My Blog

‘Treat all conversation as unsubstantiated rumour unless supported by non-verbal behaviour’.  John Grinder

I was attracted to the comment by one of my friends on facebook – ‘Substance vs Appearance’ and the debate that she had with one of her relatives about the basis on which we might vote. I was also fascinated by the programme on TV last night – ‘How to win the TV debate’ in which I discovered that John McCain was advised not to make eye contact with Barack Obama in case the disdain that he felt for him showed through.  Similarly when the debate manager sought to encourage them both to talk to each other (as I do in a group when someone has feedback for another) rather than to the audience – Obama immediately complied but McCain never did.

So my first question is ‘Is it substance VS appearance’? We presuppose versus whereas I have spent years teaching and believing that ‘Mind and Body’ are one.  So when I see Gordon Brown smile in way that seems to have no relevance to anything that is being said but seemingly more to comply with some off line advice about smiling often then I assume that he is not smiling on the inside and he is behaving in way that is designed to ‘appease’ the viewers. Whereas when I saw him storm out of a TV interview – that appeared entirely congruent! Most people can tell the difference between genuine laughter and smiles compared to enacted ones – and they tell us something about the person who has agreed to do this. Similarly the fact that Nick Clegg did keep his hand in his pocket tells us something (perhaps about flexibility or not or some kind of inhibition perhaps?) – time will tell and hence the value of the series of 3 debates.

I was uncomfortable with the fact that only Nick Clegg appeared to ever look at either David Cameron or Gordon Brown when they were speaking. Each seemed only to be intent on writing notes. Very interesting and highlights what I teach – the importance of knowing what you stand for – your outcomes and then having the flexibility, the trust and the sensitivity to respond in the moment in line with those. Not one of them ever appeared to do this. And that was what most people disliked about the debate – its scripted nature. We can tell the difference and we operate in an increasinly real time world. I expect our leaders to reflect this.

Gordon Brown had some well prepared catch phrases – “It is not Question time now David – this is answer time”! But as the reporter in the Sunday Times wrote he appeared to use them all up in the first half of the debate …I did however feel that Gordon Brown was more convincing on the policy for recovery from the recession with investment in jobs and industry as the key. I have long opposed the tendency to ‘cut’ when times are hard rather than be creative and invest in a future. So for me he had the edge here although the viewers poll at the time did not support this. Proactive rather than reactive. Interesting how Gordon Brown took the initiative (well planned?) to go down and shake the hands of the audience leaving both Nick Clegg and David Cameron a bit lemon like on the stage wondering what to do … bit of a paradox that one.. to follow and be seen to follow or remain and appear aloof.. Whoever suggested that one to Gordon Brown (if indeed they did) has a good mastery of the power of paradox.

I wonder naively what it might be like if instead of opposing each other they sought to support. I admire my son who appealed to the referee on behalf of the opposing side when their ball clearly was on the right side of the touch line and was applauded by all sides in doing so. Only recently in the finals of TopChef on French TV one of the candidates seeing the pan of butter of one of his fellow contestants  left it to burn with an aside ‘well he is my main opponent’ only to be humbled when this same ‘opponent’ helped him complete his dessert having run out of time to do so himself.

I dislike the use of the terms ‘come to power’ and ‘opponents’. I wonder how it might be if they were to search instead for ‘harmony’ or ‘co-operation’. What if a candidate were to openly accept that he liked another candidates manifesto and would support it whoever ‘came to power’. Surely that would indicate a greater interest in the good of the country than  a need to fight anything that anyone other than they had to say.

So I am watching for who appears to act in line with their stated beliefs and values rather than a suggested behavioural tactic designed to humiliate or put down. And whose manifesto appears to align with the outcomes and values by which I seek to live my life. I spend time coaching people and myself to a state of congruence. I live a large part of the year in France. How would I ever vote for someone who was not a Europhile?

I will watch with interest in the next two debates. How will David Cameron and Gordon Brown react to the news that the Liberal Democrats are ahead in the polls for leadership after round 1 of this debate? Will they be glad for him.. hmm I doubt it. If just one of them were to respond to anothers abstract statement of intent with a clean question – “in what way Gordon/David/Nick?” I think that once I had recovered from the shock I would be committing all to vote for them.

So for me mind and body are one.  By looking at one we get clues about the other.  We know what Gordon Brown is like as a leader of our country. I believe that those who emerge naturally as leaders have many traits including the ability to put their own feelings and reactions second to the cause of others and the country and world.  We will only know how either of the other two will be as leader of the country when they are leader of the country. The answer is in the experience. The next two debates will be interesting (it would not take much to surpass the sterile nature of the first!).

And Nick – do please wear a darker suit and take your hand out of your pocket!!!

Sue

I am often asked how I got into NLP. The term was unheard of (by me) at the time that this key door in my life opened up. I had not long left ICL and formed my own business after years in what I had believed to be a ’safe’ working environment. Starting my own business meant writing lots of training material/brochures and handouts and although I considered myself to be a fairly good writer I seemed to keep getting stuck in this whole domain.. Maybe unconsciously I realised that this was so important that I had to get it ‘right’n and that was where I was getting stuck. So I enrolled on a creative writing course (Strange now to know what a signficant step in my life that would be and just goes to show we usually don’t plan the key steps in our lives..).  I was surprised when I arrived on the course to note that there was a writer and ‘another’ whose role was not entirely clear at first. This ‘other’ was Roy Johnson who had ‘modelled’ the writer’s skills so that they could both impart them to us – the delegates. I was intrigued by the process but even more intrigued and attracted by Roy. I had rarely seen someone interact with such elegance  - the way that he listened, questioned, moved, spoke. I think a part of me fell in love with Roy and I decided  that however he had learned to do what he did that I wanted to learn that too. Roy was to be one of the key models of excellence in my life. He explained that he had learnt much of his craft through NLP and gave me the name of a training school (UKTC). I enrolled for years course on the basis of his example not on what I understood NLP to be as at that time I had no idea of the theoretical definitions of what it was. I have so much to thank Roy for. I am not sure that I ever said that to him. It was his graceful yet powerful style and the unassuming context in which he was working at that time that led to so much for me and the amazing life that I have now.  Thank you Roy – you gave me more than you ever knew… and undoubtedly so many others too.Roy died last week of cancer.Love, Sue

Laughter is carbonated holiness

Anne Lamott

 What has laughter to do with excellence? Surely the excellence is a serious affair and no laughing matter. Well I am about to dispel that myth. The ability to stand back and laugh at oneself has to be one of the surest ways of cutting through the web of tangled myths that we create for ourselves. Something happens in our brains when we laugh. Change occurs. We hotwire the lifeless engine in our mind that has become stuck with too much serious deliberation to the source of energy that can spark us into life again. To laugh at oneself implies that we can stand back and see and hear ourselves, and that is part of the remedy. When we are stuck in only our own perception of a scenario we have limited choice. Standing back we discover a horizon way beyond the old boundary fence with which we have hemmed ourselves in.

 Think of the people you admire, people you hold up as models of excellence. I would be prepared to wager that many of them have the ability to laugh at themselves, to laugh with others and to generate humour. Humour has always been a part of NLP in the way that it is taught. When Richard Bandler and John Grinder, the founders of the term NLP began their research into excellence, one of the first people they modelled was Frank Farrelly, already famous for his Provocative Therapy. Provocative can mean many things and in the context of the way that Frank works it means to provoke a healing response and part of that healing takes place through laughter.

 Research has shown that the ability to laugh at the same things is one of the ingredients for a successful relationship; that incompatibility in what we find amusing can be the deciding factor in whether or not we stay together. It is also now believed that humour has played a key role in the development of human beings  to become the species that we are today (good and bad!) But what we know is that when we laugh we lower our stress levels and boost our immunity and human growth hormones.  Simultaneously we lower the incidence of those hormones that cause obstructions in our arteries and we lower blood pressure. Laughter is a mechanism for change and healing and is present in most models of excellence.  Surprising then that so many coaches expect to be serious in their interactions with their clients!

 Since those early NLP days we have seen the move of this provocative style into many other contexts including business. The outrageous responses and humour that characterises this approach has always been a part of the way that NLP has been taught by some of the founders of the concept. Strange then that it is rarely documented. There are many books on NLP, few that describe the use of humour and its power to heal, to strip away the patterns of sabotage to get to the truth and to build instant and powerful rapport. This is often the way; the one thing that is instrumental to all the rest is often the very thing that is omitted. The key to our excellence often lies in the very things that we take for granted and consciously delete. When I first met David Hemery and John Whitmore and experienced their GROW model of coaching I was  overwhelmed by their amazing ability to build rapport with the people they were coaching. And yet at first the concept of rapport was not something they included in their writing and yet they are masters of rapport in their own different and remarkable ways. They took for granted one of the things that they did with astounding excellence. They do now include it!! And I recommend that not only do you read their book but that you also experience their amazing skills in action.

 What I do offer in this chapter is how, as a coach or just as someone who wants to connect quickly and powerfully at a deep level with others, you can access this liberating humour. The elements offered here are based on my years of modelling Frank Farrelly in action and observing humour at work in everyday work and personal contexts. Humour has become increasingly a part of my style of training.

This is the start of one of the new chapters in the 3rd edition of NLP at Workavailable from amazon here http://bit.ly/aCWQQ5I will be adding more snippets from my book in the next few weeks… with more on the How to discover the humour in situations

Dear Frank,My very dear friend and mentor. I am mailing you from the south of India. It is warm. I am sitting on our balcony in the house we rent in amongst some of the very poor people who live beside the backwaters. I have rarely met a more friendly and smiley people. Each morning the women carry their pots to the standing taps on the roadside to fill up for their days supply of water. Today they were filling up more than usual so I suspect that the water supply is about to be cut off for some time. And sitting here I am seeing you and June so very clearly in my minds eye. And I thank God for the difference that you have both made to my life with what I have learned and continue to learn from you Frank and what I learn from the love that you have shown June throughout all the time that I have known you and especially now. Oprah Winfrey is quoted as saying she is where she is because of the bridges she encountered in her life. And those bridges were people. You are one of my bridges Frank and you continue to be so as you face this biggest challenge of all – the losing of a love so close … to another place .. where she will be waiting for you. It is you who has the challenge of being with that loss from this earth and you are showing me the grace with which to be with that. Frank you and June are in my prayers and continue to be so and I thank you for all that you give even at this very intimate and emotional time.Love SueSome people may only see the outrageous and the provocative and yet to be that there has to be this grace and love underpinning it all. Thank you for sharing your love with us all.