path to the only conclusions possible, his own. Not so much dialogue as dialectic.
Nowadays we say the pupil, not the teacher, knows best. Real
change happens at an emotional and deep-structural, not a rational
and intellectual, level - its a uniquely personal, internal
experience. If you agree with Charles Faulkner that NLP at its best
is an 'experiential philosophy' (ref. 3), then your role as
Neuro-Linguistic Philosopher-facilitator is to keep pace with your
pupil-clients as they track their own experience of already
knowing what is good. Good in the sense of useful and
valuable uniquely for them.
What follows is a sequential exercise for learning the SIX OPEN QUESTION FRAMES - not an end in itself, let me hasten to remind you, but a way of familiarising yourself with the idea of reflective questioning so that you can adapt the methodology to your own needs.
The disposition and content of the frames has been influenced by my work in Grovian metaphor, which itself provides a marvellous model from which to facilitate a client without interpretation or suggestion from the therapist. However the Grovian process has a deliberately ritualistic structure designed to help client and therapist communicate with the unconscious at a symbolic level, and that's hardly the stuff of conversation. Indeed metaphor therapy works best when it's not conversational.
Yet 'clean language' adapts exquisitely to any human endeavour, and some of the open questions in the frames come directly from the Grovian model. Others come from a variety of sources (ref. 4). You may have favourites of your own. If you don't find them here, please let me know.
I use the word 'client' throughout to represent anyone that you - therapist, manager or colleague - may have cause to support or reflect on their voyage of re-discovery.
Don't paraphrase it. And you kind of feel the need to change some things about your life. Use their exact words. If it's too long, repeat a part (usually the last part, because that's usually the most significant). This is not to give you time to think, though it does. It is to acknowledge the client without elaboration. Quite a rare event, for any of us. We're more used to responses like I know just what you mean, when the speaker has no idea what we mean, and might equally have said You just reminded me of something about myself.
The chances are that both you and the client will find simple repetition a positive experience. Often a client won't realise what they have said until they hear you say it. You might not realise what they have said until you repeat it. It's not only an affirming thing to do, it's an essential precursor to working effectively together.
Recording the statement helps in three ways. 1. It's captured for all seasons - no guesses, disputes or post-suppositions later. 2. The words exist not only in time but in space - a visual aid for your study of their structure. 3. The speaker is more likely to regard the statement dispassionately, as something 'outside' them - even more so if you allow them to see the statement - therefore challenge is more likely to be experienced as a co-operative venture.
Before we go any further let's put aside this idea of challenge. A relic from our combative past. I shall henceforth trust you to work 'cleanly' with your client, shunning bias, opinion and suggestion, however nobly intended, your higher purpose being to help unfold what the client already knows as you both connect to the greater good. Reminding yourself that the client is the expert in their own perceptions. The only expert.
There's a poem by Emily Dickinson:
While training in metaphor process I found myself using inverted commas to help a client's words stand out more in my notes. This simple act made a surprising difference. The words took on a life of their own. My client had not made a random selection of words from an infinite set of trivial possibilities, but conscious and unconscious choices which had deep structural, symbolic and systemic significance - of course. I already knew this at some level, but had thought no more about it. Inverted commas became my assistants, discreetly reminding me of something I had neglected. I began to take opening statements more seriously.
If you happen to have an emotional attachment to the speaker you'll find that concentrating on their exact words, separating these from their tone of voice and treating the words as a quotation (i.e. this is just what one person said), will help unhook you from unhelpful emotional responses - feeling blamed, for example, or fearful. Not an ideal place from which to ask, or hear the answers to, open questions.
An optional entertainment for those who like the full Monty. The rest can skip along to 'Draw a frame around the statement'.
One of the fundamental tenets of Neuro-Linguistic Programming is that our utterances represent the partial, socially derived, heavily filtered, generalised, deleted, distorted, symbolic, verbal expression ('surface structure') of a complete sensory representation of our experience ('deep structure') (ref. 5).
When David Grove taught me to deconstruct a client's often quite complex surface-structure statements (they're not all as succinct as 'I need to change my life', you may not be surprised to hear), I started playing with three sets of inverted commas - one for my deconstruction of the Perceiver, another for my perception of the Perceived and another for the bit In-Between (ref. 6).
Crudely put, the perceiver is normally The One Who Wants or Doesn't Want, the perceived is What They Want or Don't Want, and in-between is the Way To Get It or What's Stopping Them.
Write out your deconstructions. With practice you can do it mentally, but it's a good discipline for complex statements and a useful check on over-confidence. Even apparently straight forward statements such as "I need to change my life" are ripe with distinctions.
Deconstructing the 'Perceiver' ("I") is an indicator that "I" can be questioned and developed quite separately from the 'Perceived' ("my life") and the In-Between ("need to change"). The three elements of this statement are distinct surface-structure codings for different, complex, deep-structure representations of your client's experience.
You can further deconstruct the In-Between. "Need to change" is a common phrase and in the flow of ordinary conversation or reading you could be forgiven for assuming it's one idea. But stop the flow for a moment.
Check 'need' within yourself.
Thus your client's "need" in:
may look and sound familiar, but you can bet it has a meaning unique to your client and at this stage you would be foolish to make any assumptions whatsoever about it.
The same goes for "to change". A couple of almost inseparable syllables. Pull 'em apart:
The word "to" can now be seen as evidence of a certain need in your client in their relationship to "change" that is almost certainly different from the need that would be expressed in a statement such as "I need change in my life".
Why deconstruct the 'Perceiver', by the way? Isn't the Perceiver always 'I'? Well, yes and no. There's no 'I' in the statement "Things have to change", for example. And yet there is - it's just that it's been deleted by the speaker and you may have to rummage around a bit to retrieve it. Your client might actually be saying "I can't change things".
When you find the 'I' don't assume it's the only one.
For example, I (surface-structure symbol for a deep-structure representation of my complete experience of a present me writing this) remember about a year ago (a past me has been deleted here) working with a client of mine (a relational me, situation-specific), when I (a part of me) discovered that my client could identify at least four 'I's in her metaphor - one behind watching her have the experience, one seeing through her eyes, one in a cloud hovering overhead and another stuck in a tunnel below. Which of those 'I's (eyes) did she mean when she said "I see myself..."?
Etcetera. You can go on. Whether you're in conversation or process you'll have to make choices about where to concentrate your attention. To help you make them, next:
f. Draw a frame around the statement.
I began drawing frames when I wanted to locate client statements more easily in my notes. The frame gave me another perspective. There was additional information there, symbolised by the space surrounding the statement.
David Grove used to draw 3-dimensional boxes around his deconstructions. I give mine a shadow effect. Do whatever helps. I think of a client's statement as the label on a container. The label is a summary of the contents. The container contains 'inside information'.
And as you and the client are about to embark on conversational 'reframing', you will have the first frame as a literal and figurative frame-of-reference against which to check subsequent reframes.
Serious deconstructors, of course, will wish to draw three (or more) frames:
g. Label the frame 'Present'
to represent the client's present
frame of mind. And only now you
have come this far in your
understanding of the client's
process may you intervene.
With a sense of the neuro-linguistic structure of human communication, you will appreciate that any verbal intervention at the level of surface-structure may have powerful echoes throughout the system. It may result in a change to the clients deep-structure representation of a problem, which in turn may prompt the client to feel better or worse about their situation. At the very least it will enable more information to rise to the surface.
As new information feeds back into the system, the system moves on. It cannot stay the same. Jack Stewart, discussing how we determine who we are, observes that "Constant updating and effective tracking are prerequisites for the highest levels of our functioning as creative human beings."(ref. 7)
In relation to metaphor process Tompkins and Lawley say, "Through a heightened awareness of our own patterns new levels of complexity emerge. In other words, the system starts to self-correct." (ref. 8)
Of purposeful dialogue Faulkner has said, "If you can reflect a clients problem undistorted, the client is relieved of the responsibility of holding it alone. The problem shifts and the system will spontaneously re-organize." (ref. 9)
There's a common thread of quality here: effective tracking ... heightened awareness ... undistorted reflection. The value to your client of having their process reflected without distortion, enabling them to track their patterns with heightened awareness, will depend on your skill and sensitivity. Your leger-de-main, or lightness of touch. If you're clumsy the client's experience may be less valuable.
There is an infinite number of ways of questioning what someone says. As you explore a particular statement with open questions within limited frames not every question or frame will seem equally appropriate. The point of the exercise is to familiarize yourself with a discipline that usefully limits your choices and stays respectful of the client's unique process. Rapport is important. Your voice tone in particular. Curiosity without disquiet.
First examine the statement from within the Present frame using the categories below. The sample questions apply to "I need to change my life" and are meant to be illustrative, not definitive.
'What kind of..?' is a beautiful question, classically
'clean'. It helps the client return to their deep-structure
representations with minimal interference. You can use the
question time and again for any part of the statement, but as this
is a conversational model you risk straining your credibility if
you ask too many.
are alternatives. 'What sort of..?' and 'What do you mean
by..?' can be used for any part of the statement. Or
'How..?' and 'In what way...?' are not generally suited to nouns (nominalisations are a special case), but can help mobilise most other parts of speech, particularly verbs.
Usually only a part of the situation is a problem, though
applying 'part' to the Perceiver may be taken as an invitation to
construct a metaphorical part of themselves, which may not be
appropriate. Faulkner uses 'aspect' - general enough for many, if
not for the highly visual. 'Element', 'component', 'particular'
(used as a noun) may be OK depending on the context.
Prudent use of synonyms may help the client open up present
content into immediate Context (frame no. 2). The least reflective
category of the lot, but it's not the same as paraphrasing the
client, or loosely substituting a word of your own for one of
theirs. (All too common, even among therapists.) Your tone of
voice is crucial - hint only at your ignorance and desire for
clarification as you prompt a search around a selected word in the
Offering a couple of variations with an open-ended inflection or gesture will help the client continue to scan their own data base for the pertinent word and prompt a concomitant deep-structure search for the experience the word symbolizes. Thus the quest might extend into frame no. 2.
h. Draw a Context Frame
around the Present Frame.
HOW DO YOU KNOWs
The client may see the answer, a voice may tell them, they may have a feeling ... As you track their visual / auditory / kinesthetic experience of knowing you'll find more avenues opening.
The system always knows more than it first lets on.
There are always connections to other things in the client's life and to the greater scheme of things.
And a gentle prompt which allows the possibility of a connection between elements without presupposing one:
i. Add a 'Past' Frame.
- What could have prompted your need to change your life?
The present problem is almost certainly part of a pattern - a repeated sequence of similar events with a recognisable past and a predictable future. The moment a client recognizes a pattern they're half-way to changing it.
j. Add a 'Future' Frame.
- What would be the effect of changing your life?
- When you have changed your life then what happens?
- And what happens next?
Questions with intrinsic value, and in the context of those in Present and Past frames may help the client recognise a pattern-over-time to the problem.
k. Add a 'Higher' Frame.
Viewing the problem from a Higher, or Meta-, frame may reduce or nullify the importance of the problem or indicate where a solution may be found. The arrows indicate an escape from the Present while the question is considered, then a return to implement the shift. Remember the further questions - What Else? Anything Else? We always have an awareness of more than we can express in a given moment.
- What is important for you about changing your life?
- What is more important for you than that?
Note this is the 'significance' sense of 'mean' rather than the definition sense of 'What do you mean by...'? in the Present frame.
Majestic questions, not strictly reflective, but you may ask them in all innocence. They might be asked in any frame, but because of their potential power I locate them here.
l. Finally add a 'Metaphor' Frame.
Be creative. Relate a story or an analogy that opens up the frame. Constructing a genuinely therapeutic metaphor, however, requires great skill and practice. It must relate to your client in every particular (ref. 11). If you need to construct an outcome for your client (to which the metaphor leads), the outcome cannot be truly reflective. Even if the client has articulated an outcome for themselves you cannot be certain that your metaphor will lead them there if the elements in the metaphor are not client-generated.
All information on this web site (unless otherwise stated) is Copyright © 1997- Penny Tompkins and James Lawley of The Developing Company. All rights reserved. You may reproduce and disseminate any of our copyrighted information for personal use only providing the original source is clearly identified. If you wish to use the material for any other reason please contact: