For over a decade now I have been fascinated by the heated arguments that are sparked around the issue of neuro-linguistic programming or NLP. These differences are at odds with what NLP is meant to be about. This recurring theme of conflict was highlighted recently and I again wondered why do people get heated about this subject?
In the pub on Good Friday, chatting with friends, who in their professional lives are i) a Consultant Neurologist (the highly qualified medical school consultant), and ii) Change Consultant (works with organisations to help deliver Change programmes) when the subject of NLP comes up………………my interest levels spiked, and I made a bet with myself that this would turn into an interesting debate and was unlikely to have a winner, especially considering the background of my two friends.
You see I have inevitably found over the years that when the matter of NLP is raised it causes conflict between certain people especially if they have psychotherapy backgrounds versus a psychiatry background. The subject is one I put into the marmite category – you love it or hate it.
If you go onto Wikipedia you get the following definition – Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a controversial approach to psychotherapy and organizational change based on “a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them” and “a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour”.
Full article on NeuroLinguistic Programming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
Now if you dig on the discussion page of Wikipedia – this is where the editors who create the definitions have a public debate – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming you will see that there is a heated debate about definitions, changes, and even conflict of interest issues raised. Not even those that are writing about the subject can avoid getting drawn into the funnel cloud of what often becomes a tornado around this subject.
Again look into the history – Bandler and Grinder are the two co-founders who started talking about NLP in the 1970’s but were still in legal disputes with each other as late as 1996.
So the question that I have tried to understand over the years is why this dynamic tension around NLP. I think there are two main views one is scientific, one is more practical and business orientated. This is a good summary of the arguments amongst the players from a scientific standpoint.
‘The main scientific criticisms of NLP are firstly, critics argue that NLP’s claims for scientific respectability are not based on the scientific method. In response advocates of NLP argue that NLP is a pragmatic discipline, largely interested in what “works” rather than existing theory. Second, there is a lack of empirical research or evidence to support the core aspects of NLP or the claim that NLP is an effective and rapid set of techniques for enhancing psycho-therapeutic practice, interpersonal communication and social influence. One of the originators of NLP, John Grinder, retorts that the meta model was based on his expertise in linguistics and empirical work in collaboration with Richard Bandler in the early 1970s. However, critics maintain that the experimental research that does exist has been overall unsupportive of the central assumptions and core models of NLP, and that it is therefore up to the proponents to back up their models and claims of effectiveness with evidence.’ (Wikipedia 2010).
The issues around NLP became clearer to me when I was listening to a business ‘Change’ story. As you will see from my synopsis of the story a lot of the themes or principles that NLP tries to address are covered:
We were filming Lord Sharman and he tells the story of how he had been in charge of the change programme at KPMG. During that time his team had created something called the ‘Hustlers Guide to Change at KPMG’ a short booklet of opinions from KPMG people about what they thought people needed to know to get on in KPMG. As part of that process several contributors suggested that there should be a weekly e-mail that went out to update people on the change programme and to talk through some of their experiences, and to share some of the successes of the program.
This weekly e-mail became a powerful diagnostic tool. What Lord Sharman realized in sending out the weekly e-mail, is that he had created a very useful tool that simply worked out who was interested in the change programme and who was not. You see most of the people opened the e-mail and read it, those that didn’t were not. And once his team checked in with these individuals they were able to identify the passive resistors of the change project, i.e. those that silently sat there and did nothing and because of their silence the most difficult to convince to change. Once they had been identified then you could actively work on them and help them adapt or change.
Now at no point during this interview does Lord Sharman refer to this process or exercise in the context of NLP. But as I reflected on the scenario he experienced and if you look at the definition of NLP and what Sharman’s overall objectives were this was in fact a good real life case study.
Plus it highlighted another key aspect of what several practitioners of NLP have said to me over the years, which is that the techniques really work and they can effect an individual and help them change.
In the Lord Sharman scenario the e-mail tool begins with starting out as a communications tool but by using the tool in real life some smart people realised that it was in fact an excellent diagnostic tool.
But let us ask this – if these tools or techniques do work – are we really making sure that we are using them properly? Are we teaching the users what effect they can have on their subjects? Are we teaching how to handle things safely and in a proper manner?
One of the biggest dynamic tensions is that the training on NLP can be anything from 2 days for superficial learning to several months for more in depth understanding. Those that have a superficial knowledge of something don’t really understand its uses or the full influence it can have and therefore do not understand the dangers they and the people they use it on face. This is a source for conflict.
Another tension is ‘Change’ itself – change in people or even more challenging change in an organisation takes time, effort and needs a combination of things to be pulled together to be truly effective. As we evolve through a ‘Change’ process we find some things work for some people and don’t for others, the same is evident in organisational change. So often delivering change needs a combination of things to make it effective, it is not black and white and more grey – again a source for divergent opinions and heated debate.
So going back to the pub and my two friends the only clear outcome between them was they differed in opinion and as such I won my small bet to myself and bought the next round of drinks.
I recently met with Spencer Holmes who is the managing director of Global Project Leaders Ltd. He runs projects, trains and consults globally on the subject. His passion is for helping project managers develop the resilience required to thrive in an increasingly pressurised world. His company can be found at www.projectleaders.com
