On 12 September 2019, our Training Director, Professor Joel Lee, published a blog post on the Kluwer Mediation Blog entitled "A Neuro-Linguist's Toolbox - Self-Care and Improvement: Preliminary Thoughts". His blog post is reproduced in full below.

A Brief Recap

I have been looking into matters of self-care and personal improvement for mediators recently and was surprised to find that, even though there has been some writing on this, there isn’t a lot. So, I would like to focus my next section of blog entries in the “Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox” series.

For readers who are new, the “Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox” series is an ongoing series focused on using Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) in our practice of amicable dispute resolution. The first section (with 6 entries) focused on rapport

1. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – A Starting Point and Building Rapport
2. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – Rapport: Non-Verbal Behaviours
3. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – Rapport: Representational Systems (Part 1)
4. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – Rapport: Representational Systems (Part 2)
5. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – Rapport: Values
6. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – Rapport: Metaphors

Now that the preliminaries are out of the way, onward to self-care and improvement. It is trite, or at least it should be, that as mediators, self-care and improvement should be an important part of our practice. I say this for three reasons.

Self-Care and Improvement

First, as mediators, we are constantly exposed to conflict and have to deal with strong emotions and high levels of stress, not just the parties but our own. This is in addition to whatever conflicts, emotions and stresses that we have to deal with in the other contexts of our own lives. And while some of us can dissociate and keep the contexts separate, the reality of it is that these build up and leak between contexts.

How many of you feel exhausted at the end of a particularly intense mediation? In the medical community, there is the anecdotal phenomena of some nurses and doctors manifesting the symptoms of their patients. There are similar reports in therapy and counselling and this is often associated with burnout and PTSD. If this is accurate, then there is every reason to expect that the conflicts, emotions and stresses associated with our mediation work can leak into and shade the other contexts of our lives.

Secondly, as mediators, we are often unconscious behavioural models for parties. How we approach conflict, manage emotions and deal with stresses can significantly influence how parties behave in a mediation. So, it is important that we be in the best state we can be in when starting a mediation and maintain the best ongoing state as the mediation progresses.

Finally, as a matter of practice, it is often good to reflect upon what we did well during the course of the mediation and what did not go as gloriously. The key, of course, is to positively reinforce the things we did well and to identify what could have been done differently, with a view to improvement. Life of course, is not always this easy.

Sometimes, what gets in the way of good reflective practice are our personal demons, insecurities and emotions. As a result of some bad experiences, some mediators experience identity quakes about their abilities to mediate well. Others may feel strong negative emotions in dealing with conflict or certain types of parties. These will impair our performance and our ability to learn and develop.

Some Reflections

There is an internet meme (I know others disagree but I feel there is a lot of wisdom on the internet!)

As people helpers, if we do not find some way to take care of ourselves, we are no good to the people we are supposed to help.

I remember a visit to the Samadhan Mediation Centre when I was in New Delhi for a conference on mediation. As we were shown around the facilities, we came across a room, curiously labeled “Meditation Room”. Initially I thought it was a misspelling of “Mediation Room”. However, upon clarification, we were told that the room was for the Samadhan Mediation Centre’s mediators to meditate; before and/or after their mediation session.

While meditation does take on connotations of mental voyages and in some cultures mysticism, if we look at this simply as spending time alone, and sorting out and coming to terms with one’s own thoughts and emotions, then the self-care and improvement aspect is evident. In a sense, meditation is self-mediation.

The Non-NLP ways of Self-Care

Let’s get out of the way the things that we can and should do by way of self-care that is not NLP related.

1. Get sufficient sleep
2. Exercise regularly
3. Attend to your food needs
4. Make time for yourself

And these things in and of themselves can already take you a long way. And if you were to search on the internet, there will be sites that list many more things that you can do to look after yourself. I have simply identified these four as fundamental.

Why NLP then?

NLP started off when its co-founders John Grinder and Richard Bandler modelled Virginia Satir (Systemic Family Therapist), Fritz Perls (Gestalt Therapy) and Milton Erickson (Clinical Hypnotherapy) and distilled the patterns of behaviour that allowed them to perform the therapeutic “miracles” they did. So in a sense, NLP had its beginnings in the helping professions and even today, NLP provides some of the more powerful methods of engendering personal development and change.

As a primer for the next entries to follow, I would like to briefly share with readers how NLP sees the interplay between Physiology, State and Representation.

Physiology

Physiology is fairly straightforward. It refers to our body; how we sit, stand, move, etc.

State

State refers to how we feel at any moment. These are the sensations we feel inside us; location, temperature, movement, etc. While it might be tempting to call these emotions, they are not necessarily the same thing. Emotions are the linguistic labels we have attached to the sensations we feel. Imagine as a child, you might have a sensation in your stomach region that feels tight, knotted and stuck. As a child, you would only know the sensation. You would have no words to describe it and would not know it as an emotion. You simply feel the sensation and it would manifest in your behaviours. Then an adult comes by, observes your behaviour and says “You’re feeling frustration!”. Now you have a word to describe how you feel. But it is important to realise that the emotional label is not the sensations that make up the state.

Representations

Representations refers to the way we represent the world inside our heads. Try this thought experiment. In a moment, not yet, I would like you to think of a “dog”. 

In order for you to do that, you probably had in your mind:

You might have had only one of these or a combination of more than one. In NLP terms, we represent the world to ourselves in one of these six ways. The first 5 relate to the senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste. The sixth way of representing the world is more meta, more digital and is more a label without connection to any particular sense. The word “DOG” has nothing to do with any of the senses. It is simply a label in much the same way that an “emotion” is simply a label for the sensations we feel.

In Closing

From NLP’s perspective, Physiology, State and Representation interact systemically. Put another way, when we experience something, our physiology, representation and state have to form a certain configuration. NLP posits that by changing one of these aspects of the configuration, we can change the experience. The easiest of these 3 aspects to change is actually physiology and we will explore how to do this in future entries. For the moment, a humourous illustration of this is Charlie Brown’s depressed stance.

This is not to say that we cannot alter our state or representations and this will also be something to explore in future entries.

I trust this gives us a good starting point to considering self-care and improvement in future entries. In the meantime, take care of yourself so you can take care of others!

To learn more about how Neuro-Linguistic Programming can help you, join us on the journey towards solving "The People Puzzle" - Prof Joel's flagship NLP training series. Obtain the blueprint to achieve greater self-awareness, enhance communication with others, and connect with people more effectively.

Unlock the People Puzzle today! 👉 https://peacemakers.sg/the-people-puzzle/

On 12 January 2019, our Training Director, Professor Joel Lee, published a blog post on the Kluwer Mediation Blog entitled "A Neuro-Linguist's Toolbox - Rapport: Metaphors". His blog post is reproduced in full below.

A Brief Recap

This entry is an ongoing series focused on using Neuro-Linguistic Programming in our practice of amicable dispute resolution. For ease of reference and the convenience of readers, I will list in this and subsequent entries the series and links to it.

1. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – A Starting Point and Building Rapport
2. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – Rapport: Non-Verbal Behaviours
3. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – Rapport: Representational Systems (Part 1)
4. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – Rapport: Representational Systems (Part 2)
5. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – Rapport: Values

In the previous instalments in this series, we explored building rapport by pacing non-verbal behaviours, representational systems and values. In the sixth of this series, I would like to focus on pacing something as deep as, if not deeper than, values; metaphors.

Metaphors

The followers of this series who have read parts 3 & 4 will remember that visual, auditory or kinesthetic predicates are often taken to be metaphorical expressions when in fact, they function quite literally. When someone says “I see what you are saying”, they are actually looking at an internal image/movie that represents what they have constructed from what you have said. The same is true in the auditory or kinesthetic representational systems when they say “That sounds sensible” or “That feels right” respectively.

That these (often assumed to be) metaphorical expressions are literal does not mean that our brains are literal. The thinking in cognitive psychology, narrative theory and neuroscience suggest that the human brains function associatively. Put simply, things, ideas and concepts are connected to and associated with other things, ideas and concepts.

How Connections Occur

These connections occur in one of two ways. The first is a cause and effect, i.e. X leads to Y. For example, someone might say “Exercising makes me strong”. This connection is quite straightforward and will probably have few people disagree with them. However, a cause and effect statement like “Being a man makes me an angry and aggressive person” is probably a connection that will take a few more mental leaps for others to get. And even when they do get it, they may not agree. The point however is that this cause and effect connection is very real for the person making the statement. In other words, it is a belief.

Perhaps we will discuss beliefs in a subsequent instalment in this series. For this instalment, I would like to focus on the second connection. This is the equating of 2 things, ideas or concepts with another, i.e. X = Y. In NLP, this is referred to as a complex equivalent. For example, “My love is like a house on fire” or “Life is an uphill battle” or “In business, it’s a jungle out there”. In each of these examples, you will see that two things are equated; “Love” with “House on Fire”, “Life” with “Uphill Battle", and the “Business” context with “Jungle”. These are also all beliefs but expressed metaphorically.

At this point, it is useful to point out that while in language, there are technical differences between analogies, similes and metaphors, it is sufficient for our purpose to take a metaphor to be any equivalence between two things, ideas or concepts.

Let's play!

Take the time to complete the following equivalences (If it is easier, one can exclude the word “like”):

Love is like…

Life is like…

Conflict is like…

Negotiation is like…

Mediation is like…

Take a moment to compare your list of equivalences with mine and then with the third list. Are there any that are the same? Or, while not exactly the same, have a similar intent or spirit? Perhaps diametrically opposed?

What do our Metaphors mean?

These equivalences or metaphors are how we perceive and interact with the world.

For each metaphor, there are values and beliefs associated with that metaphor. Someone who sees conflict as fighting a war may believe that in a conflict, there must be a winner or a loser. That there will be casualties or collateral damage and that having superior fire power will determine the outcome.

This person will see the world very differently from the person who sees conflict as growth who does not necessarily think that there is a winner or loser. S/he may consider that conflict means helping each other learn.

And of course, these metaphors affect our behaviours as we interact with the world.

Therefore, learning to identify the metaphors people hold in various contexts can give us significant insight into their mindset and their behaviours. And this can be done conversationally by simply asking them in relation to any particular thing “What’s that like for you?” So, if we were talking about conflict, you could ask me, “What’s conflict like for you?”

Building Rapport

Sometimes, the metaphor will just pop straight out. Other times, it may be “hidden” within various things they say. This is when listening skills come in very useful. Metaphors surface in the things people say. For example, “We need to strengthen our defenses” or “We are fighting a war against ignorance”. If these are statements that stem from a particular metaphorical view of the world, what would that metaphor be? For example, “strengthening defenses” could come from a metaphor of war or battle. It could invoke feelings of being under siege or losing ground. And the metaphor itself implies that they see that particular context as a win-lose situation.

Once we can hear and identify these metaphors, the issue isn’t whether we agree with them or see them the same way. We can use them to build rapport by pacing their reality. This can be done by using the same terms, or speaking to their values or beliefs. For example, with someone who sees conflict as a battle, we can use metaphors of war to connect with them. This will build rapport with them at a fairly deep level.

How do we practice this?

At this point, it is important to point out that because metaphors shade into the content of what we do, it may not always be helpful to only pace their metaphorical world view. Doing this will only tap into a metaphor that may not be conducive to our purposes. For example, if we were negotiating a dispute and our counterpart saw negotiation as a battle, buying into that win-lose paradigm would not be helpful, especially if your metaphor is an incompatible one.

The key thing to remember is that for the purposes of building rapport, we must first pace their model of the world and understand their reality. Once we have rapport, we can then lead them in a more useful or conducive direction. In terms of metaphor work, this could mean reframing their metaphor or utilizing it or evolving it. Discussing these interventions is outside the scope of this entry and may be the subject of a future instalment in this series.

That brings us to the end of this entry and also concludes the section on building rapport. It is hoped that this section has provided readers with more tools in their toolbox (you should be noticing the metaphor here) to connect with others in the contexts you operate within and that readers have found these tools helpful and empowering.

To learn more about how Neuro-Linguistic Programming can help you, join us on the journey towards solving "The People Puzzle" - Prof Joel's flagship NLP training series. Obtain the blueprint to achieve greater self-awareness, enhance communication with others, and connect with people more effectively.

Unlock the People Puzzle today! 👉 https://peacemakers.sg/the-people-puzzle/

On 12 December 2018, our Training Director, Professor Joel Lee, published a blog post on the Kluwer Mediation Blog entitled "A Neuro-Linguist's Toolbox - Rapport: Values". His blog post is reproduced in full below.

A Brief Recap

This entry is an ongoing series focused on using Neuro-Linguistic Programming in our practice of amicable dispute resolution. For ease of reference and the convenience of readers, I will list in this and subsequent entries the series and links to it.

1. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – A Starting Point and Building Rapport
2. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – Rapport: Non-Verbal Behaviours
3. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – Rapport: Representational Systems (Part 1)
4. A Neuro-Linguist’s Toolbox – Rapport: Representational Systems (Part 2)

In the previous instalments in this series, we explored building rapport by pacing non-verbal behaviours or representational systems. In the fifth of this series, I would like to focus on pacing something deeper than just behaviours, values.

Values

In NLP, values are things which are important to us. They are higher level generalisations that help us decide whether actions (ours or others) or a particular situation is good or bad, or right or wrong. In some NLP circles, values are also referred to as “criteria”.

This is better illustrated by an example. Can you think of a time when somebody did or said something that you were affronted by or that you found offensive? As you think about that time and work through your initial emotional response to it, what was it about that person’s action that caused you to be so upset? What did his/her action mean to you? Why was it important to you? Chances are that anytime that an action upsets us significantly, it is because it goes against one of our values.

What are our values?

It is not easy to identify these values because they are deeply held and often unconscious to us. They can however be elicited. For example, if I were to ask you this “What is important to you in a relationship”?

Do take a moment to fully consider this question. What word or phrases come up? What do you want? Why is what you want important? As you identify these words or phrases, you will probably come up with a list of 3-7 items. My list would be:

• Fun
• Touch
• Love
• Togetherness
• Communication

Based on this list, I am not likely to stay in a relationship with someone that likes to spend time alone, does not like physical contact or is very serious. I will instead gravitate to someone with whom these values are met.

At this point, it is important to be clear. This is my list of values of what is important to me in a relationship. Yours will look different. It may be longer or shorter and may share common values with my list. And everyone else’s list will be unique to them.

How do we use this for Conflict Resolution?

Following the same principle of building rapport using non-verbal behaviours or representational systems, one simply paces. This can be done by feeding those values back to speaker when one summarizes or paraphrases, or by getting them to elaborate on what those values mean to them. By doing so, the listener gets a clear sense that you not only appreciate something that is core to them, but are interested in finding out more about what is important to them.

For example, someone might say “Things worked well for a while and then he stopped sharing information. At that point, I wasn’t sure I could trust him anymore.”

In this short sentence, two critical bits of information jump out. The first is that the counterpart stopped sharing information. The second was that, as a result of the counterpart stopping the sharing of information, trust was affected.

Often, when a speaker expresses a value, it is often accompanied by tonal or behavioural marking. What this means is that the speaker will manifest some kind of tonal or behavioural change while expressing that value. This could be pausing before the word, or saying it in a different volume, or manifesting a facial colour change or using gestures to emphasize that value.

How can we be sure?

Of course, right now, we are simply making an educated guess. What is important is to test the hypothesis. For example, we could paraphrase/summarise and ask them whether trust (or communication) is important to them in a working relationship. We could ask them to say more about what trust means to them and why it is important. We can even feed that particular value back to them and watch that response. Often, when you have correctly identified the value, by feeding it back to them, you will see a congruent non-verbal acknowledgement from them. And if we have correctly identified a value, doing this will itself will build rapport with that party.

I appreciate that this may sound quite complicated. The good news is that mediators already do this as part of their practice, but not in relation to values but in relation to interests. As mediators, we are trained to elicit the interests of parties by asking questions that probe for what is important behind the positions they come to the table with. And because parties aren’t always explicit about their interests, we are also trained to “listen between the lines” to identify what is important to them.

These same skill sets are applicable to eliciting and listening for values. And the bonus is that when eliciting for interests, values often pop out. In fact, some of the higher level interests are often expressed as values.

How do we practice this?

What follows is an activity that can help you hone your ability to elicit and listen for values.

This has, of course, been a necessarily brief tour of values within NLP with a particular focus on building rapport. Values can be utilized in other ways like persuasion or personal change which may be explored in future entries. Enjoy!

To learn more about how Neuro-Linguistic Programming can help you, join us on the journey towards solving "The People Puzzle" - Prof Joel's flagship NLP training series. Obtain the blueprint to achieve greater self-awareness, enhance communication with others, and connect with people more effectively.

Unlock the People Puzzle today! 👉 https://peacemakers.sg/the-people-puzzle/

On 10 June 2018, our Training Director, Professor Joel Lee, published a blog post on the Kluwer Mediation Blog entitled "A Neuro-Linguist's Toolbox - Rapport: Representational Systems (Part 2)". His blog post is reproduced in full below.

A Brief Recap

This entry is an ongoing series focused on using Neuro-Linguistic Programming in our practice of amicable dispute resolution. For ease of reference and the convenience of readers, I will list in this and subsequent entries the series and links to it.

1. A Neuro-Linguist's Toolbox - A Starting Point and Building Rapport
2. A Neuro-Linguist's Toolbox - Rapport: Non-Verbal Behaviours
3. A Neuro-Linguist's Toolbox - Rapport: Representational Systems (Part 1)

In the third part of this series, we focused on how one could build rapport using representational systems by identifying the predicates that were in use by the counterpart.

In this fourth part in the series, I would like to focus on other ways one can identify the representational systems that are in use at that point in time.

We will look at each of the visual, auditory, kinesthetic and digital representation systems in turn. For each of these, we will look at four aspects (where relevant and appropriate) that will provide us clues to the representational system that is in play. These 4 aspects are posture, gestures, rate of speech and breath. One quick caveat, these 4 aspects are systemic and should not be looked at in isolation. Instead, we need to assess them wholistically.

Visual Processing

Someone who is processing visually tends to have an upright posture. They will hold their bodies straight, their heads tilted slight upwards and while they may not stand still, their bodies or feet will move very little. Sometimes it may seem as if they were looking at something in the air in front of them. And in a sense, they are looking at the pictures inside their mind space.

To emphasize this, when talking, their hand gestures often occur above chest height, sometimes head height. These gestures may be animated and seem to be pointing to or illustrating things in the air. This makes sense if they are trying to point out to you the things they are seeing inside their mind.

Because of their posture, someone processing visually will exhibit shallow breathing, usually in the top third of the chest. This is commonly detected by the marked rise and fall of the shoulders.

This will in turn affect their rate of speech. They will tend to speak quite quickly and often at a higher pitch (relative to their normal pitch register). Again, this makes sense if you imagine that they have many images or a very clear image and they are trying to put into words what they see.

Auditory Processing

Someone who is processing auditorily tends to have a relaxed posture. Not too upright nor hunched. Their heads may nod, bob or move from side to side, and their bodies may also shift from side to side almost as if they were moving to a beat inside their head, And in a sense, they are.

Their hand gestures will be at chest height or mid-torso and will generally move rhythmically and often in beat, and to emphasise the impact of what is being said.

Breathing is often at the mid-chest although this is often hard to detect. Their speech tends to be rhythmic, their pitch variable and can sometimes seem sing-song.

Kinesthetic Processing

Someone who is processing kinesthetically, tends to have a hunched posture and their heads are often angled downwards. They may also move very little, almost as if their bodies were very heavy.

Their hands gestures, if any, are often at the lower torso and are generally not animated. Again, they might move as if they were very heavy.

Someone processing kinesthetically will breathe deeply and fully. Sometimes, it may even seem as if they were sighing. This in turn affects their speech. They will speak relatively slowly and likely to be at a lower pitch (relative to their normal pitch register). It will almost be as if they were feeling and weighing everything in order to process it.

Digital Processing

Someone who is processing digitally tends to have an upright posture with a relatively unmoving body. Their head is often tilted to the side as if listening to something and they will have minimal hand gestures. However, they may cross their arms when they speak or position a hand to their chin or the side of their head, almost as if they were listening to a telephone.

Someone who is processing digitally will manifest variable rates of speech, pitch and breathing. However, their choice of words will almost always be measured and precise. These will be the wordsmiths of the world.

So these non-verbal c(l)ues provide us additional ways to identify the representational system that is currently in operation. It is important to point out that it is more art than science, although there is some science involved. As such, one should be making a judgment call taking into account the predicates and these non-verbal c(l)ues.

Identifying additional indicators of representational systems

One way would be to engage in the past time of people watching. The next time you are part of a group who are having a conversation and you don’t have to speak, listen to and watch the people speaking. Identify their predicates and notice the correlation the predicates have with how they hold their body and head, how much they move, where they breathe, their rate of speech, their pitch and their hand gestures.

As you get more skillful with this, then begin to practice this when having a conversation with someone. Of course, do this in a social, low risk situation until it becomes second nature to you. Then, depending on your assessment of what representational system they are using, match their non-verbals and use predicates from that representational system and notice how it affects your rapport and communication with them. And just for fun, mismatch the non-verbals and predicates and notice how that makes a difference.

Eye-Accessing C(l)ues

There is one additional non-verbal c(l)ue that I wanted to discuss separately and these are eye-accessing cues. The NLP model of eye-accessing cues postulates that one’s eyes will move in certain directions to access certain types of information. According to this model, when someone is accessing the visual representational system, their eyes will move up and to the right and/or left. When someone is accessing the auditory representation system, their eyes will move horizontally to the right and/or left.

Before looking at kinesthetic and digital accessing, it is useful at this point to note that the NLP eye-accessing cue model is a little more complex than what has just been represented. For example, the model makes a distinction between whether an access is remembered or constructed. So, if the person’s eyes go up and to their left, for most people (80% of right handers and 50% of left handers) this means that they are accessing a remembered image. A question like “What is the colour of your living room” might prompt that this access. If the person’s eyes go up and to their right, in most people, this means they are constructing an image. A question like “What would your living room look like painted with purple polka dots?” might prompt this access.The same applies to auditory access.

Does everyone's eyes move the same way?

Whether the eyes go to their left or right determine whether it is remembered or constructed respectively for most people.

Two points can be made here. First, the reverse is true for the remainder of people (20% of right handers and the other 50% of left handers). In other words, for people who fall into this category, the eyes moving to their left indicate construct and moving to their right indicate remembered.

Secondly, it is important to note that a constructed sound or image does not mean that the person is lying. This is a fallacy that was unfortunately perpetuated by Hollywood.

From a communication perspective, this does not affect us. When we see their eyes move upwards, it is visual access and when their eyes move horizontally, it is auditory.

A Trickier Level looking Down

Having now noted this additional layer of complexity, we can look at kinesthetic and digital access. In most people, when their eyes move down and to their left, they are accessing digitally. Put another way, they are talking to themselves. A question like “Can you recite your favourite nursery rhyme quietly to yourself?” might prompt this access. When their eyes move down and to their right, they are kinesthetically accessing feelings or sensations. A question like “How does your right foot feel right now?” might prompt this access.

Readers will quickly realise that this means that, while moving the eyes to the left and right does not matter for visual and auditory access, it does for kinesthetic and digital. Without having to go into a complex analysis on this matter, three quick solutions present itself.

First, you have the benefit of predicates and other cues to help you come to an educated guess. And this will often resolve the matter. However, on the assumption that it does not, then secondly, go with the averages. Since most people access kinesthetic when going down and to the right, communicate with them kinesthetically and calibrate to their response. If it maintains or improved rapport, then you have probably got it right. If it does not, try a digital response and see what happens.

Finally, if all else fails, go with the digital response. Readers will remember from the third post in this series that the digital system is separate from any particular representational system. The digital system is one of words which is meta to sight, sound or touch. As such, when speaking to someone using the digital system, the listener is free to access whichever representational system that they wish.

How might one practice this?

Like calibrating to the other non-verbal c(l)ues, people watch. Notice where their eyes go when they are listening or when they are being asked a question. Note where their eyes go last before they respond and identify that representational system. Correlate your observation with the predicates they use and the other non-verbal c(l)ues. Again, do this in a social and low risk situation, not in the most important life conversation at least until you gain facility with this.

This brings us to the end of building rapport using representational systems. I trust it has given you new ideas to think about and that you have found it useful.

To learn more about how Neuro-Linguistic Programming can help you, join us on the journey towards solving "The People Puzzle" - Prof Joel's flagship NLP training series. Obtain the blueprint to achieve greater self-awareness, enhance communication with others, and connect with people more effectively.

Unlock the People Puzzle today! 👉 https://peacemakers.sg/the-people-puzzle/

On 12 April 2018, our Training Director, Professor Joel Lee, published a blog post on the Kluwer Mediation Blog entitled "A Neuro-Linguist's Toolbox - Rapport: Representational Systems (Part 1)". His blog post is reproduced in full below.

A Brief Recap

This entry is an ongoing series focused on using Neuro-Linguistic Programming in our practice of amicable dispute resolution. For ease of reference and the convenience of readers, I will list in this and subsequent entries the series and links to it.

1. A Neuro-Linguist's Toolbox - A Starting Point and Building Rapport
2. A Neuro-Linguist's Toolbox - Rapport: Non-Verbal Behaviours

In this, the third in the series, I would like to focus on how one can build rapport using representational systems.

A Starting Point

I’m sure you can remember hearing people make statements like:

Most of the time, when we hear these statements, we chalk it up to metaphorical expressions of expressing understanding. However, NLP, takes the approach that these expressions are more than metaphorical. That they are literal descriptions of what is happening inside our heads.

It is perhaps easier to illustrate this through a thought experiment. In a moment, not yet, I would like you to think of a “dog”.

In order for you to do that, you probably had in your mind:

You might have had only one of these or a combination of more than one. In NLP terms, we represent the world to ourselves in one of six ways.

The Six Ways

At this point, the astute reader may notice that the first five ways of representing the world revolve around the 5 senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste. The sixth way of representing the world is more meta, more digital and is more a label without connection to any particular sense. For example, the word “DOG” has nothing to do with any of the senses. It is simply a label. The word “Understand” says nothing about how one is representing that understanding.

These ways of representing the world are referred to as representational systems. How we represent the world in our heads finds expression in our language. Hence, someone who “sees” what you are saying, may literally make a visual image of your communication in their minds. Someone who “feels” your burden may literally be experiencing what the weight of that burden may be like for you. As illustrated earlier, someone who “understands where you are coming from” may be understanding you via any combination of the five senses. It’s just that the word “understand” does not give you a clear clue of which sense is in play.

Do take Note!

The words like “see”, “hear”, “feel” and “understand” are referred to as predicates. At this point, it is useful to point out that for the purposes of this entry, the olfactory and gustatory representational systems will be taken to be under the umbrella of the kinesthetic representational system. But for the purposes of completion, two sentences that come from the olfactory and gustatory representational systems are “Something doesn’t smell right” and “This incident left a bitter taste in my mouth” respectively.

Following from this then, if we can identify the representational system that any particular person is operating out of at any point on time, it would make sense to communicate to them in that representational system. So, if a person is functioning visually at any point in time, we can choose to draw them a picture or use slides to show them what we mean. If a person is functioning aurally at any point in time, we can choose to tell them a better story or express the idea through a metaphor. If a person is functioning kinesthetically at any point in time, you can choose to let them physically use or feel what it is that is being talked about.

Pacing Representational Preferences

Essentially, these examples pace the representational preference of the person at a content level. Interestingly, one can also pace someone at the process level by using predicates from the representational system that they are currently operating out of. Below are examples of pacing via predicates for four different representational systems. “A” is the statement made, “B” is the response that paces by predicates (predicates are italicized).

Most people would have no issues with the proposition of pacing content. If a person is “visual”, it makes sense to show them pictures or slides. If a person is “kinesthetic”, it makes sense to let them handle the product. Unsurprisingly, people in sales have known this for years. For example, when they studied successful car sales people, they found that those that were more successful, very quickly identified the representational system the potential buyer was operating out of and then proceeded to highlight those features that addressed more of that representational system.

“Visuals” would have their attention focused on how beautiful the paintwork was, the design and how they would look in it to others. “Auditories” would have their attention focused on how the powerful engine sounds and how quiet it is in the vehicle so that they can enjoy their favourite music. “Kinesthetics” would have their attention focused on the solid build of the vehicle and how they can feel the power of the engine on the expressway. “Digitals”, who are generally concerned with criterion, would have their attention focused on the efficiency of fuel consumption or the safety features of the vehicle.

Does it work?

At this point, some readers might be wondering why, or even if, this works. In my experience, and the experience of many NLPers over the years, it does. Why does it work? Let me illustrate with an analogy. For those readers who have learnt a foreign language, you will know how tiring it is to listen to and speak in a language that we aren’t familiar with. It takes bandwidth to process language from something unfamiliar to something which is familiar so that we can understand it. And of course, when someone communicates to us in the language most familiar to us, understanding it is effortless. We are likely to feel a closer rapport with that person.

Well, think of representational systems as different languages that people speak. “Visuals” communicate in a way that is foreign to “Kinesthetics” etc. And even though a “Kinesthetic” can understand a “Visual” with effort, it still takes effort and the connection is not so easy. So communicating to as person in their particular representational language makes it easy for them to understand you.

And this is where it can help us as mediators. The first benefit of course, is to help us build rapport with our parties by speaking their language. The second benefit is to help parties translate from one representational system to another. A “kinesthetic” person may really not see what a “visual” person is saying. A mediator skilled in this can make what the “visual” is communicating solid enough for the “kinesthetic” to grasp.

Another Important Note!

At this point, I would like to highlight a caution. Astute readers will note that whenever I am referring to a person, I have put references to “visuals”, “auditories”, “kinesthetics” and “digitals” in quotation marks. I have done so to point out that these labels are fleeting. There is no such thing as a visual person. Or an auditory one. Or a kinesthetic one. Or a digital one. As flexible human beings, we operate out of all representational systems. Some of us, due to what we do, have a highly developed representational system. For example, painters have a highly developed visual sense. Musicians, an auditory one, etc. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t operate out of other representational systems.

The important thing then is to identify the representational system that the person is using at that moment in time. This, of course, seems like an onerous task. But it seems simpler once you understand that you only need to identify critical moments to pace representational systems. For example, at the beginning of an interaction, pacing to build rapport is helpful. Moments where there is some tension or misunderstanding is another. Of course, ideally, once we develop these skills of identifying and pacing representational systems at an unconscious level, we can do this without thinking.

How then do we Build these Skills?

For the moment, identifying representational systems begins by listening for the predicates that people use in their language. See the table of predicates below.

Obviously, don’t practice this in the most important conversation of your life. When you are learning to do something, your capacity to process content is reduced. So if you are having an important life changing conversation, attend to that. When you are having coffee with a friend or listening to your friends talking to one another or even watching a movie, listen for the predicates.

Once you are comfortable listening for the predicates, then start to formulate pacing responses. You can do this in your mind, or on a piece of paper. The important thing is practice.

Once this is easy to do, then start delivering some of your pacing responses. It can be as simply as “I see” or “I hear you” or “I get where you are coming from” or “I know what you mean”.

One last thought. You will probably find one representational system that is easy for you to identify and to pace. This is probably the one that you are most comfortable with. Do not be content with this. Know which ones are less familiar to you and work on those. It will pay dividends.

The next entry (Part 2) will provide readers some other ways of identifying representational systems. But for the moment, enjoy practicing this entry’s skills. I trust you will find it helpful!

To learn more about how Neuro-Linguistic Programming can help you, join us on the journey towards solving "The People Puzzle" - Prof Joel's flagship NLP training series. Obtain the blueprint to achieve greater self-awareness, enhance communication with others, and connect with people more effectively.

Unlock the People Puzzle today! 👉 https://peacemakers.sg/the-people-puzzle/

On 12 February 2018, our Training Director, Professor Joel Lee, published a blog post on the Kluwer Mediation Blog entitled "A Neuro-Linguist's Toolbox - Rapport: Non-Verbal Behaviours". His blog post is reproduced in full below.

A Brief Recap

This entry is an ongoing series focused on using Neuro-Linguistic Programming in our practice of amicable dispute resolution. For ease of reference and the convenience of readers, I will list in this and subsequent entries the series and links to it.

1. A Neuro-Linguist's Toolbox - A Starting Point and Building Rapport

In this, the second in the series, I would like to focus on how one can build rapport using non-verbal behaviours.

A Breakdown of Communication

In our field, it is trite that non-verbal communication is as important, if not more important, than verbal communication. Put another way, how we say something is sometimes more significant than what it is we say. A commonly cited study lists the components of communication as:

Physiology: 55%
Tonality: 38%
Words: 7%

While there have been criticisms of the study size and demographic and even disagreements about the exact percentages, the two main points that I would highlight from the study remains. First, that physiology and tonality (the non-verbal behaviours) form a larger proportion of the communication package than the spoken word. Secondly, where the spoken word is inconsistent with the non-verbal behaviours, we tend towards believing what is unspoken.

I’m sure we have all had the experience of communicating with someone where their physiology and tonality (non-verbal behaviours) do not match their words. Someone could be saying “I’m ok” when it is extremely clear from their non-verbals that they are anything but “ok”.

Ok... why does it matter?

From the perspective of negotiation and mediation, it is useful in 2 ways. First, this incongruence in communication often gives us a clue that there is something more that needs to be explored. Perhaps there is an interest to be uncovered or an unhappiness that is yet to be voiced. Secondly, it becomes important for us, as professional communicators to be as congruent as possible.

As you read this, some of you may say “Isn’t this body language?”. In a sense, it is and it isn’t. Much of mainstream literature relating to body language leads people to think that discrete meanings can be derived from the gestures we make or the postures we take. The phrase “body language” itself contributes to this idea. Hence, one often hears generalizations like “Crossed Arms or Legs” means that the person is defensive or closed to new ideas or “Touching their mouth” means that the person is lying.

I don’t know if these equivalences drawn are accurate or not. And that is the point. To say that these generalizations are universal cannot be right, especially if one takes into account the differences across genders and culture.

To be fair, some of the more nuanced pieces on body language talk about looking for non-verbal clusters, congruence and to be sensitive to culture and context. A person crossing their arms might not be defensive but simply cold. Context matters when making meaning.

How NLP comes into play

NLP approaches non-verbal behaviour from a different perspective. Can you remember a time you were having a wonderful conversation with someone? The kind where time seems to fly? You may have noticed that at these times you and your companion might have been speaking at the same rate or sitting in the same way or making the same gestures or using the same phrases? Or perhaps you might be a people watcher at a restaurant or a café and have noticed that you can tell whether the groups were getting along by watching whether their non-verbals were synchronized or not.

In NLP terms, we describe this state of synchronization as being in rapport. It should not be surprising that people who get along will synchronize their behaviour, both verbal and non-verbal. What might be more surprising to some is that, building on the idea that human interaction is systemic, the reverse is true. NLP suggests that one can build systemic rapport by pacing the other person’s non-verbal behaviours.

This means that when a person sits a certain way, one can subtly sit in a similar if not exactly the same way. When a person uses a particular gesture when speaking, one can subtly match that gesture when speaking. If a person speaks at a particular speed, one can speak at the same speed.

Learning to Pace

Pacing is achieved through matching, mirroring and cross-over mirroring. The first two are best illustrated with an example.

If the person you are seeking to pace is seated with his left leg crossed over his right, tilts his head to his right when he talks and gestures with this right hand when he speaks, matching involves manifesting one’s non-verbals in the same way right down to the left and rights of it.

Mirroring

Mirroring is the same thing, except that one manifests one’s non-verbals in the same way but in reverse. So one would sit with the right leg crossed over the left, the head tilted to the left and gesturing with the left hand when speaking. It is like being a reflection of the person in a mirror.

When teaching this, I often use the metaphor of a radio transmitter. In order to receive transmissions from that transmitter, we need to know what frequency they are transmitting on. Their non-verbals is the frequency and in order to build rapport with them, we need to tune our non-verbals to the same frequency. Following from this radio metaphor, just as we can still receive transmissions even if our radio is not tuned exactly to the same frequency (as long as it is close enough), the same is true here. We don’t have to sit in exactly the same way or gesture with exactly the same enthusiasm. As long as they are similar enough, systemic rapport can still be established.

At this point, it is important to make clear that the purpose of matching/mirroring is not to mimic or make fun of the other person. This will lead to the opposite outcome of destroying rapport. One must match/mirror subtly and with respect for the other person. As with most things in life, Intention matters.

Cross-Over Mirroring

Apart from directly matching/mirroring the other person, it is also possible to match one aspect of the person’s non-verbal communication with another aspect of your non-verbal communication. This is known as cross-over mirroring. The most common application of this is to speak at the speed at which the listener is nodding or vice versa, to nod at the speed at which the other person is speaking. The writer uses this often and to good effect.

What specific parts of Non-Verbal Behaviour can we Pace?

In terms of Physiology, we can pace:

• Posture (How one holds the head and body)
• Gestures (Movement of the hands, usually when speaking)
• Facial Expression (Smiles, frowns, etc)
• Breathing.

Of these aspects, posture, gestures and facial expressions are easiest to pace.

It is useful to note two things here. First, pacing posture, facial expressions and breathing are synchronous. In other words, it is happening at the same time. Pacing gestures however is not synchronous. People generally gesture when they speak. It would be very odd for you to gesture synchronously when they speak! The idea therefore is for you to pace their gestures when you speak.

The second relates to breathing. This is hard for most people to track and many tend to stare at the chest of the speaker to try to identify their breathing patterns. This is not recommended, and inappropriate even before the age of #metoo. There are two clues to identifying the breathing pattern of the speaker. One is to look for the rise and fall of the speaker’s shoulders. Many adults breathe in the upper one-third of their lungs. Their shoulders will inevitable rise and fall with their breath. The other clue is that people generally breathe out when they speak. So, if one was minded to pace the speaker’s breath, one can breathe out when they are speaking and take a breath when they do.

In terms of Tonality, we can pace:

• Tone (How high or low one’s pitch is)
• Tempo (How fast or slow and how rhythmic one speaks)
• Timbre (How clearly or distorted the quality of one’s voice is)
• Volume (How loud or soft one is speaking).

Of these, tempo and volume are easiest to pace.

It is useful to note three things in relation to pacing tonality. First, and to state the obvious, pacing tonality is asynchronous. You can only pace when it is your turn to speak. Secondly, when pacing tone, one does not have to achieve the same pitch as the other person. For example, if the other person was had a particularly low pitch, it would be absurd to expect a woman to achieve the same pitch. All she needs to do is speak at the lower end of her tonal register. Third, people often have reservations about pacing volume. They are concerned that by raising one’s volume, it will add to the conflict.

Building Rapport

This is when the notion of “leading” (which was discussed in the previous entry) comes in. Briefly, while pacing helps us build rapport, building rapport isn’t the ends but is simply the means. Rapport is only useful when it allows us to lead our counterpart or the parties some place more useful.

Going back then to the concern about raising one’s volume, in order to deal with someone speaking loudly and aggressively, the trick then is pace the volume and accompany it with words that are non-confrontational. Once the pace is made (which can happen in the course of a couple of seconds), then one needs to lead the volume downwards. This must be done gradually, in small steps otherwise, the speaker might not follow. And when they do follow, sometimes, they will follow you all the way down or just part of the way. In the latter situation, simply re-pace at the new level and lead again.

When practicing this in NLP workshops, participants are often surprised about the efficacy of this method.

Putting to Practice!

Needless to say these are just words on a page and has very little use (apart from serving an informational function) unless we put it into practice. I would like to suggest a number of exercises one can undertake to practice these skills.

Physiology

1. Sit at a cafe and watch people. Observe whether their physiology are in synchrony.
2. Find a particular person sitting at another table and pace their physiology for 5 mins. Then pick another. And another.
3. Work with a friend who also wishes to practice pacing. Sit or stand across from each other and take turns pacing their physiology. You can pace the entire physiology or isolate certain components to practice.
4. Practice this in real time with an unsuspecting friend. It is crucial to remember that you are seeking to pace not mimic. respect the person you are pacing. Intention matters.

Tonality

1. Find a talk show on YouTube and isolate a certain phrase that the host typically says. Then practice pacing the components of tonality with that phrase, seeking to replicate it exactly. Then practice with different phrases until it becomes smooth and easy.
2. Work with a friend who also wishes to practice pacing. Take turns speaking a phrase and pacing it. Again, you can match the entire tonality package or isolate certain components to practice.
3. Practice this in real time with an unsuspecting friend. Again, pace respectfully, don’t mimic. Intention matters.

I hope this entry has provided a useful primer for building non-verbal rapport and that readers might take the time to practice the skills until they become part of their unconscious competence. Have fun!

To learn more about how Neuro-Linguistic Programming can help you, join us on the journey towards solving "The People Puzzle" - Prof Joel's flagship NLP training series. Obtain the blueprint to achieve greater self-awareness, enhance communication with others, and connect with people more effectively.

Unlock the People Puzzle today! 👉 https://peacemakers.sg/the-people-puzzle/

On 12 January 2018, our Training Director, Professor Joel Lee, published a blog post on the Kluwer Mediation Blog entitled "A Neuro-Linguist's Toolbox - A Starting Point and Building Rapport". His blog post is reproduced in full below.

A Starting Point

Over the years that I have written for the Kluwer Mediation Blog, I have dipped, from time to time, into the field of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). And I have received requests from readers to write more about NLP and how it can assist us in our practice of amicable dispute resolution whether mediation or negotiation. This has also coincided with my 2018 resolution to work towards publishing a book on tools from NLP for conflict resolution.

So where possible, and with the indulgence of readers, I will seek to devote my monthly Kluwer Mediation Blog entries towards one aspect of a Neuro-Linguist’s toolbox for conflict resolution. This is of course subject to the caveat that where there is something extremely topical, I may choose to depart from this self-imposed practice and devote that month’s entry to that topic.

A Brief History of NLP

Before diving in, for those who might be unfamiliar with NLP, I think it is important and useful to provide a brief background here so that readers who are interested in finding out more can explore the literature and trainings available.

NLP was the brainchild of John Grinder and Richard Bandler. In the early 1970s, they and, later, their students set out to study people who excelled in their respective fields and those that did not. They were interested in finding out what “the difference that made the difference” was. Put simply, NLP was a methodology for modelling human behaviour. As a result of their initial modelling attempts with therapists, they identified certain patterns of behaviour that allowed these therapists to achieve seemingly miraculous results with their clients. Grinder and Bandler found that they could replicate and even enhance these results when they utilized and modified these patterns of behaviour. The NLPers, as they have sometimes come to be referred to, went on to model other examples of excellence that cover teaching, sales, managing, healing, and sports, just to name a few.

Well... does it actually work?

To be entirely transparent, there are many detractors of NLP. There is an entire skeptic’s page devoted to debunking NLP. It has been criticized by scientists as pseudoscience and even the field of Neuro-Science (whose research is confirming many of the things that NLP has been proposing) has chosen to distance itself by saying that the propositions in NLP are not steeped in science. And here I was thinking that scientists were supposed to be open-minded.

My mission here is not to defend NLP. As the internet saying goes, “haters will hate”. From my perspective, NLP has never claimed to be a science. It is a model, which in my experience works. I am pretty sure that there is no scientific evidence that “mediation works”. But I know that it works, as do many readers of this blog. And interestingly enough, you do not have to believe that it works, for it to work. You just have to genuinely try it out. And this is what I invite readers to do.

Having said my piece, I want to devote the rest of this month’s entry to some general thoughts on building rapport from an NLP perspective and then expand on this in future entries.

Building Rapport

A key part of NLP is the process of building rapport. The basis upon which rapport works is based on the idea that people like people who are like themselves. As the adage goes,

“Birds of a feather, flock together”. - William Turner

I know that some readers at this point are saying “but what about ‘opposites attract’”? Opposites do attract, especially if you are a magnet. But consider that when you meet someone for the first time (for example, when you, as a mediator meet parties), we often look for what’s the same. Finding something in common is a powerful way to connect with someone else. Some would suggest that the urge to seek out what is familiar is a powerful drive for humans. For some, this drive can be so strong that it can cause them to resist change. Ironically, we (as mediators) face this problem every time we try to get parties to move away from the familiarity of the problem they are having towards considering new (and therefore change) ways of thinking and solutions.

Fortunately, NLP provides a simple (albeit not simplistic model) to build and utilize rapport. The process starts off with “Pace-ing” (misspelling deliberate) the other person. Once sufficient rapport has been established, one can then to “Lead” the other person towards more useful ideas or behaviours.

What is "Pace-ing" to then "Lead"

It is sometimes easier to illustrate this metaphorically. Many people run as a physical activity and there are a number of ways to get someone to increase their running speed. One way is that some people are self-motivated. They simply increase their speed. Others might increase their speed because someone might be shouting at them or if they perceive someone catching up to them. However, one way to help them increase their speed subtly is to run with them at their speed. More accurately, run with them at their pace. Once a joint rhythm (or rapport) is established, the pacer can subtly increase their pace and more often than not, the person being paced will follow.

This is essentially what the rapport building model seeks to do. Pace and Lead. It is important to note at this point that unless building rapport is your only goal, pacing by itself is insufficient. One needs to take that rapport and lead the other person somewhere more useful.

What can one pace? Most of us seek to establish commonality via content. We will talk to someone and make a connection through the people we know, the schools we have attended, the books we have read, the places we have lived, the experiences we’ve had, etc. And that is absolutely fine. Content-based rapport is useful in social settings where we have the luxury of time to explore these matters.

However, there are many other aspects of the human “be-ing” (again misspelling deliberate) that we can pace. I offer you a list of possible aspects below, which I hope to explore in more detail in future entries.

1. Non-Verbal Behaviours

This denotes our physiology and tonality. I have explored pacing physiology in June 2012 and the impact of tonality on communication in August 2013.

2. Representational Systems

NLP posits that we take in information through five channels and process it via six modalities. These are referred to as representational systems. The representational systems can be paced.

3. Values and Beliefs

Put simply, values are what we hold as important to us. We may have different sets of values for different contexts in our lives, or they may be fairly homogenous. For each of these values, there will be beliefs related to those values. These can be paced.

4. Meta-Programs

These are sometimes referred to as personality preferences and I have done an initial exploration of how these personality preferences interact to produce conflict in October 2017. Meta-Programs are the content-free filters through which we view the world. A common example used is “whether the glass is half full or half empty”. Both answers are correct. They are just different when seen through different filters. Therefore, pacing how someone sees the world is yet another way to build rapport.

5. Metaphors

Humans are meaning-making and there is some suggestion that the human brain works associatively and metaphorically. These metaphors are far more than figures of speech, they represent how interpret the world and affect the narrative through which we interact with it. Deep rapport can be built one’s metaphorical world was paced.

6. Linguistic Patterns

Finally, the linguistic patterns we have can be paced. This may be in the form of fillers that we use or certain turns of phrases or a particular linguistic structure.

Thanks for reading. I do hope that this series will be of interest to readers and provide some extra
tools in their tool box.

To learn more about how Neuro-Linguistic Programming can help you, join us on the journey towards solving "The People Puzzle" - Prof Joel's flagship NLP training series. Obtain the blueprint to achieve greater self-awareness, enhance communication with others, and connect with people more effectively.

Unlock the People Puzzle today! 👉 https://peacemakers.sg/the-people-puzzle/