Conative Flashcards
34. Convincer Demonstration
Number of Times/ Length of Time Description: The meta-program of Convincer Representation (#19) focuses on theemotional facet of feeling convinced and so answers the question, How do we need to represent something so we find it convincing? Does it need to look right, sound right, feel right, or make sense? Being convinced, however, doesn’t only involve our feelings, it also involves our choices, how we
make our choices, and how we perceive the process of deciding. This brings up other factors and variables in the experience of feeling convinced: How many times it takes us to become convinced (times or repetition)? How long does it take (period of time)? James and Woodsmall (1988); Bagley and Reese (1988). Elicitation: C How often does someone have to demonstrate competence before you feel convinced? C How many times do you typically have to see, hear, read, or do something before you feel convinced of your own competency? How does your convincer (or believability) occur? Does it occur— a) Automatically: You start from the state of being convinced. b) Repetition: Over a number of times: how many times? c) Time Period: Over a period of time: how long a time? d) Consistently: You are never convinced, you consistently doubt.
Automatically Number of Times Period of Time Never Identification: A) Automatic Perceiving: People with an automatic convincer are easy to sell and convince. They essentially need no convincing. That’s because they assume believability. They not only begin with trust, but they trust people and things, until that trust is proven foolish. With a meta-program of being automatically convinced, they need little evidence, little proof, and little argumentation. Naively they are ready to believe even before the presentation begins. While they may gather some information, they are ready to imagine the rest. The problem here lies in sometimes trusting too much and too quickly. Bob tells stories of how he operated in this automatic mode of trusting and how it led him to purchasing products that he didn’t need and didn’t even want. He says that he was easily persuaded to sign up for many Multi-Level Marketing programs. When he eventually had enough, he shifted his meta-program to “Number of Times,” choosing to give himself three to seven times before acting. Such experiences can encourage and empower us to change our meta-programs. B) Repetition Perceiving: Most people use repetitions of trustworthy actions and communications as the foundation and basis for trust and believability. They only trust and believe after they have had a certain amount of exposure to information and experience. It then takes so many exposures to the information for it to solidify enough to seem “real” and believable. The specific number of times (e.g., 3, 5, 17, etc.) will be different from person to person, yet some number will be the lower threshold number that has to occur. Prior to that the person will not be persuaded. A number of presentations has to occur. “How many times does it take for you?” When you know, then pace that person’s meta-program by using that many repetitions. Persuasion will then occur as we speak to the person the required number of times. The frightening thought about this is that the majority of people can come to believe almost anything if repeated often enough. C) Perceiving via a Time Period. Unlike the amount of exposure to an idea (Repetition), others need for the exposure to occur over a period of time. This quality of “endurance over time” describes the factor that allows an idea to solidify in the mind. For people with a period of time convincer, the
sense of “time” plays the crucial element in their convincer strategy. If an idea, presentation, offer, etc. holds up over time and/or if a certain amount of time passes then their convincer is satisfied. As an example, it has been suggested that we might wait 10% of the person’s period of time criteria (e.g., 6 days if 60 days represents the period of time that it takes them to feel convinced), and then call them up. “I’ve been so busy since the last time we talked, it seems like it’s been two months, do you know what I mean?” D) Never (or almost never). Some people never accept anything as believable. They consistently never trust, so with every communication we have to start afresh with no foundation of trust. Others are not as extreme, it’s not that they will never trust, it just takes a lot to convince them. These take the reverse position to the automatic truster, they automatically distrust. They never believe, or are so skeptical, that they almost never. These people seldom give others the benefit of the doubt and so never feel absolutely convinced about anything. Their skill is that of doubting, which is the scientific mindset par excellence. For these people we have to prove something all over again every single time. Alluding to previous experience will not carry much weight. Hire these skeptics to do quality control work in contexts where we need someone to never believe, but check something out each and every time. These are the people to hire to maintain the airplanes! Languaging: “I believe you.” “I don’t believe him.” “It’s too soon to believe.” “I need to think about this some more.” For the never-convinced skeptic, pace your language accordingly, “I know you’ll never feel convinced that this is the right time for you to do this, so the only way to know is to get started and find out.” Contexts of Origin: Babies innately trust. They trust to be loved and cared for. They trust to be fed and bathed. Where there is distrust, there is or has been some sort of failure in the truthworthiness of the providers. This meta-program typically arises from what we learn and model from our parents and other authority figures. It depends on whether they were trustworthy and so can earn trust. Did they come through with what they said, with their promises? It also involves our beliefs about what we can trust and the variables (time, repetition, person, etc.) that enter into the experience. Self-Analysis: Conative Convincer: Process:
__ Automatic __ Time Period Contexts: __ Repetition __ Never (or almost never) __ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ____________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
35. Motivation Direction
Toward (Approach) —Away From (Avoidance)
Description: There are two general orientations regarding the direction we move when we feel motivated to take action and do something. Motivational energy involves both a moving toward what we value and want and moving away from what we de-value and want to avoid. In this we move toward the things we value and away from the things that causes us difficulty, pain, and frustration. When we specialize in either one of these fundamental directions, each creates specific talents, tendencies, and predispositions. Conversely, a balance and choice of both makes each side even richer. Some people have a basic orientation of moving toward their desired values. Others adopt a basic orientation of moving away from undesired things. The first are the values that pull on us while the second are the counter-values that primarily push us away from things. Pull values are the positive benefits that attract us into the future. Push values are the negative values that we do not want. They create a sense of aversion away from undesired experiences. What is the content of what we move toward or away from? Our values. We move toward or away from what we consider important, valuable, and/or significant. Usually, we have both toward values and away from values. For some, one direction or the other will operate more predominantly. Since all of us move away from some things and toward other things—we all have an internal propulsion system away from “pain” and toward “pleasure.” What do you specifically move away from? What registers neuro-semantically as pain for you? What registers neuro-semantically as pleasure for you? That your “pains” may comprise another’s “pleasures” alerts us to the fact that we have much plasticity in our nature regarding what we condition in ourselves as pain and pleasure. Woodsmall (1988). Robins (1991), Hall (2002, Propulsion Systems), Hall and Duval (Coaching Change, MetaCoaching, Vol. I, 2004). Elicitation: C What do you want? C What do you want in a relationship? (Or a job, a promotion, a car, etc.?) C What will having this do for you? C What do you value of importance about…? C How do you feel about that? (ask several times) Once we get an answer to these questions (usually in the form of a nominalization, i.e., love, peace, happiness, etc.), we can move up the levels of outcomes or down to the behavioral specifics (Scale, inductive, deductive, #3). If we move upward to a meta-level, we will get the meta-outcomes. Here we ask, “What does that outcome give you that’s even more important?” If we move down, we ask about the specifics that will give us the “complex equivalence” of that value in behavioral terms. This will give us the equivalent of that value empirically. C How will you know when you get love (peace, happiness, etc.)? C What will that look or sound like to you?
Values Avoidance Approach Moving Away From Moving Toward Identification: 1) Toward or Approach Perceiving:Those who primarily move toward what they want have a toward motivation strategy. Because they move toward their desired outcomes, their goals pull them
into their future. They use a go at response style toward goals and values and so they feel motivated to achieve, attain, and obtain. The strength of this is that it enables one to look forward, set goals, and feel motivated when one wants something. While those driven by this pattern can set priorities regarding desired values, they typically have more difficulty recognizing what to avoid. Because their perspective is mostly future-oriented, they feel most motivated by carrots or incentives, not aversions. Put a carrot out in front of them and they jump. When over-done, one can move toward things without considering what it means in terms of what one inevitably moves away from or the price one may pay for not paying attention. 2) Away from or Avoidance Perceiving: People who move away from what they de-value have a move away from strategy that energizes them to avoid things that they do not want. They operate with an orientation and focus on what to avoid, rather than what to approach. They primarily use a go away from response style. They feel motivated to move away from, avoid, steer clear of, and get rid of aversions. They typically have more difficulty with goals, managing their priorities, and get easily distracted by negative situations. The strength of the away from perspective is that it enables one to see, recognize, and feel motivated to deal with problems and potential dangers. Those with whom this style predominates feel most motivated by the stick (e.g., threats, negative aversions, pressure). Threats energize them; deadlines get them into action. They are more skilled at solving problems and troubleshooting than moving toward what they want. When over-done, they live their lives by crisis management. Problems and crises can distract them so that they drop what they’re doing to put out the urgent fire. Their perspective is mostly past-oriented. 3) Balanced perceiving. Each side of this continuum offers particular strengths and talents—the ability to see possibilities (Toward) and the ability to see and formulate problems when they are still small and manageable (Away From). In the Toward mode we dream, create visions, and design new possibilities. In the Away From mode we detect difficulties and problems, quality control, and plan ahead for possible contingencies. Languaging: Listen for toward and away from values. “It means respecting each other and taking care of each other.” “It means not fighting and arguing with each other, not feeling bad.” We hear goals, desires, dreams, visions, etc. in those who move toward values. We hear avoidances, aversions, devalues, etc. in those who move away from things. People will communicate their values and disvalues in nominalizations (i.e., process words that they have turned into static nouns). Listen for and distinguish inclusive and exclusive language. Toward language includes (i.e., gain, have, get, attain, achieve) while away from language excludes (i.e., stay clear of, get rid of, stay away from, avoid, and don’t need). In responding to a question like, “What do you want ina good relationship?” those with the toward orientation will say, “I want peace, love, and happiness.” Those with an away from orientation will say, “I don’t want any fighting or trying to manipulate each other.” Those who move toward with some away from will say, “I want us to consider each other’s feelings so we don’t fight.” Those who move away from with some toward will say, “We won’t feel hurt by each other because we will have more of a sense of harmony.”
To pace in your communications as you negotiate, manage, and relate, talk to the towards person about what you can do that will help himor her achieve outcomes. Mention the carrots, bonuses, and incentives inherent in your plan. With those who move away from, talk about how you can help them avoid dificulties, the problems they can minimize or put off, and the things that won’t go wrong. Emphasize how easy it will make their life. Those who move away from will sort for past assurances and look for security, safety, and protection. Provide them with a history of evidence inasmuch as they want to be rest assured about their choice as already proven over time. They seek more to solve problems than move toward goals. They don’t feel moved by rewards and goals as much as by avoiding problems and pains. Ask, “Have you had enough of that problem yet? Do you need another five years of it before making a change?” Those who move toward values focus on future possibilities. They think and feel primarily in terms of possibilities, opportunities, excitements, passions, dreams, etc. They enjoy the possibilities that lie within open-ended opportunities. They feel attracted to bigger risks for greater potential payoffs. This approach /avoidance perceptual filter enables us to make some distinctions regarding what a person will look for when seeking to purchase something. Avoidance responders want to know what problems the product will take care of. Goal-oriented people will experience the problem-avoidance approach as “negative.” They will want to know how a product will help them attain their goals. Jay Arthur (2002) describes toward and away from people as achievers and problem solvers. “Achievers move toward opportunity and possibility. They often create the next step in human evolution, processes, or technology. . . . Problem solvers move away from possible pain. They tend to be better at analyzing and solving problems. They can create new things by amplifying the consequences of not doing it.” (p. 43) Contexts of Origin: How we are wired neurologically to either move away from stress or to aggress toward our stresses (Stress Coping, #22) influences this metaprogram. So will our early learning environment and history and the significant people in our lives. What did we have permission for, and what was prohibited and tabooed? Trauma experiences also can reorient one to move toward either the avoidance mode or the toward mode. Self-Analysis: __ Toward (Approach) / Away From (Avoidance) __ Balanced: Equally Toward and Away from __ Toward with some Away From __ Away from with some Toward Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other:__________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
- Operational Style
Options — Procedures Description: We all have a preferred style for how we move through life and handle things. We may
prefer to find and follow procedures. We may like to know the rules, where we stand, the right way to do things, the steps, the stages, and the proper sequence. Or we may be interested in the procedures, yet only as one way of doing things. We may care much less about the right way to do things and focus more on all of the other ways that we could invent. We may prefer to have many options, alternatives, and choices. This Operational Style meta-program deals with how we respond. Do we like explicit instructions that provide guidance and direction or do we prefer coming up with numerous alternatives? We call the first style Procedures and the second, Options. James and Woodsmall (1988), Dilts, Epstein, and Dilts (1991), Woodsmall and Woodsmall (1998). Elicitation: C Ask why questions. Why did you choose the car that you bought? C Why did you decide to go into this field of work? C What was your thinking and reasoning in terms of choosing the town you live in or the bank you bank at? Procedures Balanced Options Rules, Sequences, “the right way” Alternatives, Non-linear step Identification: 1) Procedure Perceiving: People who organize and orient themselves via Procedures like to follow specific and definite procedures. They work well at doing procedural tasks and they sort for doing things “the right way.” They feel motivated when following a procedure and when they have a high degree of Procedures, they may have an almost compulsive need to complete a procedure. On the down side, they may not know how to generate such procedures if no one provides them. They typically want, and even need, the meta-program of closure (Completion, #14). “The quickest way to annoy a procedural person is by distracting him while he is ensconced in his precious procedure. Procedural people have great difficulty diluting their attention when they are concentrating on their procedures.” (Woodsmall and Woodsmall, p. 293) 2) Option Perceiving: Those who organize and orient themselves via options work much better at developing new procedures and at figuring out alternatives strategies. More typically, they will not work very well when it comes to following procedures which they or others have designed. If it works, they prefer to improve or alter it. Valuing alternatives and creativity, they search for an innovative and different approach. People with a high degree of Options become bored very easily and want change as part of their regular diet. On the down side, they will often find themselves resisting doing something “the same way.” Options people usually like to break the rules. Languaging: After you ask a why question, listen to the reasons given. Does the person choose options and expand options? Listen for “possibilities, choices, reasons, other ways, alternatives,” etc. If, on the other hand, the person tells you a story and/or gives you lots of facts, but doesn’t talk about choosing, this typically indicates the procedure orientation. They usually will answer the why question as if you had asked a how to question. The story they tell explains how they came into their situation, but doesn’t explain why they want it or chose it. A “because” answer to a why question indicates the reasons that an options person will give. The how-to answer to a why question indicates
a story or series of stories that a procedures person will more typically give. In the procedures orientation we give the impression that we didn’t have a choice in the matter, that we could not make a choice. Listen for such linguistic markers as “right way, proven way, correct way, how to,” etc. As you pace and communicate with someone who uses the options style, talk about possibilities, options, and innovations. “We’ll bend the rules for you to get this done.” Avoid giving fixed step-bystep procedures. Instead, play it by ear and emphasize all of the alternatives available to them. Allow them to violate procedures. To communicate and pace with a person who uses a procedures style, specifically detail a procedure for them that clearly takes them from their present state to their desired state. Give them ways of dealing with procedural break downs. Use numerical overviews, “five steps to effective negotiation.” The thing preventing many with the procedural style from taking action in buying, deciding, or acting is that they do not know how; they need specific steps. Avoid this with those who use the options style, it will seem condescending. Contexts of Origin: Possibly the brain physiology involved in the specialization of right or left hemisphere contributions to predisposing one to left brain sequential tasks over right brain holistic and visual processes. Modeling and identifying with someone who effectively uses either style certainly plays a role as does dis-identifying with someone who uses a style that brings hurt and pain. Self-Analysis: __ Procedure / Option / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: __________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
37. Adaptation
Judging / Perceiving Description: This meta-program relates to how we adapt ourselves to life, to the world, to other people, and to the information that influences our personal worlds. It relates to the kind and level of “control” we seek to exert. As such, we can adapt ourselves in one of two broad styles. In Perceiving, we move through life seeking to understand life on its own terms. We want to witness it, observe it, and see it for itself. Instead of wanting to control it, we want to join and integrate with it. We want to respect and honor it on its own terms. We want to just perceive it. Alternatively, in Judging we move through the world thinking about things in terms of how we can use what’s there, how we can create strategies for making the most of it, inventing plans to order, regulate, and control life’s events. In the first case, we just perceive and float along with things. This is a kinder and gentler approach to life—one that’s more ecological to the natural system of things. It is also a more passive one. In the
second we judge or evaluate what we like or dislike, what we would like to improve, and the ideas we have to more effectively manage. James and Woodsmall (1988), Seligman (1975, 1991), Huxley (1954). Elicitation: C Do you like to live life spontaneously as the spirit moves you or according to a plan? C Do you find it easy or difficult to make up your mind? C If we did a project together, would you prefer that we first outline and plan it in an orderly fashion or would you prefer to just begin to move into it and flexibly adjust to things as we go? C Do you have and use a day-timer as a way to organize things? Do you enjoy using it?
Perceiving Judging Identification: 1) Perceiving by Judging:: Do you seek to adapt to the environment or do you seek to get the environment to adapt to you? Those who judge and control want to make life adapt to them. They live their life according to plans, ideas, beliefs, hopes, and desires and so seek to make things fit and to bring order to their world (the Goal Striving meta-program, #40). They have a strong need for order. They like closure, definite boundaries (i.e., rules, laws, procedures, etc.), and clear cut categories (Closure meta-program, #14). The term “judger” is really unfortunate. It is not about being judgmental, rigid, or mean; it is about wanting the world and things outside of ourselves to adapt to us. 2) Perceiving by Perceiving: These are the people who float along in life adapting to things, life, others, and reality. They engage in life by perceiving, observing, noting, witnessing, and accepting. In this, they flow through life in an easy and gentle way with less concern about right and wrong, and less of a sense of violation when their plans are thwarted. In the Myer-Briggs model, they resist limits, order, and structure; they do not like a lot of rules, but actually feel constrained by them. Typically they will do what they feel like at the moment and take a more philosophical attitude toward difficulties. They like their options to remain open and may even avoid closure. They may have more difficulty deciding, evaluating, and taking a stand. Huxley (1954) described the shift of consciousness that he experienced in an experiment with mescalin in The Doors of Perception. This experienced moved him out of his everyday thinking to one that he described as “a sacred mindset.” He interpreted it as having connected with “Mind at Large” so that “the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system” shifted and he experienced a kind of out of body experience of just perceiving. “As I looked, this purely aesthetic, Cubist’s eye view gave place to what I can only describe as the sacramental vision of reality. I looked at those bamboo legs, and did not merely gaze at them, but actually being them—or rather being myself in them. . . . The mescalin taker sees no reason for doing anything in particular and finds most of the causes for which, at ordinary times, he was prepared to act and suffer, profoundly uninteresting.” Languaging: Listen for schedules, lists, evaluations, plans, etc. in the Judger meta-program. Listen
for strategies for taking action to make things different. They will more frequently operate in the “Through Time” meta-program (#58), and will be highly ordered and sequential. Typically, they do not change their minds unless new data warrants it. For perceivers who adapt to the world, listen for ideas and terms indicating spontaneity, freedom, understanding, accepting, etc. In pacing and communicating with someone in the Judger meta-program, relate to him or her with promptness, in an organized and decisive way, and remain focused on an outcome. Talk about order, about getting and staying organized, becoming definite, resolution, structure, and commitment. In pacing someone in the Perceiving meta-program, communicate and relate in a spontaneous way without insisting on time schedules. Frame decisions as “keeping one’s options open,” and avoid wrapping things up too quickly. Talk about the values of feeling free, open, flexible, waiting and seeing, keeping things open-ended and tentative. They like change, act impulsively, need autonomy, tolerate complexity well, and function in a “right-brain” way. Contexts of Origin: The origin of this meta-program corresponds with one’s experience of “time” (the Time meta-programs of Time Zones, #57 and Time Experience, #58), to personal beliefs and values about taking charge, controlling one’s environment versus accepting and adapting to the environment greatly effects which way one chooses to primarily feel about these issues. Anthropologists have found entire societies that fall into one or the other extreme. Religion, political philosophy, etc. also effect this. Prolonged trauma that generates a sense of Seligman’s (1975) “learned helplessness” can nudge one to adopt the perceiving sort, due to feelings of helplessness. Self-Analysis: __ Judging (controlling, shaping world to self) / Perceiving (floating, shaping self to world) / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: __________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
38. Modus Operandi
Necessity, Possibility, Desire, Impossibility Description: This meta-program relates to how we conceptualize the world. What kind of world do you live in? Do you live in a world of rules, permissions, prohibitions, desires, possibilities, impossibilities, etc.? Our mental mapping and framing of these concepts lead us to a specific linguistic distinction called modal operators. In linguistics, modal operators refer to those specific kinds of words that reflect our mode of relating and operating in the world. These words describe the conceptual worlds we live in. How do you perceive work, relationships, health, exercise, projects, and a thousand other things? How do you talk about them? Which modal operator naturally occurs in your talk? Which dominates? What’s the effect of those words on your states? Modal operator words not only arise from different perceptual models of the world, but also create differing emotional and behavioral responses. The way we language ourselves makes all the difference in the world on our internal model of the world (or matrix of frames), and the experiences we generate from those maps. What world or kind of a world do you live in? There are several possibilities: C A world of rules and demands: need to, must, should, it’s necessary, it’s
a necessity. C A world of desires: desire, want to, get to. C A world of limitations: it’s impossible, I can’t, it’s not allowed. C A world of possibilities: can, possible. These linguistic terms govern how we talk to ourselves. They make up the words we use to motivate. These words shed light on the more abstract, conceptual states of choice, freedom, empowerment, victimhood, obligations, and possibilities. Bandler and Grinder (1975), Ellis (1976), Hall (2000). Elicitation: C How did you motivate yourself to go to work today? C What did you say to yourself that helped to get you moving? C When you think about going to work, what do you think or say about it? C Why did you choose your present job? C Why have you chosen this school or that schedule?
Impossibility Necessity can’t have to, must, should Identification: 1) Impossibility words include “can’t, shouldn’t, must not,” etc. “A person shouldn’t miss work or show up late!” These indicate that we have mapped out a taboo law against desired or proposed options. The words of impossibility usually create personal limitations and contribute to a passive style of coping which can really limit our responsiveness. These words indicate taboos and prohibitions, “I can’t stand criticism.” We can translate this as, “I don’t give myself permission to stand or tolerate criticism.” In these kinds of psychological can’tswe have a map that precludes certain experiences. They differ significantly from physiological can’ts. “I can’t lift a car.” “I can’t fly.”
Desire, Possibility Choice want to, desire can wish, will 2) Necessity words include “must, have to, should,” etc. These indicate that a person operates from a model of compulsion, control, law, etc. “I have to go to work.” People who live by necessity usually look at life as a routine or burden of which they have little or no choice. Typically they believe and feel themselves stuck with their lot in life. Given their model of limitation—so they act, so they perceive. If you ask a why question, “Why are you doing that? Why are you employed here?” they will not give you a reason, but will use necessity words indicating that they have no choice, but “have to” do it. 3) Desire words include “want to, love to, get to,” etc. These arise from a model of the world as including wants, desires, and passions. “I feel so lucky to get to go to work!” The words of desire typically lead to more motivation and drive, unless they map out unrealistic dreams. In that case they lead to disappointment, disillusionment, and frustration. If you ask a why question here, those with this meta-program will tell you about the whys, big reasons, visions, dreams, hopes, desires, purposes, etc. that drive them. 4) Possibility words include “can, will, may, would, could,” etc. These reflect an optimistic model, where we view various options and alternatives as possible. “Well another day, another dollar.” “When I get towork today, I will work on…”
People who operate from the possibility mode do what they want to do and so develop reasons. They look for new opportunities for expanding their options. Possibility people generally believe they have some (or a lot of) control over life and so feel motivated to make choices and take action. Those who use both necessity and possibility words and operate from both models will feel motivated by both options and obligations. Think of some task you will do in the near future. Now say to yourself, 1) “I must do….” and then, 2) “I can do….” and now, 3) “I get to…” Which of these words work best for you in terms of enhancing your motivation? 5) Choice words include “choose, want, get to, my choice,” etc. These indicate a mental map that allows for human will, intention, and choice. “I choose to go to work.” Languaging: When formatting your communications, look for and match the person’s modal operators and/or subtly provide reframes by suggesting other modal operators. These inevitably operate as powerful motivators. The person who operates predominately by necessity, when over-done, can get into should-ing and must-ing which Ellis has humorously referred to as musterbation thinking. Such should-ing and musting creates a lot of inner pressure for self and others and can evoke resentment and resistence. Too much should-ing generates lots of unnecessary and inappropriate shame, guilt, selfcontempt and other similar unresourceful states. People who live by these cognitive distortions have beliefs of demandingness on self, others, and the universe in the back of their mind. This feeds an attitude of entitlement which will inevitably create disappointment, disillusionment, and depression. As a mapmaking style, it makes for poor adjustment to the constraints of reality. Contexts of Origin: Because language drives and creates this perceptual lens, it is a Meta-Model distinction as well as a meta-program. A specific kind of language (modal operators) frames the way we think and perceive about things. Where does this come from? It comes in part from the kind of language parents and others use to motivate us. “You have to listen to me.” “Think about what you can get from this experience.” Trauma and hurt can drive a person away from the world of possibility and desire as a maneuver to protect oneself from disappointment. Strict and overly disciplined homes and communities can evoke one to adopt the necessity mode and impossibility mode. Self-Analysis: __ Necessity / Desire / Impossibility / Possibility / Choice Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other:____________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
39. Preference
People, Place, Things, Time, Activity, Information, Systems Description: We all have preferences. We have preferences about what we like and what we want to do. These show up as part of our perceptual frames when we ask about how a person prefers to do anything from taking a vacation, to working, shopping, exercising, etc. They show up also when we
ask about a person’s peak experiences in life. Asking such questions typically evokes our Preference metaprograms. What is your primary interest? This meta-program enables us to identify the factors that we primarily value and choose which, in turn, informs us about motivations. We can sort out these preferences into the following categories. C People (who) C Place (where) C Things (what) C Activity (how) C Information (why, or what information) C Time (when) C Systems The Preference meta-program gives us a person’s focal point of interest and attention. To detect, notice the questions that a person asks, the themes in a person’s talk, and the patterns of behavior. To detect your own, notice what you find easiest and most motivating to talk about. Conversely, what do you find most boring, or even annoying, to talk about? James and Woodsmall (1988); Woodsmall and Woodsmall (1998). Elicitation: C What is really important to you about how you spend your next two week vacation? C What kinds of things, people, activities, etc. would you want if it registers as a great holiday? C Do you have a favorite restaurant? Why is it your favorite? C What do you prefer in terms of work? What do you naturally become passionate about? C What is your order of these preferences?
People Places Things Activities Information Time Systems Who Where What How Why, When How What information interconnected Identification: 1) People. Those who prefer people care most of all about who. They relate well socially and are probably outgoing and friendly, or wish they were. They talk about people, what others say, think, feel, do. When they over-do this, they can fall into the habit of gossiping. Because they hate being alone, they turn solitude into “loneliness.” 2) Place. These people havegeography and location on the mind. Where really counts as of supreme importance for them. They are highly aware of their environment and find lots of meaning in it. They perceive things in terms of the environment—what they can or cannot do in various contexts. They may also have a highly developed sense of direction and location. They will generally take a lot of pride in their places (home, office, garden, shop, etc.) and focus on locality, layout, furnishings, etc. 3) Things. These people focus on what is in their environment: possessions, money, food, surroundings, etc. They typically take pride in both tangible things (house, car, clothes, etc.) and intangible things (degrees, status, security, power, etc). They seek meaning and happiness via these things. Positively, they will take care of things. Negatively, they may do so to the neglect of people. They will “love” people by giving and/or using things. In the work environment, this preference
shows up in a love and passion for working with things rather than people, ideas, or systems. 4) Activity. People with this preference focus primarily on the how of a process or set of actions. They like doing things, going places, and feeling the rush of activities. They prefer liveliness and motion and strongly dislike “just sitting around.” Boredom puts them off. They less often focus on people or their own feelings and instead focus on tasks—on getting a job done, accomplishing goals, and the end result of a task completed. 5) Time. These are people whose preference centers primarily aroundwhen. The time could be past, present, future, or atemporal (Time Zones meta-program, #57). Because there are many meanings and categories of “time” we can endow this semantic-conceptual reality with many kinds of significance and meaning. Such will show up in beliefs about time: “Time is money.” “Time is a commodity.” “Don’t waste time.” This meta-program preference focuses our attentions: “How much time will it take?” “How long will we stay there?” “When will we return?” 6) Information. Those who prefer ideas (the why and what of information) sort for what they will learn, from whom, the value of the information, and how they can apply it. Rather than where, with whom, and when, these people care about the information they are learning. 7) Systems. Those who orient themselves toward working with systems think and care primarily about processes, inter-relationships, cause-effect relations, plans, and procedures. More than focusing on people or feelings, they focus on the functioning of the system in terms of how things work, the dynamics involved, the contexts and contexts-of-contexts, etc. Languaging: Listen for and match back the specific kind of preferences that the person offers. Listen for the persons hierarchy or order of preferences. It could be activity first, then people, etc. Contexts of Origin: Since we can give value to all of these experiences, and do, we undoubtedly develop our sorting style from our own experiences of pleasure and pain with them, as we also model those significant ones in our life. Self-Analysis: __ People / Places / Things / Activity / Information / Systems __ Combinations of such: ____________________________ Contexts: __ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ___________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
40. Goal Striving:
Skepticism, Optimization, Perfectionism Description: This meta-program relates to how we think, feel, perceive, and make choices about goals. Do we like setting goals and striving to achieve them or do we find goal-setting unpleasant, even painful? People differ in how they perceive and choose to go after goals. Some people relate to
goal-setting in a perfectionist style (it’s never good enough), others do so in an optimizational style (doing the best they can and letting it go at that), still others avoid the whole subject as they try to step aside from it and choose to not set goals (goals are worthless, striving after them is futile and frustrating). Elicitation: C What important goal or goals have you set for yourself to achieve? C How did you go about achieving that goal? C Was striving for that goal a pleasant or unpleasant experience for you? C If you set a goal today to accomplish something of significance, how would you begin to work on it? C Have you ever motivated yourself by setting a goal and then went after it? C If we did a project together, would you take more interest in getting started, maintaining during the middle or wrapping it up?
Skeptic Hate goal setting Optimizing Does best one can and leaves it at that Perfectionism Never good enough could have done more and better Identification: 1) Skepticism Perceiving: Those who avoid goal-setting and goal-achieving altogether view the setting and striving after goals with doubt, skepticism, and a defeatist attitude. They don’t like it; they don’t believe in it. They choose to avoid directly thinking about the future or taking effective action to give it birth. Expecting only the worst to happen, they refuse to participate in managing themselves and their objectives through time. 2) Optimizing Perceiving: Those who move toward their goals optimizing operate more pragmatically. They do the best they can and leave it at that. They set goals in small steps so that they can appreciate little stages of success along the way. For them, much of the fun is the process of moving toward a goal. By optimizing, a person sets not only end-goals, but also process goals. That is, they not only seek to achieve some end-product, but to experience enjoyment goals, learning goals, and relationship goals along the way. Years ago when Bob was recovering from a time that he experienced burnout in his work, he came across this statement that offered an optimizing reframe which he really liked. “When planning a vacation, enjoy the packing as much as the actual vacation!” Optimizing, like anything else, can be taken to an extreme. It happens when we adopt an unrealistic “positive” attitude of anything being good enough so we do not take on sufficient goals that are challenging enough to call forth our best efforts and striving. 3) Perfectionism Perceiving: Going for “perfection” (flawlessness) makes one a “perfectionist”—he or she never feels satisfied with his or her performance. He can always see a flaw in his
performance, and in the performances of others. Because she set her goals unrealistically high, she stays constantly frustrated. He views the end-product as his criteria for moving toward his goal and discounts the joy and challenge of getting there as part of the process. By setting extremely high goals and criteria, people who use this style judge themselves and others harshly for anything that falls short, even if it is just a judgment in the head. Often they fall into procrastination as a protective device. Perfectionism frequently involves a future orientation that becomes excessive. Bob says that he used to live that way. He lived so oriented toward his future that he missed a lot of the present. He also held a belief against ever attaining satisfaction. Why? Because he wanted to leave room for improvement, and so he generally lived in a state of continual frustration and dissatisfaction. Eventually this led to burnout—a good burnout that got him to change his goal striving meta-program to optimizing. The result, paradoxically, has been increased productivity and enjoyment. Languaging: This meta-program enables us to predict when a person will stop in his or her efforts of persevering, as well as the manner in which the person will set goals, strive for them, and recognize satisfying them. Elicit it by inviting someone to talk about a goal, objective, dream, or a possibility. Those who operate perfectionistically typically either procrastinate when contemplating a project or begin a project well and then get bogged down in details and/or caught up in negative emotional states (e.g., frustration over flaws). While they talk a lot about the end product, they block themselves from getting there. The end product is never good enough for them. Optimizers seem to flow along a lot better, and ironically, produce higher levels of excellence precisely because they are not aiming to get it “just right.” The skeptical defeatists treat goal-setting talk as worthless and useless and tell stories of how it has never worked or caused great disappointment. Once you know a person’s style of moving toward a goal, match it in your communications about an objective you want to offer. Expect to see and hear lots of excitement, passion, and motivation in the optimizers; wild-eyed expectation and/or total frustration in perfectionists, and skepticism and negativity in those who avoid goal-setting. Contexts of Origin: How we conceptualize and actualize our goals is a learned phenomenon. We learn this via modeling, instruction, pain and pleasure that either rewards or punishes our first feeble efforts, and the language we use to articulate supporting beliefs. Traumatic experiences around being defeated in reaching a goal can knock a person out of the running so that he or she becomes skeptical about the whole process. The more “shoulds, musts, and have tos” that a person uses in motivating themselves (the meta-program of Modus Operandi, #38), the more likely she or he will aim perfectionistically. Self-Analysis: __ Skepticism / Optimizing / Perfectionism Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
41. Buying:
Cost, Quality, Time Description: What’s in your mind, and what do you sort for, when it comes to making a purchase? When you are in the process of deciding to buy something, what is the first value that you look for and perceive? Typically our buying strategy revolves around three primary values. Those typically on the forefront of our consciousness are cost, quality, and time. Reese and Bailey (1988). Elicitation: C What do you primarily concern yourself with—the price, time, or quality, or some combination of these when you consider making a purchase? C Where would you put a check on a triangle that contains these three values if you had to put it somewhere? C As you imagine a triangle so that each end of the triangle stands for one of these factors—cost, time, and quality, where would you check the center of your attention? Use the triangle now to sort out and decide about how to prioritize these things. Put a check at the place on the triangle that represents where you feel that you put most of your concern. Doing this brings to the foreground of our awareness the tradeoffs between these values. It also assists us in avoiding feeling victimized if we change our mind later. Figure 8:1 The Buying Line Cost Time Quality The Buying Triangle Identification: 1) Cost: Perceptually, many people focus entirely on the price of a product or service. This primary concern is the filter that governs everything else. The question on their mind is, “How much does it cost?”
2) Quality: Others focus principally on the quality of the product or service. The question on their mind governing the way they perceive is, “What is the quality of this product? Is it cheap or solid? Will it last or will it quickly fall apart and need repair?”
3) Time: Others focus on the time factor of taking ownership of the product or service. What’s on their mind is, “When can I get this? How long do I have to wait? Is it available now?” Yet these buying values often conflict with each other. While we often mention cost as the chief, or only, factor in our purchase decision, we could equally care about any of the other variables on this continuum. A list of quality factors (i.e., convenience, comfort, etc.) could override the factors. Peter Young suggests the following combinations of these variables. When we combine cost and time we have convenience. When we combine cost and quality we have worth. When we combine time and quality we have craftsmanship.
Reg Reynolds uses these distinctions as a project management tool. A project manager can optimize all three by finding the optimal balance. Imagine a point that can move within the triangle and be located at some point. Where is that point? The client’s financial will push the point toward the lowest cost, the client’s marketing and sales will want completion in the shortest time, and the plant manager and customers will want to best quality. Keep moving the point until you find a balance that works. Languaging: Listen for words indicating the distinctions of each of these values. Once you know the priority of values between cost, convenience, quality, and time, you will know how to match the person in your communications.
Contexts of Origin: How we learn to value one of these experiences over the other in our choosing to buy something undoubtedly arisesfrom those from whom we learned, and the value system encouraged by the contexts of religion, culture, social status, etc. Negative experiences with cost, quality, and time can make these “sore spots.” Self-Analysis: __ Cost / / Quality / Time Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ___________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
- Social Convincer
Distrusting Suspicious — Trusting Naive Description: Growing out of how we process evidence and experiences states of feeling convinced (the Convincer Representational meta-program, #19), this one addresses the same processes, but with a human twist. This meta-program refers to our concepts, emotions, decisions, experiences in trustingpeople. How do we relate to the idea and experiences of taking people at their word? Some people use a thinking-feeling pattern of distrust, others of trust. How easy or difficult do we find it to choose to trust people? Erickson (1959, 1968). Elicitation: C When you think about meeting someone new, do you immediately have a sense of trust and openness to the person, or thoughts and feelings of distrust, doubt, questions, jealousy, insecurity, etc.? C How do you typically choose to relate to a person, or a group of people, before you know them very well? caution? Do you do so with trust or with
Distrusting Balance Suspicious, paranoia setting Identification: 1) Distrust Perceiving: People who immediately question, wonder, feel a little (or a lot) defensive will hold back, explore, make sure about the person’s motives, intentions, and style. They will typically adopt a jealous, guarded, defensive position, and will not immediately trust. As a result, they will come across as unfriendly and not very approachable (which can easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy).
Trusting Takes others at their word, naive 2) Trust Perceiving: People who immediately trust, feel connected, and act trustingly quickly move out to people and will even embrace the stranger. Typically, they will come across as warm, friendly, interested, and outgoing. When over-done, they will naively trust anything people say which then allows them to get manipulated and taken advantaged of easily. 3) Balanced between Trusting and Distrusting: Balancing trust and skepticism can enable us to
distinguish friendliness and openness from trust. We can be friendly, invite trust, and still wait until we have sufficient evidence for recognizing someone’s trustworthiness. Languaging: The distrust orientation influences a person’s thinking, perceiving, and acting so that he or she will move out into social situations and new relationships very cautiously, never feeling convinced about the other’s motives or intentions. When difficulties arise, they can quickly access a state of feeling controlled and manipulated. This then proves the importance of distrusting others. The trust orientation as a meta-program causes one toquickly and to immediately reach out to others with warmth, charm, and sometimes naivete. Contexts of Origin: Erickson’s (1959, 1968) model of the psycho-social stages of development details the trust/distrust stage as occurring between two and five years of age and primarily concerning parents and early emotionally significant people. Did they behave in a trustworthy way? Could the child trust the provider’s words as accurate representations of the world and of the behaviors that they would then do? Later traumas of betrayal, violation of trusts, etc. can also initiate the distrust program. Self-Analysis: __ Distrust / Trust / Balance __ Work/Career __ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: __________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
- Interactive
Competitive — Cooperative; Win/Lose — Win/Win Description: In interacting with people, things, information, and events we can do so in various ways according to the style and the energy expended: competitively or cooperatively in a Win/Lose attitude or in a Win/Win attitude. How do you see things? Which meta-program is the governing lens that colors this facet of life for you? Through the eyes of competition or cooperation? C When you come into a situation, how do you usually respond? C Do you respond with a sense of cooperation or a feeling of competition? C Is your general attitude at work one of Win/Lose or Win/Win? C When working with someone new, do you automatically become competitive or cooperative? C How often do you think about wanting, getting ahead, and out-scoring another? C How easily do you see people and opportunities in terms of collaboration?
Competitive Balanced Cooperative Win/Lose Depends on context and Win/Win purpose of interaction Identification: 1) Competitive Perceiving: This response involves processing an experience, thought, and emotion in terms of comparison and competition: “Who is the best, the first, the fastest, the strongest, the most competent, etc.?” A competitive responder might get excited, “I bet I can relax faster or more
completely than you can!” Winning, beating, outdoing, and not-losing colors one’s perspective. In terms of motivation, this can create a powerful motivation, and when not managed well, can lead to stress and burnout. 4) Cooperative Perceiving: This response thinks in terms of assisting and helping other people to share the experience. “How can I make this a more pleasant, enjoyable, resourceful experience for everyone?” Collaborating, working together, networking, synergizing, etc. colors one’s perspective. Those more competitive response patterns think in Win/Lose. Those who subscribe to the cooperative response pattern think in Win/Win terms. Languaging: Listen for the language of cooperation or competition, for comparative terms (better, best, faster, etc.), for how a person knows when he or she has a “win,” or a “lose,” and whether this affects others positively or negatively. Interplay competition and cooperation in a way so that each is sequenced in a way that supports and enhances everybody. Contexts of Origin: Typically we learn how to respond given how we have been socially conditioned to do so. Further, pain and trauma experiences can contribute to us adopting the thinking pattern of competition and/or cooperation. Self-Analysis: __ Competitive / Cooperative / Balance Contexts: __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
__ Work/Career __ Intimates
- Directness
Inferential — Direct; High — Low Context Description: We all require different degrees of context in order to understand the meaning of a communication. How much context do you need? Edward Hall introduced the idea of low and high contexts in his sociological studies on communication. High and low contexts have to do with the way we explicitly assert or implicitly assume context. As such, contexting performs multiple functions. Since any shift in the level of context is a communication, whether it moves up or down it can signal a warming or cooling of relations. “Context is the information that surrounds an event; it is inextricably bound up with the meaning of that event. The elements that combine to produce a given meaning—events and context—are in different proportions depending on the culture. The cultures of the world can be compared on a scale from high to low context.” (1990, p. 6) “A high context communication or message is one in which most of the information is already in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message. A low context communication is just the opposite; i.e., the mass of information is vested in the explicit code. Twins who have grown up together can and do communicate more economically (high context) than two lawyers in a courtroom during a trial (low context), a mathematician programming a computer, two politicians drafting legislation, two administrators writing a regulation.” (1976) Hall identifies Americans, Germans, Swiss, Scandinavians, and other northern Europeans as low
context. They compartmentalize their personal relationships, work, and many aspects of daily life. By contrast, Japanese, Arabs, and Mediterranean peoples, who have extensive information networks among family, friends, and colleagues and who are involved in close personal relationships are high context. As a practical consequence of low and high contexts people communicate either directly or indirectly. It also leads to inferential listening and speaking versus direct listening and speaking. Here the experience ofcontext elicits corresponding ideas, beliefs, and concepts about being direct versus being indirect and more inferential. Edward Hall (1976, 1990). C In any given context (business, friendships, etc.), how much information do you already know and that you don’t need to be made explicit? C What do you believe and value about being direct and forthright? C How well does assertive directness fit with your family and cultural values?
Direct Balanced Inferential Low Context High Context Identification: 1) High Context and Inferential Perceiving: Those who have high context as a meta-program are apt to become impatient and irritated when low context people insist on giving them information which they themselves do not need. For them, the cultural context creates and holds the information. This allows people to think more inferentially, assuming and “just knowing” what things mean and what others want. The high context also leads to more inferential speaking—communicating in ways that just assume things, that does not just come right out and says what we mean. Culturally, this obviously influences relationships, business negotiations, and beliefs about different peoples. The inferential listening and speaking of high context people can seem secretive, nonassertive, mysterious, and even manipulative to those not in on the context. 2) Low Context and Direct Perceiving: Conversely, those with the low context meta-program will be at a loss when high context people don’t provide enough information. They will more likely find it frustrating and may jump to the conclusion that the others are hiding something. Similarly, when they are too direct in speaking, they may come across as brash, confrontative, even insulting. “One of the great communications challenges in life is to find the appropriate level of contexting needed in each situation. Too much information leads people to feel they are being talked down to; too little information can mystify them or make them feel left out.” (Hall, Edward, 1990, p. 9) Languaging: The distinction in this meta-program arises from recognizing the amount or degree of context that a person needs in communicating. While Edward Hall addresses groups, cultures, and nations, each of us have situations where the degree of context will vary. Contexts of Origin: This meta-program is entirely learned. In this, one’s national and cultural origins play the most influential role. Self-Analysis: __ Low Context (Inferential) — High Context (Direct) Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
45. Management:
: Control, Delegation, Collaborative Description: This meta-program relates to how we perceive and make choices in working with others around experiences that have to do with managing a task, process, project, or any goal that we want to achieve. How do we go about such? Do we take control of things and just do them? Do we seek out others to delegate tasks, responsibilities, and assignments to? Or do we work with others to create a joint collaboration, a mutual meeting of the minds? Elicitation: C When you want to or have to get something done that’s important and others are involved (or could be involved), what’s first on your mind—just doing it, delegating tasks to others, or creating a collaboration with others? C How do you generally like to work on projects: by yourself, with others, or as a boss? C If you were in a management role, what kind of manager would you be? C Who do you most respect as a manager? Why? What was so significant about the way that manager operated?
Control Delegate Collaborative Identification: 1) Perceiving via Control: Some people like to be in control in that they want to have their hands on things and be a part of the decision-making process. They like to take action and to be active (Somatic Response, Active, #27). They may operate from a self referent meta-program in terms of their Attention (#24) or internal meta-program in terms of where they look for making decisions (Decision Making #23). 2) Perceiving via Delegation: There’s another sense in which we might “be in control” and that relates to “telling others what to do,” a crude form of delegating. They easily delegate and, in fact, may be unable to take action themselves due to their need to delegate. Others delegate because it is an expression of sharing, guiding, leading, mentoring, and even empowering others. 3) Perceiving via Collaborative: Some people work best through collaborative efforts, so the glasses they wear when it comes to getting something done involves checking with everybody involved to make sure that everybody is on board. They want, and are skilled at, working toward consensus as much as possible within a group and so run their business and teams accordingly. Languaging: In the context of managing anything, notice how a person talks regarding controlling, delegating, and/or collaborating. Pay attention to where the person puts the emphasis, the semantically loaded words for him or her. Contexts of Orient: The ability to manage other people is a learned skill, not an inherited one. Other
meta-programs fit or fail to fit into this skill most notably the Attention meta-program of Self or Other (#24), the Work Style Preference metaprogram (#30), and the Social Convincer of trust or distrust (#42). Self-Analysis: __ Control — Delegate — Collaborative — Flexibility Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
Risk Taking
Fearful and Aversive — Excitement in Embracing Description: This meta-program addresses the subject of how we perceive and make choices around the awareness and/or experiences of risk. How do we respond to new things, novel experiences, and/or potentially dangerous things? Do we think and feel fearful and so act with great caution, even paranoia and resistance? Or do we think and feel excited, see opportunities, and feel a rush of enthusiasm? This meta-program of choice directly flows from how we handle change and influences, whether we are pioneers, first adaptors or resistors to risks. On the continuum of change and risk taking, we have at the far left those aversive to risk. They prefer to keep things the same and so resist change until it is wellproven and accepted. They are the traditionalists who want the old ways. Then there are the settlers. They quickly follow a change that’s occurring in a culture, society, business, or community. They range from the skeptical ones to the more accepting ones of the change. They may be the first colonists, or the early settlers. Finally, to the far right are the explorers, pioneers, inventors and discoverers of change. Elicitation: C What are your thoughts and feelings about new things, risks, and adventures? C What are some of the biggest risks that you’ve taken in your personal life? In your business and career? C Do you typically get excited or scared when it comes to facing a big risk or an unknown factor?
Aversive to Risk Balance The Embracing of Risk Fearful, Suspicious, Defensive setting Excitement, Playfulness, Hope Identification: 1) Approach, Embracing Risk Perceiving: Those who are excited by adventure and who embrace risk and even danger approach such, find it a turn-on, and feel more alive by it. Such people will feel bored and listless without a sense of danger, thrill, or risk in their lives. These will be the entrepreneurs in the business world, the venturesome explorers. As such, they actively seek new and different ideas (Relationship Comparison, mis-matching for difference, #4) and have an internal locus of control (Authority Source, #23). 2) Avoid, Aversive to Risk Perceiving: Those who find adventure and the unknown scary will avoid it and sometimes go to great lengths to prevent such from arising in the contexts of their lives. Such
people prefer safety, familiarity, and the known. They will be excellent employees in any business that provides security, continuity, and that values loyalty. They value safety and security over adventure and risk. These are the settlers in contrast to the pioneers. 3) Balance between Approach and Avoidance: Here one appropriately approaches the changes that make a difference and simultaneously moves away from changes that do not significantly enhance the qualitiy of one’s life. Languaging: Listen for words and language of approach and avoidance regarding risks, adventures, or the unknown. Listen for words describing safety, feeling safe, protection, in those with the avoidance meta-program and words of excitement in the approachers. Contexts of Origin: This meta-program will have an interplay of some neurological tendencies and learning and experiences. The more sensitive and easily stimulated or aroused one’s nervous system, the more our awareness of dangers and threats (Stress Coping meta-program, #22). Because we grow up modeling those nearest to us, this meta-program reflects how we have learned to handle changes and risks. Self-Analysis: __ Avoid Risk and Adventure — Approach to Embrace Risk and Adventure Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
47. Decision
Cautious — Bold Description: When it comes to making decisions, some people seem to take forever. They weigh every facet of every pro and con and cautiously, even fearfully, go back and forth in indecision, unable to decide. Eventually, circumstances force them to decide. Others are so quick about making decisions that you wonder if they ever weigh any of the advantages or disadvantages. They are decisive, and bold, and when taken to an extreme, are impulsive. How do you handle decision making? Where are you in the spectrum? Elicitation: C When you think about making a decision, what are your first thoughts and feelings? C Do you like making decisions or do you find them distressful, even painful? C When you’re in a critical circumstance, how do you handle decisions? C Do you find the process of making decisions an easy or difficult thing? C How cautious or bold are you in making decisions?
Cautious Balance Bold Identification:
1) Cautious Perceiving: Those who are cautious about decision making find it unpleasant, difficult, and even painful. The weighing of the advantages and disadvantages for each facet of the possible decisions sends them back and forth. Because the cautious don’t want to make a bad decision; they fear the consequences of choosing wrong, so they hesitate and procrastinate. Often they let things get to a crisis so when they do decide, it is under pressure and more emotional strain, only reconfirming their dislike of decision making. 2) Bold Perceiving: Those who are bold about decision making are self-assured, confident (sometimes confident to a fault), and don’t give it much thought. Often they are the ones who think quickly and act quickly. This doesn’t make their decisions any wiser and they are the ones who most often end up making rash decisions that they later regret. Those who wisely do so know their values, criteria, situation, market, and context very well and then trust their intuitions. 3) Balance between Bold and Cautious: Others are neither bold not cautious. They are thoughtfully pragmatic. They are neither excited about deciding per se, nor fearful of it. They look upon decisions as an entirely pragmatic matter of weighing the pros and cons. Languaging: The context here is that of weighing pros and cons and coming to a decision. In that context, notice the amount of tentative qualifiers in the person’s language (may, might, could, seems, appears, etc.). These indicate the cautious approach and will be useful in pacing. Contexts of Orient: This nature part of this meta-program will arise from a person’s natural tendency in stress to respond passively (cautious) or aggressively (Stress Coping, bold, #22). The quicker a person’s mental processing, the more likely that person will be bold in this meta-program (Speed, #18). The nurture part depends on the person’s self-confidence of skills in the area regarding the decision (Self-Confidence, #50) and in the person’s Motivation Direction metaprogram (toward or away from, #35). Self-Analysis: __ Cautious — Bold — Balanced Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
