By Adrian BrownRecently I’ve been looking more in depth at the business applications of NLP and there seems to be one thing that can completely transform a business overnight. When the people in an organisation examine their business and reconsider the basic assumptions about how things should be done this can radically change things. In the late 90’s when I was working as a management accountant, one of the biggest furniture stores decided to radically change the way they organised their finance function. Faced with escalating costs to provide budget management, they decided to ask the question whether it was worth it and stopped using budgets all together. The general attitude at the time was “we must have budgets” and “everyone has budgets” but this organisation asked, “How do you know?” In NLP terms, they challenged the presuppositions and from this new ideas started to flow. So let’s have a quick review of presuppositions. These are words or phrases that are included in a sentence which, in general, go unchallenged by the listener. If I said, “Tom’s dog ran after the ball”, the listener would generally accept that a dog exists, a person named Tom exists, Tom owns a dog, the dog has the ability to run and so on. These things are seldom questioned and are just taken as fact since it would be a ridiculous conversation if you didn’t! The magic lies in being able to notice presuppositions and identify where it would be useful to examine them further. As an NLP practitioner you are taught to either use presuppositions strategically to influence people or to challenge their validity by asking questions such as “how do you know?” For language to make sense, there is a presupposition in every sentence, so which ones do we examine further? In business there are lots of systems and ways of doing things that have been done since an industry was conceived. These are the areas that often hide potential for innovation and improved efficiency. Most people in an organisation have been operating in a particular way for so long that they would never think of questioning the approach. Often when a problem arises, a presupposition often dictates how things operate and hence limits the potential solutions. So, in the industry that you work in, consider what is presupposed by all those involved and see how many areas could potentially provide innovation. Listen for phrases such as “Everyone knows that” and “We’ve always done it this way”. These are often indicators that there’s a potential for improvement. For example, let’s have a look at book sales. Before online books stores, the following presuppositions existed. Books are made of paper People like going to shops to buy books To look at the pages you need to have the book in your hands To read a book you need to have it printed on paper Your staff had to be knowledgeable on the books As we all know, none of the above are true but the industry acted as if they were true until people challenged the presuppositions and from that came up with new ideas. From your list of presuppositions ask questions such as How do you know it’s true? Will that always be true? Does anyone think otherwise? This all may seem very simple but if you have been involved in something a long time, you may not be able to spot them easily. Innovation often comes from a person new to an industry who asks “awkward” questions. Remember that NLP was developed from a mathematician asking about psychiatry. So I challenge you to start thinking about what things are taken for granted in your business and the other areas of your life that, when examined, may give you new ideas on what’s truly possible.
1 Comment
There’s plenty of news in the media in Europe about burnout. And though we face high amounts of stress on a daily basis, some people are more vulnerable to burnout than others, due to their personality. What makes the difference? The term burnout was coined in 1974 to describe the reactions of workers to chronic stress. Stress is our standard reaction to external danger, and finds its origin in our way to survive in a world of predators. We produce adrenaline and suppress our cognitive processes, to use all of our energy to fight or to flee. When you produce adrenaline for a longer period of time, the body replaces the production of adrenaline by producing the hormone cortisol. Cortisol compensates our loss of energy in the body, but it also suppresses our immune system. Once the immune system has been suppressed for some time, the smallest incident can cause a “crash” which provokes the burnout. It’s as if all of our energy has left our body. The long period of recovery after a burnout has nothing to do with the stress. It’s the immune system that needs the time – sometimes years – to recover. That is why, when someone is at home recovering from burnout, they can be happy and free of stress, but they still miss the energy to go to work. It’s clear that to suffer burnout, people need to be exposed to high doses of stress over a longer period of time. This means that in your personality you have to have certain preferences that make you perceive that you must undergo this stress, that you do not have a choice. While someone else with other personal preferences has the choice to escape this stressful situation, and often do so. Here are some of these important preferences – in NLP we call them meta-programs – with a big influence on our vulnerability to burnout. These preferences are contextual. This means that you could have a particular preference in the workplace, but for example not in your relationships. A first preference is to like to have everything the same. You prefer to stay in the same job, with the same employer, in the same function. Some people go as far as driving the same way from home to work, needing to have the same parking spot … or their day will be ruined. If this weren’t your preference in a high stress situation, you would have changed jobs long time ago. But in your perception, somehow it seems to be impossible. A second preference is to always seek external confirmation for the work you do. You’d love to know whether or not you did a good job, and time and again you go ask colleagues, your boss, your customers … anyone for feedback. You have a difficult time evaluating yourself as to whether or not you did a good job. This is especially difficult when you don’t get that confirmation, maybe because your boss is experiencing a difficult time or because your task is taking too long. A third preference is to put yourself in the shoes of others all of the time: “What will my colleagues say? If I’m reporting sick, someone else will have to take over, so let’s continue doing whatever I’m doing.” How you can protect yourself? Increase your mental resistance. You can do this through self-study, or by attending an NLP training or alike. At least, learn to relax. Start taking up some physical activity or sport. Having a daily walk of about 20 minutes can suffice already. Increase the flexibility of your body, for example through practicing yoga or Pilates. Watch what you eat and drink plenty of water. Take a hobby on which you spend some time every week, and in which personal expression is important: painting, drawing, learning a musical instrument, take drama classes … How a coach can help you now with stress and burnout:
You want to know more? Attend one of our free sessions. Do you want to learn more? Join us on one of our Free ONLINE Seminars!
This is where we get it all wrong, most people are not resistant to change. If you don't believe that, notice the speed at which the music CD replaced the LP record, and how fast the mp3-player replaced the CD. We all like to have the latest and greatest model of smartphone ... So if we are not resistant to change, how come we think we are? This is because most people don't like disruption in their life. We are willing to change if: - the change is improving our situation in some way or another, e.g. making our lives easier (I want to change) - not changing will take us to the end of the queue (e.g. not having a smartphone lowers our status) (I need to change ... to avoid disrupting my current situation) - we know what to change (vision) - we know how to change (I can change) - we are convinced that the change will happen without disruption of our level of security and comfort (it's safe to change) - we see a result of the change within a reasonable timeframe (minimum time of disruption) To keep the change, make it hard to fall back. Once we have migrated our addresses, emails, music, photos and all our apps to our new smartphone, it's hard to go back to the old phone without loosing something. Learn more about change? Join us at one of our free ONLINE seminars. It’s probably a cliché to say that we live in times of big changes. Perhaps we just don’t notice the things that haven’t changed. The world-known auteur of management books, Henry Mintzberg, says: “You can’t manage change without managing continuity. Change without continuity is anarchy.” It’s a good idea to put this into perspective, and that is why I share this excerpt from Scientific American: “It is not too much to say ... that more has been done, richer and more prolific discoveries have been made, grandeur achievements have been realized, in the course of the 50 years of our own lifetime than in all the previous lifetime of the race. It is in the three momentous matters of light, locomotion and communication that the progress effected in this generation contrasts surprisingly with the aggregate of the progress effected in all generations put together since the earliest dawn of authentic history.” This was published in Scientific American in 1867, about 145 years ago! We can support you with Change Management in your organization, contact us! I am just back from Orlando, being part of the assisting team of Dr. Richard Bandler, John La Valle and Kathleen La Valle. We did several short interviews, of which you will see the results soon here, and in between my wonderful colleague, Xavier Pirla, also a Master Trainer of NLP, from Barcelona, wanted to record this recommendation for me ...
A young, enthusiastic MBA was finally given the opportunity to apply his learning. He was asked to carry out a survey of a group with which he was not normally familiar and submit recommendations as to how its efficiency could be increased. He selected as his target a symphony orchestra. Having read up on the tools of the trade, he attended his first concert and submitted the following analysis:
a. For considerable periods, the four oboe players had nothing to do. The number of oboes should therefore be reduced, and the work spread more evenly over the whole concert program, thus eliminating the peaks and valleys of activity. b. All twenty violins were playing identical notes. This would seem to be an unnecessary duplication, so the staff of this section should be cut drastically. c. Obsolescence of equipment is another matter warranting further investigation. The program noted that the leading violinist’s instrument was several hundred years old. Now, if normal depreciation schedules had been applied, the value of this instrument would have been reduced to zero and the purchase of more modern equipment recommended long ago. d. Much effort was absorbed in the playing of demisemiquavers, which seems to be an unnecessary refinement. It is recommended that all notes be rounded up to the nearest semiquaver. If this were done, it would be possible to use trainees and lower-grade operatives more extensively. e. In many cases, the operators were using one hand to hold their instruments. The introduction of a fixture would free that hand for other work. Also, it was noted that excessive effort was being used by the players of wind instruments whereas, one compressor could supply enough air for all the instruments – and under more accurately controlled conditions. f. Finally, there seemed to be too much repetition of some of the musical passages. Therefore, scores should be pruned to a considerable extent. No useful purpose is served by repeating on the horns something which has already been handled by the strings. It is estimated that, if all redundant passages were eliminated, the whole concert time of two hours could be reduced to twenty minutes and there would be no need for an intermission. Published in the mid 1950s in an American professor’s bulletin, a Canadian military journal, and Harper’s Magazine, an anonymous memorandum circulating in London and probably originally in Her Majesty’s Treasury of the Courts. |
AuthorsMarc Innegraeve. Archives
April 2022
Categories
All
|