Reframing. Neuro–Linguistic Programming™ and the Transformation of Meaning

The heart of reframing is the recognition that behavior can become detached from the outcome it is supposed to achieve. Psychologists recognized this years ago, and invented the term «functional autonomy» to describe behaviors that continued long after they had any useful function for the person. Psychologists didn't know what to do about this, but they did recognize it. They didn't realize that they could directly identify outcomes, and then select or design other behaviors, which they could tie to those outcomes.

The other aspect of reframing that makes it work so easily is that it is explicitly ecological. We make sure that the new behaviors don't interfere with any other aspects of the person's functioning. Any objecting parts become allies in selecting the new behaviors, so that the new behaviors fit in harmoniously with all the person's other needs and behaviors.

This takes care of the person's internal ecology, but it doesn't directly take care of the ecology of the interpersonal system that the person lives in. Sometimes when you change a person, she is fine individually, but the rest of her family suddenly develops problems. When you do reframing, parts will often object because they recognize that certain new behaviors will impact on people around them in ways that are undesirable. However, that presupposes that the person has parts which are able to notice how other people respond to her, and that isn't always true.

The only way to be really sure you are dealing appropriately with the ecology of the larger system is to be able to observe it. This is one of the values of doing couple therapy or family therapy instead of individual therapy. What we want to do next is demonstrate the application of reframing to situations in which you can observe the system that the person is in, and explicitly deal with the ecology of the whole system. Changes that are great for an individual are sometimes disastrous for the family or business organization in which she exists.

One of our students taught the Meta–Model to the nursing staff of a hospital. The immediate result was the patients got well faster, and the average hospital stay was reduced by a little over a day. However, the job of the hospital administration is to keep the hospital as full as possible to maximize income. Soon they had empty beds, and then an empty ward.

When the administration started proposing staffing cuts, the nurses saw the handwriting on the wall, and the average hospital stay went back to what it had been before. The change that was good for the patients was not good for the hospital system as a whole. In order to make it ecological for the hospital, there would have to be some way to maintain the economics of the hospital—generate more patients to fill the empty beds, or slowly reduce the staff by attrition, etc.

Many people go to therapy, start changing, and end up getting divorced. Usually that's because the changes they make don't take their spouses into account. Of course, afterwards you can say that they «outgrew their marriage» or that their spouses «weren't willing to change» if you want to cover up your incompetence. But if you can use reframing with the whole family system, you can do really clean work. It will be much easier to do and it will last longer, because other parts of the family system won't try to undo what you're trying to accomplish.

In order to successfully reframe a system, you have to take into account the needs and wishes of all members of the system. This is the basis for what we have often called «outcome therapy.» I think you can do everything you need to do in couple therapy, family therapy, or conference work just using this one pattern. The first thing you do is notice any message that elicits a negative response in someone else— whether in a couple or family interaction, or during a corporate conference or consultation. Then you simply find out from the sender of the message if the response that he managed to elicit was in fact a response that he intended to elicit. In other words, it's the old formula «Message intended is not necessarily message received.»

Let me demonstrate one example of «outcome therapy» — what we call couple reframing. Beth and Tom, would you come up please? I'd like to have you role–play a couple. I'm going to arbitrarily ask you to interact in the following way: Beth, you say or do anything, and then Tom, you act depressed.

Beth: Hello, Tom, how are you today?

Tom: Oh, I don't know. (He starts to slump and talk in a monotone.)

OK. I don't know exactly what portion of Beth's behavior Tom is reacting to, but whatever it is, I can see that it is getting a response that isn't useful, so I interrupt the interaction and anchor Tom's response. If Beth had asked me that question, I would just answer it, but it seems to have a really profound and over–determined impact on Tom, so I know something important is going on.

My next step is to turn to Tom and say, «Are these feelings familiar?» as I press the anchor I set up a moment ago.

Tom: Oh, yeah.

What's the name of the message you get from Beth when she says «Hello, Tom, how are you today?» in that way? Tom: «Go away.»

«Go away.» OK, now hold on a minute here. Beth, was it your intent to give him the message, «Go away»?

Beth: No.

What were you intending? Beth: I just want to know how he is feeling. OK. So it was just a straight question. You are interested in finding out how he is.

Now I turn to Tom and say «Did you hear what Beth just said?» Tom: Yes.

Now, I understand that you got a different message than the one she intended. Do you understand that she didn't intend the one that you

got?

Tom: Yes.

OK. Now, Beth, are you really committed to getting across the message that you intended? Beth: Yes.

This commitment step is really necessary. I'm setting up the leverage that I may need later on if she objects to changing her behavior in order to get the response she wants.

Now I ask Beth, «Have you ever been able to approach this man and ask him how he feels without having that profoundly depressive effect on him?» (Yes.) «Go back into your personal history and recall what you did in the past that worked to get the response you wanted.»

If Beth can find an example of when she was successful in getting her intended message across in the past, then I will ask her to do it here, and notice whether or not it works.

Beth reaches out and touches Tom gently as she says softly «How's it going?» Tom responds positively.

In this case it worked fine. If she can't find an example in her own personal history that works, I can have her think of a woman she respects, and ask her how that woman does it. She can use that woman as a model and try that behavior.

If I can't find a new response easily in Beth's experience, then I'll get it from Tom. I'll turn to Tom and say «Have you ever gotten the message 'Hey, how are you?' and understood it simply as a message of interest and concern?»

Tom: Yes.

Would you demonstrate for Beth exactly how that message was given, so that she'll know exactly how to get across this message that she is committed to giving you.

Tom: Well, she came up and put her hand on my shoulder like this, and…

Good, thank you. So now I have Beth try that, and I sit back and watch to make sure it works.

If it doesn't work, I can ask Tom how, specifically, she could do this behavior differently to make it work, or ask Tom to go back and search for some other behavior that worked in the past. OK. Thank you, Beth and Tom.

Man: That doesn't seem like a very realistic example. It doesn't seem like Tom would get depressed when all Beth said was «Hello, how are you?»

It's actually quite frequent with real couples, that what seems to be an innocuous behavior triggers a powerful response. The stimulus may not be obvious, but Tom's response is obvious, and lets me know that something significant is going on. It may be that Beth's voice tone or the way she glances at Tom is associated with other experiences in their past that I don't know about.

The stimulus that elicits an unpleasant response in someone else may be hard for you to detect because it seems so trivial or innocuous. Once I worked with a schizophrenic teenager and his mother. All that was observable to me was that every time the son started to go berserk it was right after the mother had pointed to her arm. It turned out that the mother had survived the Nazi concentration camps. Every time the mother wanted a certain response from her son, she would point to the part of her arm where the identification number had been tatooed. I don't know how she had built that anchor up to have such an impact on her son, but it was as quick a knee–jerk response as I've ever seen. The kid would immediately start to go really berserk, yet the stimulus was one most people wouldn't have noticed.

When you use this format, you assume that people want to communicate in such a way that they get what they want, and that they want to respect the integrity and the interests of the other people involved. That assumption may not be true, but it's a very useful operating assumption, because it gives you something to do that can be very effective. If you make that assumption, it's always possible to find another solution—not a compromise—that satisfies both parties.

Any time there's a difference between the intended message and the response elicited, you first need to train the person who sent the message to recognize that he didn't get the intended response. You make it obvious to the person that the intent of his message was different from the response that he got. «What response did it elicit? Describe it. Did you notice you got it? Good.» This builds a perceptual strategy into the person who originally sent the message and makes him more sensitive to the responses he is getting. The next question is «Is this response what you wanted? Is this what you intended?» In ineffective communication I have never yet run into a situation where it is. Then you train the message sender to gather information that will be useful in varying his behavior to get the response he wants.

This is the simplest format for couple reframing. I want you all to try it in groups of four, using the following outline. Two of you will role–play a couple in a problem interaction. One of you will be the programmer, and the fourth person will be a meta–person to keep track of where you are, and to give feedback to the programmer.

Outline

1) Identify and interrupt a stimulus–response (X—>Y) loop.

2) Ask the person responding:

a) «Are these feelings (Y) familiar?»

b) «What is the message you get when she does X?»

3) Ask the stimulus person:

a) «Is that (Y) what you intended by doing X?»

b) «What did you intend?»

4) Ask stimulus person, «Are you committed to getting your intended message across?»

5) Find a way to make message received equal message intended:

a) Find it in the experience of the stimulus person. «Have you ever gotten the response you want? What did you do then?»

b) Find it in the experience of the response person. «What behavior would work to get that response in you?»

c) Select a model, or pretend that you know how to get that response.

6) Have the stimulus person try out the new behavior to find out if it works satisfactorily.

Now that you've all had some experience using this simple format, I'd like to demonstrate some variations. Let's do another role–play. Rita and Joe, play this one for me. It starts like this. Rita, I want you to attack Joe verbally. Joe, you respond by feeling bad.

Rita: «You creep!» (Joe stiffens.)

I interrupt that loop and anchor Joe's response. I ask «Hey, are these feelings familiar, Joe?» (Yes.) «OK, what message did you get?»

Joe: She's angry with me.

Rita, did you intend to let him know that you're angry?

Rita: You're damn right!

So this time message received is message intended. I say, «Well done, congratulations, you are communicating very effectively.» This validates that their communications and their intentions are effective, at least at the level they are describing them to me. However, they are both in unpleasant states, and probably those states are not helpful in arriving at a satisfactory solution to their difficulty.

Since the message received is the same as the message intended, but it's not satisfactory, I need to use a variation of the previous format. I can find out Rita's «meta–message," and gain more flexibility. «Rita, what does letting him know that you are angry do for you? What are you trying to accomplish by this?»

Rita: I want him to really hear me, to pay attention to me.

OK. What will having him really paying attention to you do for you?

Rita: Then I'll know he cares about me.

OK. So when you raise your voice and start yelling, you're saying «God damn it. I'm angry because you're not paying attention. If we're in a relationship like this, I want you to pay attention to me because I want to know you care.»

So, Joe, this may seem quite contradictory to you, especially when you have these unpleasant feelings, but she is trying to say «Hey, demonstrate to me by being attentive that you care, because it matters to me.» Are you interested in this message?

Joe: Yes.

And Rita, you're committed to getting it across, right? Rita: Yes.

Now I simply search for alternative behaviors that are appropriate and acceptable to both of them.

You can use this variation any time the message intended will not produce productive results. So what if Joe knows that Rita is angry? That in itself is not likely to finish this interaction in a way satisfactory to both Rita and Joe. So I ask, «What is letting him know you are angry going to do for you?» «What are you going to accomplish by it?» «Are you satisfied to stop here, or is there some other goal you are after?» And Rita will find another goal. If she didn't have one originally, she'll make up one for us that will be more useful.

Notice that when I ask these questions, I get the outcome of the outcome, or the intent of the intent. I may have to ask this question four or five times until I find an outcome that both of them are interested in. What I'm really searching for is a message or outcome that both parties are interested in achieving. When I've found that, I've got about 75% of the negotiation work done. Once I've got an outcome frame that both parties congruently agree to, it's just a question of varying their behaviors until they find a specific way of getting there together.

OK. So Rita wants to send the message «I want you to demonstrate that you care," and Joe is interested in receiving it. Now I'm at a choice point. I can either get an alternative behavior from her or from him. If I'm using Rita to create a new behavior, I can ask «Rita, out of all the time you've spent together, do you remember a time when you were able to get the kind of attention and caring you want from Joe, that you are not presently getting? Do you remember ever being able to do that?» This is the same as step four of six–step reframing: creating alternatives. She now searches through her personal history and finds an occasion when she has successfully done this. I can have her remember in a specific and detailed way. «See yourself doing this very clearly; listen to the way you do it, etc. When you have seen and heard what you did in detail, try out that behavior with Joe, and we'll find out if it works here and now.»

If Rita says «I've never succeeded in the way that I'd like to," I ask for a model. «Who gets attention and caring from Joe? What does she do? Now you try it.»

I can even say «Well, make it up. Pretend as if you know how, and try it.» If I have an idea, I can coach her. «Why don't you try X, Y, and Z, in the following way?» These are all methods to get her to generate a new piece of behavior and then test it right here to make sure that it works: that the message intended equals the message received.

The one advantage to having Rita search in her own personal history as a way of generating new behaviors is that then you know it has worked in the past, and that it's congruent with her personal style. If you suggest something, it will be congruent with your personal style, but it may or may not match her style or his style.

Janet: When Rita thinks of a new behavior, do you anchor it?

I don't have to, but I usually «overkill» in seminars. Every chance I get to use another anchor, I do. Janet suggested that I could use one here, and she's absolutely right. As Rita searches and finds the example, I can anchor it and then say «OK, now let's try it.» I hold the anchor to stabilize the state from which she generates the behavior that worked before.

The other possibility is to use Joe as a creative resource to find alternative ways that Rita can use to satisfy her intention. In either case it is very important to first get a commitment from her that what she wants is important enough that she is willing to alter her behavior in order to get it.

«Rita, are you serious about really getting that message across? You do want his attention? That is important to you?» (Yeah.) It's very important to notice whether her voice tone and analogue behaviors are really congruent. In this case we have a really congruent commitment from her.

Rita, I know you're really serious about this. It's something that's really important to you as a woman. Now, Rita, is this important enough to you that you would be willing to change your behavior in order to get the response that you want? (Yes.)

Now I turn to Joe and say «And I take that as a compliment to you, Joe. She does want your attention. Now you know what she intends. She's saying 'Joe, I want your attention!' Do you understand that? That's not the message you got before, but now you can understand what she intends. The question is, can you instruct her in what, specifically, she can do so that you can recognize and respond to her intention? What can she do to get your attention in a positive way? Think of times in the past when she has done something that made you want to pay attention to her. What did she do then?»

Now I have him specify her behavior to match what he will be able to recognize and respond to. Rita is already committed to adjusting her behavior. She's committed to taking instructions from him about how to get his attention. Who knows better how to get his attention than he himself?

I want to point out that sequence is very important. I need to get her commitment first. If I don't do that, she will probably have a lot of objections to any change he suggests: «He's controlling me. He just wants to be in charge.» First I need to get her commitment that her wants are important—so important that she is willing to change her own behavior in order to satisfy them. This frames the changes in terms of her desires, so she'll be willing to go along with the changes. To him, I can frame it differently. I'll tell him that his responses are important to her—so important that she's willing to adjust her behavior so that it's easy for him to respond in the way she wants.

Woman: Can you say more about sequence? I think that's extremely important, and I want to know more about that.

We are syntacticians. If you were going to describe us as any kind of academician, that would be it. Syntax means «What goes where, and in what order.» The thing that makes the visual–kinesthetic dissociation such a good way of working with phobias is the order. One man we taught it to decided to use it «creatively," because he didn't want to be an android. So first he had people go all the way through the trauma, and then he had them dissociate. If you do it in that order, the person has to go through lots of pain, and that makes it very hard. If you do the dissociation first, and then go through the experience, your clients don't have to go through the discomfort. That makes it much easier and more elegant. The thing that makes NLP work go so quickly is that we make very practical decisions about what order we do things in, rather than saying «Oh, I could do X!» and rushing in and doing it.

Every book we've ever published says «Gather information!… Evolve system… . Solidify change.» That is the overall model. The emphasis is on «Gather information» because it's the part almost everybody leaves out. Most communicators go into their trance of doing whatever they do, and when somebody comes in, they just fire off the technique. Often the same technique would work if they did something else first.

Woman: That's why I asked the question. Let's say that you have the information. How do you decide what to do and in what sequence? What goes on in your head before you start doing something?

Well, I ask myself a question. I go inside and say «Hey, self. What outcome do I want, and how can I get that outcome?» I work backward from the outcome.

For example: I worked with a family in which the mother was a professional people–helper. She knew what was good for her daughter, because she was an expert. Her daughter was saying to the mother «Get off my case!» The mother was saying «Look, I'm the only person in this family who is qualified to know about these things. Even though my daughter won't listen and is freaking out, I know what's best for her.» Now, one way to make a change would be to attack her belief that she knows best. However, that would be the hard way to go about it. If you do it that way, you've got to fight with her.

My outcome was to get them communicating again. So I said to the mother «Do you really believe this? I mean this seriously, not sarcastically at all. Do you really believe that you have good information that will be helpful to your daughter?» And the mother said «Absolutely!»

«I want to believe this, because if you are serious about this, and you're not just saying it, I know there is something really useful that we can do here. Are you really serious?»

«Absolutely. I mean it literally. I'm a very honest person.»

«OK. Now if I can find a way that you can communicate this information to her without her freaking out, then she'll have the information. Would you be willing to use a different way of communicating, even though it might not be your natural way of doing it? Is the information you have to give her important enough that you would be willing to do something like that?»

«Absolutely.»

At that point I had her, because she couldn't back down. The realities that I had built were congruent with the mother's belief system.

Then I turned to the daughter and asked «How does your mother have to talk to you in order to get you to really listen and consider what she says? You may not want to do what your mother wants, but at least you'll be able to hear what she says.» The daughter had this Cheshire cat grin on her face, and she said «Well, she'd have to treat me like a person.»

«How has she been treating you—like a pencil?» That's one way of getting her to specify what «being treated like a person» means. If you give an answer that you know is totally wrong, she will have to correct it.

«Well, she wouldn't be yelling, she wouldn't be — "

«No, no. I don't want to know what she wouldn't be doing. What would she be doing? What would she look like; what would she sound like?»

Then the daughter demonstrated a particular tone of voice that she wanted her mother to use, and I said «OK, let's try it. And if it doesn't work, do you know what that means? That means you're a liar, and your mother's right that you won't listen!»

So I turned to the mother and said «Pick one of the things that you think is important for your daughter to know, and try to do it in the way she demonstrated.» After a couple of sentences I interrupted and asked the daughter «Is she doing it the way you want?»

«Well, her voice is still a little whiny.» So we helped the mother adjust her voice and she started in again. The daughter sat there and listened, and then said «I'll do that.» The mother was shocked! «You will?» Previously most of the time the daughter hadn't even heard what the mother was saying because she reacted to her tone of voice.

The important point is that within the context I had created, there was no way for either of them to respond otherwise. The daughter was not going to let the mother be right by not listening. And the mother was certainly not going to say «These things are so important, but not important enough that I'll change my tone of voice» — not when she's just sworn on a stack of Bibles that getting the information across is the most important thing in the world. Going after their willingness to communicate before I went after restructuring the communication was a very important syntactic choice. Doing it in the other order would have set up conflict. You do the same thing with the six–step model: you ask the part if it's willing to communicate, and you determine its intention before you go after changes in behavior.

The key question is this: «What is going to make it possible for me to get the change I want?» «What's a prerequisite for the change that I want?» If you go directly after the change itself, two things will happen that are not useful. One, it's going to be like digging ditches. It's going to be hard work, because you're going to have to fight with the person's parts. Two, if you go after it too directly, you may interfere with her strategies.

Teri is a good example of this possible interference. Let's say that I was a well–intentioned therapist who had a belief system that said «Everybody has got to have a way of being able to generate experience.» So when I said «Now, it's time for everyone to lie congruently," rather than allowing Teri to go outside the room, I would have said «You must stay and learn this!» If I did that, I would mess with her strategies and make her crazy. She was sitting there saying «If I do this, I'll be crazy!» and her complaint was completely accurate. Given the strategies that she had, that was absolutely true. So I had to find out what prerequisites would make it possible for her to do what I asked.

The same thing is true with the rigid know–it–all mother I talked about, or with a guy who has a belief system that women are out to control him. The same thing is true of every change that you make. I want to know the appropriate sequence to go after what I want, instead of deciding that I'm so all–knowing that I know the right way to do it. There's an elegance in the way people object. Their objections, as far as I'm concerned, are always valid, and they tell you exactly what you need to know. There are real dangers for your clients if you ignore their objections. If you can't communicate an idea to someone it's because of the way he is organized. The way he is structured right now doesn't make it possible for him to do certain things, unless you do other things first.

As soon as I have a well–formed outcome, I always back up, asking «What would make it possible for them to just fall into that?» If I try something and it doesn't work, I always back up in the process and ask «Well, if they can't do that, what else must be true?» When I answer that question, I have more information to go on.

Woman: I have seen a lot of couples where the woman's outcome, what she wants, is aggravating to the man. How do you deal with that?

Usually it's a specific behavior rather than the outcome that's objectionable. If the outcome is objectionable, then you go to meta–outcomes. You find out what the intention is behind the intention that she just stated. Rita, what does it do for you to get his attention?

Rita: It makes me feel good, like a desirable woman.

Good. What other ways do you have to feel good and desirable?

Woman: Let's say her intention is that she wants to get his attention, and he says that the way she could do that is to have sex in weird ways that she's not willing to do.

First I want to point out that this is an example of the specific behavior being unacceptable to her, not the outcome. If that happens, I can say to her «How else could you get his attention? What other ways could you use?»

Woman: I'm not having very much success finding any other ways.

OK. Then try modeling. «Would you think of half a dozen women who seem to be able to get their husbands' attention and notice the ways—publicly, at least—that they seem to succeed in doing that?» If she doesn't know any women who can do that, send her out in the world to find them.

Another alternative is to induce a deep trance and use a technique called «pseudo–orientation in time.» You have her jump three months into the future: «Remember three months ago when we first got together? I was just talking to a woman in the same position that you were in three months ago, and I remembered how you really couldn't get your husband's attention at that time except by bizarre, unacceptable sexual activities. Since that was unacceptable to you morally and ethically, I remember that you came up with some alternatives that were so effective that they surprised him as much as they surprised you. But I can't remember exactly what they were. Would you describe in detail what you did?»

There are lots of alternatives at that choice point, but you have to be respectful of the ecology of the system. You could also find out if you could make the bizarre sexual practices acceptable to her. «If you engaged in these bizarre sexual practices, what would happen that is unacceptable to you?» It may be that you could deal with her objections. There are lots of ways you can make a satisfactory change. You have to respect both her integrity and his integrity, find out the intention in both of their communications, and find effective ways for them to get together.

Woman: OK. I thought you were moving toward finding out his intention: what he would get out of the bizarre sexual activities.

You can do it that way, too. (He turns to Joe.) «If she engaged in these bizarre sexual activities, what would that do for you?»

Joe: It would give me excitement and intensity.

OK. Is there any other way that you have ever been involved that allowed you to feel excited in this intense way?

Joe: In the beginning of our relationship I felt that way.

So now I could access what those experiences were, and what the difference is between those and what's going on now.

You can go for the outcome with either or both members of the couple. Think of the basic reframing model here. There's an imbalance between the conscious and the unconscious, so you always go to the unconscious for the flexibility for the new choices. When you are doing reframing between people, you can make the assumption that they are equally flexible. In that case you can go in either direction at any point. When he's making a demand on her that she refuses, you can discover what that's going to do for him, or you can find out what the refusal is going to do for her.

I've run into cases where the man wants to engage in more sexual behavior. He's not satisfied with their sex life. She's not satisfied with their sexual behavior either, but she's using turning him down as a way to accomplish something else. For example, if she were to be sexually responsive to him, she thinks that would mean he would dominate her in all aspects of her life. She becomes sexually unresponsive in order to assert her autonomy. I've had it go the other way, too. The husband is sometimes the one in this position. Protecting autonomy is the outcome, or what is often called «secondary gain.»

The question now becomes «Can she find other ways of behaving which insure that she has her autonomy and independence, and that she has his respect?» When she has that, then she can allow what they both want, more satisfying sexual behavior. In order to do this, you have to separate the notion of her independence or autonomy from the sexual behavior itself. She has to have some other way of knowing that she's her own woman and can exercise choice, that is at least as convincing for her personally as being sexually unresponsive. When she has that, you've detached the outcome of independence or autonomy from the specific behavior of being sexually unresponsive. If she wants more sexual behavior and he does too, then they are free to engage in it with her autonomy still protected.

It's always by going to the context, by going to the frame, by going to the outcome, that you get the freedom to move around behaviorally. If you address the behavior directly, it may be ecologically unsound for them as a couple. Once I've gotten the intent and validated that they both agree to it, then I can begin to vary the behavior.

Let me give you another example. Let's say a father has just said to his daughter «If you don't listen to me and don't come home by ten o'clock, I'll ground you for a week, and blah, blah, blah …»

«Sam, did you notice what happened as you said that to your daughter?» «And, Martha, what were you feeling at that moment?»

«Oh, I feel like a little kid, you know, having to be told exactly what to do, and blah, blah, blah.»

«Now, was it your intention, Sam, to deliver the message to Martha that she's still a little kid and you have to take full control over her life with an iron fist?'

«Well, no. That's not what I intended.»

«What was your intention?»

«Well, I care. I don't want her hanging out with hoods. I don't want her out in the street. There's dope out there. I want her to be in the house, safe and sound. She's my girl, and I want to make sure that she has the kind of experiences that she needs to grow up like I want her to grow up.» The daughter says «But it's my life!»

«OK, Sam. Is part of that image that you have of your daughter growing up for her to be independent? Do you want her to be a woman who knows her own mind, who can stand on her own two feet and make decisions for herself based on the realities of the world? Or do you want her to be pushed around by other people's opinions?»

What I've done with this is relate his complaint about his daughter— that she doesn't do what he tells her to do—to his outcome of wanting her to grow up to be independent.

Woman: It's like having interchangeable lenses on a camera: you just put on a wide angle lens to get it into a wider frame.

OK, that's a nice visual metaphor for reframing. A behavior which in isolation seems to be a problem, or inappropriate, makes sense when placed in a larger context. This is really an example of a context reframe. I shift the behavior that the father complains about to the context of his daughter's growing up and becoming independent.

Exploring the father's intention will loosen up the ways in which he will go about expressing the message he originally intended. «Remember, be in at ten o'clock» is not the message received. How else could he get the message across to her that he wants her to be protected and yet allow her to grow up to be independent? How can he be assured—in a way that doesn't offend the daughter—that she is growing up appropriately? The specific behavior of coming home at ten o'clock may be totally irrelevant to achieving that.

This is the same kind of negotiation situation that you have with a couple of corporate executives who disagree on how to achieve a particular goal. You first remind them of the common general frame in which they are operating and that they will both agree with. You remind them, for example, that whatever specific policies they eventually decide on, their goal is to increase profits and maintain or improve the quality of the services or products they offer. We'll go into the business applications in more detail later this morning.

Woman: If you have not accurately specified the general frame— what the positive intention is—will you get a delayed polarity response?

Yes, typically you will. Whenever you deal with content, you run the risk that it is not appropriate for them. Even when the content is not appropriate, you may get agreement at the time, because of your rapport and personal power. But later you will get a backlash—a polarity flip.

There are three ways to avoid that. One way is to do a pure process reframing using the six–step model, in which there is no opportunity to impose any inappropriate content.

Another way is to take the time to gather lots of information. «Well, what is it specifically that you intend to do by demanding so vehemently that she be in at ten o'clock?» «Well, I want …» and you get whatever set of words are the appropriate ones for this particular unique human being. Then if you use that same set of nominalizations and unspecified verbs and idioms as you describe the new way for him to transmit the information, you will match what he is trying to do at the unconscious level, as well as at the conscious level. That will avoid the polarity problem.

The third and really indispensable way to be sure that your reframe is appropriate is to have enough sensory experience to notice the responses that you are getting, and observe whether your client is responding congruently.

Man: So far you've covered examples of incongruence between the intention and behavior. Do you ever have a case where a couple's relationship is in conflict because they intend different things? He wants more of this; she wants less of this.

If there's a basis for negotiation, there's always a frame within which they can both agree to a common outcome. Give me an example where you think there probably isn't a common frame.

Man: She wants monogamy and he doesn't.

OK. Let's role–play. Jean, you want an exclusive sexual relationship with him, and George is not willing to commit himself to that. First I ask for the meta–outcome of what each of them wants. I ask Jean «What is your intent in demanding a monogamous sexual exclusivity with this guy? What will that do for you?»

Jean: Oh, it will give me a sense of security that I'm the most desirable woman for this man.

Then I find George's meta–outcome. «What is your refusal to be monogamous based on? What will it do for you if you can be other than monogamous and involve yourself with other women?»

George: It lets me know I'm still desirable to other women, and makes me feel important.

Every time that I ask them an outcome question, I loosen up the context in which the behavior occurs. That gives me more freedom to move. George probably won't object to her having a sense of security, and she won't object to his feeling important and desirable. What they each object to is the specific behavior, not the outcome.

Now I use this information to formulate a common outcome that they can both agree to. «So am I correct that you both would like to find some mutually agreeable arrangement whereby, Jean, you can have a sense of security and desirability, and George, you will also feel important and desirable.»

If Jean and George both agree to this, I've got a common agreement frame within which to begin negotiations. Now I can work toward finding a specific solution. I can ask Jean, «What other ways could he unequivocally demonstrate to you that you have this kind of security that you desire?» And I can ask George, «What other ways are there for you to feel desirable and important?»

Man: Suppose that she says «No, that's the only way," and he also says «No, that's the only way.»

I have my doubts about that; I believe there is always something else behind the behavior and other ways to accomplish it. But if they both firmly believe that there are no alternatives, I will question the frame around our interaction.

«Look, I don't know of any basis for negotiation right now. Is there a basis for you two to continue together? Let's get explicit about this. I don't want to waste my time, and I don't want to waste your time and money. Are you interested in committing a certain amount of time and energy to finding out if things can be changed in a way that would be exciting and interesting enough for you to be together again? Or have you already committed yourself someplace else?»

If there aren't any positive intentions that they are willing to reveal, it may be that there isn't any basis for negotiation. Suppose she is already madly in love with someone else and carrying on an affair. It's just a question of getting rid of this creep and moving on. That's what's often called a «hidden agenda.» Getting explicit about a basis for negotiation and framing the overall process will smoke out hidden agendas, and that does everybody a favor!

Woman: If that's the case, since your investment is not to keep them together, doesn't she still need to work out the separation with you? Wouldn't she need to work out how to leave him and go to the other man?

Yes, if she's ready. And I've got to help him recover whatever parts of himself he has invested in being with her.

Challenging the negotiation frame usually scares them, and motivates them both to put more effort into finding mutually acceptable solutions. Then I can go for outcomes, or meta–outcomes—the outcome of the outcome.

«Jean, what would knowing that you are secure do for you?' «George, what would knowing that you are attractive to other females do for you?» Both will probably say, in effect, «Well, I'd have a sense of self–worth for myself that I don't really have now.» Now I've got a further loosening of the frame. In order to loosen the frame I can go to outcomes, or meta–outcomes, or meta–meta–outcomes. «Jean, are there any other ways to get self–worth?» Typically if I go that deep into intentions, there will be many behaviors which will satisfy that need. When you get that general, you're going to have to do a lot of experiential testing, because they really won't know at that point if the alternative behaviors will be acceptable.

One of the first things I do is to engage in negotiation to establish a three–month moratorium on sexual activities outside of this relationship during which time he will have a chance to try out some of the new behaviors which will satisfy the needs that he has which monogamy denies at this point. That will also give her three months to engage all her resources in finding ways to discover how she can develop security for herself and in this relationship, so that the notion of his being involved with another woman doesn't threaten her in the way it presently does.

As we mentioned before, I can send them out to find models. I'd ask the wife «Are any of the women that you know and really respect in a non–monogamous relationship? How do they take care of their sense of security?» I'd say to the husband «Do you know any men who you really respect and admire, and who are monogamous and perfectly satisfied with their own desirability? Good, I want you to go hang out with them and find out what they do.»

The search for alternative behaviors can be carried out internally with all their unconscious resources, and also externally by using models around them. Don't be afraid to give them homework. Have them go out and find appropriate models to watch and listen to.

Woman: You said if there's a basis for negotiation, then there's always a frame in which there is a possibility for change.

Those two things are synonymous. By frame or basis for negotiation I mean «Is there some common outcome which you can both agree to? For instance, are you committed to staying with this woman? Are you committed to staying with this man?» That may be the only frame that they can agree on, and of course each of them may have conditions.

Once they have agreed on an outcome frame, then you can negotiate on the way of achieving it. «George, there is some set of behaviors that will satisfy your needs and still be within the frame of your staying with this woman.» «Jean, there are some behaviors that we're going to have to discover for you which will allow you to stay with this man and still have the kind of security that you desire. Our task now is to discover what those behaviors are.»

Man: When you ask the framing question, and one of them responds «I don't know if I want to stay together or not» how do you proceed from there?

Then I negotiate for a trial period of trying out new choices. «George, are you willing to spend three months accepting this constraint of being monogamous which you consider artificial?» Or «Jean, are you willing to spend three months not accepting the constraint that you desire for your security, in order to find out whether there are behaviors that can be discovered which will satisfy you within this framework?»

Being very explicit becomes important at this point. Whenever there is a head–on–head disagreement about a certain piece of behavior within the relationship, then jump out to the outcome frame and find out if there is one that is acceptable. If there is one, you can proceed. If there's not, you may as well be explicit about that and save everybody time.

Finding a common outcome or agreement frame between members of a family, couple, or organization is a very important step that many therapists or consultants miss. They usually attempt to find specific solutions too soon, and then there are objections. I'd like to have you do an exercise in which your primary task is to find a common outcome. If you also have time to identify a workable solution, fine.

Do this in four–person groups. A and B are members of a couple or organization. C is the programmer. D will be the meta–person. I want C to specify the context—business or therapy. A and B will then generate some conflict, and C, the programmer will do the following:

Agreement Frame Exercise

1) Ask A and B what, specifically, they want, and then restate it to their satisfaction as a pace.

2) Ask both A and B what their specific outcome will do for them (their meta–outcome) and restate it.

3) Find a common outcome such that when you state it, both A and B agree it is what they want. «So what you both want is …»

When you are the programmer, I want you to get as general as you need to in order to find an outcome that both partners will agree to. Sometimes all you will be able to get agreement on will be, «So you are both here in order to find some way to continue your relationship to your mutual benefit and satisfaction.»

Determining an agreement frame also gives you a way to sort behaviors for relevance during the negotiation process itself. This is particularly important in business meetings and negotiations. Conservatively speaking, eighty percent of all the time spent in meetings is wasted, because what is said is not relevant to the outcome. It goes like this: we're talking about campaign X for product Y and Jim says «Oh, you know what we could do over here with product Z?» It's a great idea, actually. It's wonderfully creative—and wholly irrelevant in the context.

Unless you challenge that first irrelevant remark, you unleash an avalanche of free association which is more appropriate for the psychiatric couch than a board meeting. Later it will take you ten minutes to get people reoriented to the frame within which you are working. If you make the outcome frame explicit at the beginning of the meeting, you have a basis which is explicit and agreed upon for sorting out what's relevant and what's irrelevant. We call this a «relevancy challenge.» When someone becomes irrelevant, you can say «Jim, I don't understand your remark relative to what we've already agreed upon to do here at this meeting. Why don't you bring that up Friday at our product development meeting?» The next time he makes an irrelevant remark, I'll say «Well, I'm not sure how that connects with what we're doing here," and point to the flip chart. Then the next time that he starts to make an irrelevant remark, I'll probably just have to glance over at the chart, and that will be enough to anchor him into stopping.

In corporations in which we have installed these programs, after a few meetings the total meeting time drops by about four–fifths. People look forward to the meetings, because the criteria for relevancy are made very explicit and things get done. The relevancy challenge is not part of the organizational behavior of most business organizations, and it ought to be for purposes of efficiency.

You can see the same process more clearly in an arbitration situation. There are two groups head–on–head; they are just locked together, and they've completely forgotten the context. The outcome frame has been completely forgotten and most of their behavior is irrelevant with respect to it. Most negotiators will tell you that they are always brought in at the worst possible time—when there's a deadlock. I personally think it's the best possible time, because all the issues have been sharply defined and the differences are known clearly. You know exactly what needs to be done.

My first move is to get the two groups away from each other, and then I loosen the frame. I have to reestablish a broad outcome frame— which is the traditional notion of the basis for negotiation. As soon as the outcome frame is established, then I have a basis for relevancy challenges. I can dismiss certain things as being counterproductive, because both sides have already committed themselves publicly to the outcome frame.

At that point I have enough slippage that I can find ways of balancing the two proposals and coming up with a give–and–take. I will insist that the outcome frame contain what both sides should have put there to begin with: items which are not essential, which are «throwaways» for the purpose of barter. I've got to have an equal amount of those on both sides. I've got to create room to move first. If I don't have maneuvering room, then I'm stuck.

Man: Sometimes in my work I have difficulty setting a very explicit outcome frame with people. When I try, they often resist that.

Well, let me give you my frame for establishing a, frame: «Look, I'm a professional. I refuse to engage in random behavior here. I have certain criteria for my own performance, and until we know whether there is a basis for us to proceed here, I'm not willing to spend my time and skill.» I have only had that challenged once, when a man said «Well, I ain't doing that!» and I said «Fine. Goodbye.» I reserve the right to walk out on any transaction, including psychotherapeutic transactions.

By the way, if there is a category of client that you have trouble with, then seek them out. Working with them will provide you with an opportunity for developing your own flexibility. However, once you have demonstrated to your own satisfaction that you are competent to work with that class of clients, if you still don't like them, don't take them. A professional ought to have the option to engage in a business transaction or not, based on her own personal criteria.

However, in the context of professional psychotherapeutic help, I recommend that if you are going to exercise the option of refusing a patient or a client, you have a list of people to whom you can refer them, so that they do have somewhere to go. That is part of your professional responsibility. But there is no need to torture yourself. I worked with heroin addicts for a while until I satisfied myself that I could succeed with them. I don't work with them any more, because I really don't like being around them.

Woman: I'm interested in tuning myself so I can see and hear the patterns that go on between two or more people at one time. I'm trying to be aware of how a family system is interconnected, but I think it's too big a chunk. I want to broaden my ability to do that. Do you have any helpful hints?

Whenever you are learning about sensory experience, you have to chunk it small enough so that you can cope with it. The place I learn the most about multiple–person systems is in restaurants. Go sit down in a restaurant next to a family, and never look at the person who is talking. That way you can see how the others respond to the speaker.

Woman: My question is about validation. How do I differentiate between when I'm actually seeing and hearing something and when I'm hallucinating? When you think you might be hallucinating, do you use somebody else to check what you see?

No, I can induce any belief system in just about anybody, so that wouldn't work. So what if I can convince somebody else of my hallucination? That is the way that a lot of therapies operate right now. The therapist says, «Well, you know, what I'm feeling right now is X. Are you feeling that now?» The person goes «I hadn't noticed it, but now that you mention it, yeah.» So now that we have a shared hallucination, we'll act as if it is a basis for choice. That isn't going to work.

You have to learn to make distinctions, and it's probably best to start doing this with couples. You have to figure out what is going on in terms of the naturally–occurring anchored sequences. Let's say that each time he begins to use one tone of voice, you notice that she starts accessing kinesthetically, but if he uses another tone of voice, she accesses visually. When you notice that this relationship exists, then your job is to be able to test it behaviorally. You can always do that inside quotes, of course. You can say «Well, if Jane here said to you …» and then you can become Jane. As you do this, you watch Ralph, and notice whether the predicted response occurs. Then you can be Ralph and test another portion of the calibration. «If Ralph said …» So you can always test for calibrations fairly explicitly by using quotes. Or you can just adopt the calibrated analogue behavior covertly, and notice what happens.

A friend of mine is a mime. One of his great skills is mimicking another person, both tonally and visually. When we're talking, Lennie will say «Oh, yeah, I saw Jimmy the other day» … and then he will become Jimmy. If Jimmy's wife is there, she'll begin to respond to Lennie as though she's married to him. All the systems that operate between Jimmy and his wife will then operate between Lennie and her. And then he can become somebody else and she will respond differently.

One of the things that Lennie jokes about is that when my students come in and he wants them to do something, he simply becomes me. They respond immediately, because they are programmed to respond to me.

I do this kind of role–playing with individuals, too. I become one of their parts, and it works just the same way. I find out how they respond to the part. Behavioral testing is the only way I know of that you can count on for validating your sensory experience in systems relationships. You and I and Linda over there may have the same hallucination, but that's no basis on which to make a decision.

Man: Could you give us an illustration of becoming a part?

I've been doing that for two days now!

Man: Could you label one so my conscious mind would know?

I'm capable of it, but I'm not going to do it. I'm going to tell you about a family I worked with, to give you an example of how to determine and utilize the family system. In this family the mother was a matriarch. And her mother had been a matriarch. Her grandmother had founded a church, and there were streets named after her in the Midwest. This woman knew her dead grandmother's name, but she couldn't remember her grandfather's name even though he was still alive!

The one thing that was really noticeable to me was that everybody in the family responded to the mother. All she had to do was to look at them, and everyone would cringe. All the males were freaked out. The husband was an alcoholic, the older son was a hoodlum, and the younger son was failing in school and was starting to follow in the older son's footsteps. It's a typical pattern. However, there was a five–year–old girl in the family who was very cute and very expressive. She could get the mother to respond positively to her every time she did something.

In order to intervene effectively in this family, I needed to find out how the family operated as a system. I wanted to know what the natural sequence of interaction was. The best way to do that is to create a crisis, which is something that most family therapists avoid. If I make everything nice and lovely and warm, then I don't get down to the nitty–gritty. So I usually mention the most taboo things in the world for the family.

Virginia Satir taught me this. A lot of people think Virginia doesn't do it, because she does it in a nice tone of voice, but Virginia talks about everything that the family doesn't want to talk about. My style may be a little bit closer to Frank Farrelley's in the way I go about it, but it accomplishes the same thing.

So the family comes in and I say «Well, what are you doing here? What went wrong?» Immediately the mother says «This lousy kid over here has been getting out of hand.» I might turn around and say to the son «You son–of–a–bitch!» And then I ask the mother «What has he been doing, swearing?» Immediately the family goes into crazy land, and the system begins to operate. I can say «Well, what do you do if he does this? You probably don't scold him or anything.» She'll immediately start in quotes «Well, I tell him blah, blah, blah» and then immediately the kid will lose quotes and say «Look, goddamit, get off my back!» Then the father will say «Can I get a drink of water around here?» As soon as the family system starts operating, I sit back and observe, because I want to know how the family system operates without me. If it starts to slow down, then I step in and kick it to get it going again. I find out what the really sensitive areas are, so I can keep mentioning them to keep the family going.

This also wears them out, which is really useful. That's one of the things that makes my job easy. I've tried for a long time to train students to do this, but they get caught up in the content of what the family is doing, rather than stepping back and letting the family fight it out so that they can find out how the system operates.

The program in this particular family was really interesting. When the mother spoke, the husband responded like crazy. He went into what psychologists call «massive denial.» He climbed into the back of the chair and hid in the cushions. The oldest son was a carbon copy of the mother, and fought right back at her «RRrrrrhh!» And the more he fought back, the more the mother attacked him. If I interrupted the mother's behavior, the son kept attacking, but the father relaxed. That's important to know: the father was not responding to the son; he was only responding to what the mother did.

Woman: What did you do so that the father relaxed?

I shut the mother off for a while. When the fight got rolling, I just got up and stood in front of the mother, and the son yelled right through me. As soon as I cut off the mother visually, the father sighed and relaxed, even though the son was still screaming at the top of his lungs. When I stepped out of the way, the father immediately tensed up again. You can't do that kind of testing if you are glued to your chair the way many therapists are.

In this family, the younger son responded positively to his older brother. And when the mother went after the older brother, she might as well have gone after the younger one, because he responded as if the mother were going after him. He was a completely vicarious human being. If you talked to him directly, he always looked behind himself, no matter where he was sitting. He actually did that. I asked him «What do you think about this?» and he looked behind himself and said «Ah, well, ah … I don't know.» It was as if he weren't all there. But he really responded to whatever the mother did, even if the mother did it to the father or to his older brother.

The mother fought it out with me tooth and nail, and she was almost my caliber. She could hold her own against me, and there aren't too many people who can do that. But I have some really underhanded ways of fighting. I can switch logical levels so fast that I kept a little bit ahead of her, but I worked hard to do it. There were two male students and one female student in the room with me, and whenever the female student spoke to the mother, her behavior completely changed. The female student said things like «You are so unfair to your son.» The mother turned around and said gently «Well, now, dear, some day you are going to be a little older and you are going to be in my place… .«It was a completely different program. If a male had said that to her, she'd have boxed his ears off!

The mother's programs for communicating with men and women were totally different. The little girl did weird things in the session— things like getting up and knocking papers off the desk, interrupting, and making noise. If the son even took his eyes off what was going on, she'd shout «Pay attention!» But the little girl was safe from that.

Woman: And you didn't directly comment on that at all? You just watched it?

What good would it do to talk about it? If I tell them all the things I make distinctions about, that would make it easier for them to stay the same.

In order to test what I had observed, all I had to do was switch back and forth between acting like the son, the father, and the little girl, and see what different responses I got from the mother. I could actually get different responses from her by adopting the little girl's analogues. She began to respond to me in a way that mixed how she usually responded to men and to women.

There was just no way in the world to get the mother to attack the little girl. I asked «What's the worst thing the little girl's ever done?» She said in a sweet voice «Oh, one time she spilled blah, blah, blah.» When the mother talked to the little girl, the entire family loved it. They wished the two of them would run away together! They all responded positively, because the little girl got treated the way they all wanted to be treated. If the little girl communicated to the mother, the mother responded positively, but if the little girl communicated to one of the other people, the mother did not respond. That's very important. If she did, I could have made trickier interventions. I could have gotten the little girl and the brother going, and gotten the mother responding to that. But the mother didn't respond positively to anyone in the family except the little girl communicating directly to her. Everyone in the family responded to the mother.

So I had to figure out what I could get this little girl to do, to get the mother to respond in a way that would get the rest of the family to make the changes they wanted. When I first learned family therapy, I was told that everything works in triads—that when three people communicate, if person one communicates with person two, person three is always going to respond to that communication. It's not true. You can get them to respond to it, but they're not necessarily doing it already.

What I want to know in any family is what they are already doing, because then I can use what's going on now in order to change the system. This is a very important principle: How can I introduce a small change that will channel all the interactions in the family system in ways that force the system to change itself? When you can do that, the family system will do most of your work for you. If I want everybody to change in this particular family system, then I'm going to change the daughter. She will alter the mother's behavior, and ultimately everyone else in the system will change in response to the mother. However, it doesn't work the other way. If I had changed the younger son, it wouldn't have affected anyone else, because no one in the family responded to him. He was about as close to non–existence as it's possible to get. It was «to be or not to be» and he wasn't.

By setting such high standards, the mother made it easy for the men to succeed at failing. I wanted her to lower her standards and to respond in some kind of softer way with them. What I did sounds really direct, but sometimes the direct approach is best. I took the little girl aside, and I told her «Look, I need your help. I want you to play this game with me, and it's going to be our secret. If you play this game with me, something magical is going to happen when you come back here next time.» Previously the little girl had always run away and hidden whenever the mother started to criticize one of the brothers. I told her «You don't need to do that. I want you to test your powers, because I'm giving you powers that you didn't know you had, that you have now. If she's yelling at Billy, I want you to go up to her and simply tug on your mother's hand and ask her the following question: 'Mommie, do you love Billy?' and keep doing it until you are convinced that she is telling you the truth.»

Of course, this little girl was great at it. She would say «Mommie, do you love Billy?» And the mother would say (angrily) «YES!» When she asked again «Mommie, do you love Billy?» the mother would say (softly) «Yes, yes I do.» «Do you really, Mommie?» The girl just went on and on and on like that.

What's going to happen in this system as a result of this intervention? The whole family was convinced that the mother was the Wicked Witch of the North—and you'd probably agree with them! But it's very hard to be the Wicked Witch of the North when a cute little girl is going «Mommie, do you love Billy?» Now, in the middle of «Look, you indifferent slob, you forgot to take out the garbage!» Billy's going to hear things like «Yes, I love him.» That's going to change the whole ball game.

Man: So he got both the yucky negative and the «Yes, mother loves me.»

Yes. But getting negative messages became an opportunity to then have positive feelings.

Man: «Getting negative messages becomes the opportunity to have good feelings» sounds like the way to program somebody to go through behaviors in order to generate negative messages so that he can feel good.

But these people didn't do anything wrong to get criticized. And when the mother answered the little girl's question, she typically went into an explanation of what she was doing. «The only reason I'm telling him this is that I'm afraid that if I can't do something to motivate him to do well in school, then he's going to have to be a hard laborer like his father and work in the coal mines. I don't want him to have to work in the coal mines. I want him to have a job that is clean.» She started to communicate what she was trying to do—the intention behind her behavior. Basically, that little girl accomplished a reframing of the mother's behavior.

Man: The girl must have had some way of coping with the mother if the mother turned on the girl and said «Stop asking me these damn questions.»

The mother would never do that. I knew that before I intervened. The mother couldn't yell at her, or at any other woman.

Woman: The little girl anchored something for the mother.

The little girl became an anchor. Everybody wanted to hang out with her from then on. It wasn't safe to be anywhere else! This little girl had always been ignored before. Being ignored happens very often to middle children, and to children after about the fourth–born. If you decide that's not useful, find some way to make the child an anchor for all kinds of positive behaviors. That's a very powerful intervention.

When the family came back the next week, the difference in the way they looked and interacted was immense. As this new family system develops, ultimately people are going to respond to the younger son because this little girl is going to demand that they do, and it will happen through the mother. The little girl's job now is to pay attention to all these people because I told her to.

Woman: That's fascinating, because you really used the person who is least troubled. Other therapists would say there is no problem with this girl and the mother.

Well, there isn't a problem with anybody. I don't believe in problems. The important point is this: not only do I utilize the system that is there, I use the existing system to create a new system. In order to do that, I have to determine who is the one person in the system who will be able to change all the others. Very often it's not the aggressive, boisterous person who will be able to do that. People often think that persuasion comes with noise, and it doesn't. Persuasion comes with tenacity. People who are very expressive are also very changeable. Anyone who explodes in anger will also have severe polarity responses the other way.

Too often in family therapy the therapist works with a person who is easy to change, which of course means that the family is going to be able to change him back just as easily. If you change someone who is symptomatic, someone who is flipping out, someone who is already responding massively to the family, that person is going to be really easy for the family to change back. The person who has the symptoms will be the last one that you want to work with. The very fact that the family system can produce schizophrenia or anorexia or whatever means that the symptomatic person is easy to influence. If you can influence him into being normal, then the family is going to be able to change him right back. So you've got to get at him from another angle. The family member you want to go after is the one who is really tenacious. If you make a change in a really tenacious individual, everybody else will bounce around for a while, but eventually they will adjust to the way that person has changed.

Man: Can you recontextualize reframing a family system in terms of the problems that occur in business organizations?

Sure. In many ways, a business is just like an extended family, and much of what we have discussed can be applied directly. However, you have to change some of your verbal and nonverbal behaviors to be acceptable to the business world. For instance, you don't talk about the «unconscious mind," you talk about «habits," and you may need to wear a suit instead of a sport shirt. You also have to change some of your basic presuppositions.

For instance, in NLP we presuppose that choice is always better than non–choice. That is usually not true in business. There are a few business contexts where you want a lot of variability and creativity, but often a lot of effort goes into standardizing and routinizing human beings to make them dependable. You don't want assembly–line workers always trying out new ways of doing their jobs, or doing it blindfolded for variety.

Another thing you have to be aware of in the business context is that there is a certain amount of secrecy and paranoia whenever you deal with anything that business people think gives them a competitive advantage. In the therapeutic context there is no such thing as a «trade secret.» As soon as someone has a new idea, he tries to tell everyone about it so he can get some recognition. Businesses often spend a lot of money developing new techniques, and when these are successful, they try to hold on to them as long as they can.

There is also a lot of conservatism in business people, which is based on two things: (1) they don't have a good understanding of how a business organization works, and (2) they have found out the hard way that often when they try something new, it fouls up the system.

You often see this happen whenever a major position in the managerial or executive area of a corporation is vacated by promotion, dismissal, or retirement. The organization will almost always decide to search externally for a replacement. That's a behavioral statement that says business people have no idea what the qualities are that characterize a good manager or executive. Since they don't know, they have no basis for training or selection except a person's «track record.» Typically they don't want to take an employee from another position within their organization. If they had explicit criteria for what an executive position requires, it would be much more cost–effective to train people within the organization.

Even after a successful external search, when the new executive steps into the organization, typically everything in that organization deteriorates for a period of time. If the new executive really is effective, she will ultimately reorganize her departments, and usually she will fire or transfer several personnel in the process.

At least part of what goes on is that each manager tends to have a style of information handling which is unique. Since there isn't any explicit model of information handling, people fly by the seat of their pants at least as much in business as they do in therapy. One aspect of a managerial style is the amount of specificity or detail that a manager requires in reporting relationships.

Over a number of years a manager's staff learns what level of detail she is going to insist on, and they adjust their own reporting procedures to take that into account. Soon their reporting is running at just about the level of detail that is required by the manager they are reporting to. After that relationship has been established for any length of time, the staff person reporting will be upset if the manager asks for more or less detail.

To ask for more detail will be perceived by the staff person— particularly at the unconscious level—as being a challenge to his competency. «Why is she asking for more detail than I had to provide before? Does this mean she doesn't trust my judgement in reporting in this area?» The resulting negative interpersonal relationships can be very troublesome.

To ask for less detail can also cause problems. The reporting person offers a certain level of detailed information, but the new manager waves that off and asks for a more global judgement. All she wants is a «go/no–go» decision. Then the reporting person feels incomplete, and as if he and his work are not valued. He feels that the information he has worked so hard to develop is not being utilized. He also becomes concerned that now he has the responsibility for making decisions, instead of just the responsibility for gathering and presenting information. He may become quite nervous about keeping information which he traditionally had passed on to the manager and therefore no longer had any responsibility for.

One of the most powerful and immediate interventions is to instruct an incoming manager/executive in the notion of control of the quality of information. This allows you to do for verbal information the same thing that blow–up technology does for aerial photography. It allows you to control the detail of the information. You can have the most detailed, highest quality information possible, or you can reduce it to a simple decision: a «go/no–go» signal.

Once a manager is taught this, then she gains a sense of being able to exercise quality control down that information network that leads from her desk to the point of production or service. If she has no confidence that what she decides and plans can be transmitted— maintaining a high quality representation through the entire network that's going to have to respond to the change—then she doesn't make waves. She leaves things running adequately, and that's why you get the mediocrity and conservatism that is traditional in business. Any change runs a risk of a misrepresentation or misinterpretation somewhere along that chain. Therefore, it makes sense to be quite conservative.

With this understanding, a manager can exercise full control over the quality of the information flow within her network. She can make changes with the assurance that her representations will be communicated with high quality and detail. Then she can set standards of excellence as opposed to standards of mediocrity.

Once a manager has an appreciation of the notion of exercising control over the quality of information, she will be quite sensitive to that when she takes a new position. She will realize that the people who are reporting to her, and her peers, and the people she reports to, all have certain typical quality requirements for the information they process. In many instances we have taught a manager who is stepping into a new position to establish a positive frame by saying to her staff: «My understanding is that this is a well–oiled team that I'm joining, etc.» Next she explicitly brings up the notion of quality of information, and that certain adjustments will need to be made.

«You all had important and significant relationships with my predecessor. She had her own personal style, and you all learned—both consciously and deliberately, and by habit—how to present information to her. I'm different. I don't even know how I'm different, specifically, but for the next few weeks or a month, I want you to be particularly sensitive—and I will also—to the fact that there are some occasions on which I'll need very specific, very detailed, high quality information. At other times I'm going to simply ask you for a 'go/no–go' opinion.»

That way of framing the transition is both a reframe and a future–pace. It specifies the outcome: developing an adequate level of information flow. It alerts the staff that there will be some adjustments, because there are going to be differences. The new manager is not God and doesn't know what the differences will be specifically, since she was never exposed to the quality control measures that the previous manager used. That allows the staff to take a deep sigh of relief and say «OK. She's saying that she recognizes there are going to be adjustments made, and she wants my cooperation in achieving the outcome: finding an appropriate level of specificity in reporting information.»

Man: So a generalization that you could make from that example is that you need to be careful to frame any change in such a way that the people affected by it will respond in a positive way.

Yes, exactly. And that may mean framing changes differently for different levels or departments within an organization. Every maneuver in a business organization has to be done in such a way that it makes sense within the perceptual frame of the people who are affected. A five–year plan, if it were transmitted in its entirety to an assembly–line worker, would make no sense at all. For the assembly–line worker, the five–year plan has to be presented in terms of what happens to him and his job. To talk about the financial background and so forth would simply be confusing to him. It's literally information that he doesn't need to know. The description of a five–year plan at the executive level is not part of the perceptual reality of the assembly–line worker. It has to be relativized to his perceptual frame.

For example, I had a friend who was hired as the chief executive officer of a large firm. He is one of the few really high–quality business communicators that I know of. He has a really fine sensitivity to nonverbal behavior, and so on. One class of employees at the main headquarters of this firm was being operated by a time clock. The workers punched in every morning, punched out at noon, punched back in after lunch, and punched out in the evening. My friend has a philosophy that machines should never supervise or run people. One of the first changes he made after he'd spent a month or so taking over the reins as chief executive officer, was to remove the time clock. He explained to his primary staff his principle about not wanting machines to run people in his organization. He presented a frame to them which was adequate for their understanding, and then ordered all the time clocks removed on a Friday evening.

Now, consider the situation for the employees on Monday morning. They had been punching the time clock for years. No matter what happened on the way to work, or the night before, punching the clock was what hypnotists call a «reinduction signal» for them; it was an anchor that triggered access to all the skills and states of consciousness which were appropriate for effective performance at work. The time clock provided a signal in all representational systems. You see the clock, you push the card in kinesthetically, and you hear that funny sound as it punches the card.

My friend had inadvertently removed the exact anchor that they needed to perform successfully. The efficiency of the organization dropped by half in the first week or so after he had done this. I happened to arrive about a week later, and everyone was really upset. The solution that I came up with turned things around quite nicely. I proposed that he issue a short little statement to the first–line supervisors to pass on to the employees on Friday afternoon. This statement explained his belief that it was inappropriate for people to be run by machines. In his organization he wanted people to run people. Consistent with that, he had removed the time clock which had been there. And when they came to work on Monday morning, they would be interested to notice their supervisor standing in the position where the time clock used to be, and they could feel quite good about the fact that they could see a smile on the face of the supervisor—something they had never seen on the face of the time clock. The supervisors were told to say «good morning» and shake the hand of each employee as he came in. This provided a direct bridging, replacing the time clock by the supervisor in all representational systems. I'm sure that for the majority of employees, when they saw the face of the supervisor, they actually saw a superimposed image of the time clock! That gave them immediate access to the skills and states of consciousness that were required for efficient work.

That reframed the change, and preserved the signal function of the time clock. As a matter of fact, there was a productivity overrun. The employees bounced past previous efficiency levels for the next week. Then things settled down to slightly above previous levels. Business people know that if they let routines develop efficiently, then any change will probably disrupt them. However, if they very explicitly bridge or future–pace the changes to specify the way that they want them to operate, they can reduce the risk of disrupting the organization when they make changes.

Man: So is that reframing, or is it a future–pace?

It's both. You see, if you make a change without establishing an explicit frame around it, that leaves the employees to make up their own frames. So some of them might think «They've taken away my time clock, and that's just a way for them to disrupt my routine so that I don't perform my job well, because they're going to try to get rid of me.» It doesn't matter exactly what the workers hallucinate. The point is that the frames they select may be ones in which the change is considered inappropriate or disruptive. The maneuver I described recontextualized the change so that the workers could make a positive response at the appropriate time and place.

Man: For several years I worked as a lab chemist. I took off my white lab coat every Friday afternoon, and I'd have complete amnesia for anything connected with the lab until I put on my coat again the next Monday morning. As I put it on I'd ask myself «Now what was I doing Friday afternoon?»

That's a nice example. Imagine what would have happened if someone had taken away all the lab coats!

All behavior takes place in some context, and that context is the anchor for a certain set of responses. Framing is another word for contextualization, and reframing is recontextualization. Sometimes you do that by changing the actual external context. More often you change the internal context—the way a person internally frames and understands events—so as to get a different response. Whenever you do this in a system, you have to take into account how the entire system operates to be sure that the changes you make are ecological.