Emotional

Question 1

19. Convincer Representation:

Answer 1

Looks, Sounds, or Feels Right — Makes Sense Description: As we process information, we learn to value different qualities and experiences. This leads to developing different strategies for feeling convinced about the value, importance, or significance of things. Yet what specifically leads us to accept something as believable? Ultimately, such data comes from the basic representation systems. Some of us will believe in something, feel convinced, and take action about it because it looks right (V+), sounds right (At), feels right (K+), or makes sense (Ad). What makes something believable to you? What convinces you to feel sure about something? There are other factors that influence us to believe in a person, thing, or event. The Convincer Demonstration meta-program (#34) deals with other factors influencing our choices.Repetition:How often does someone have to demonstrate competence to you before you feel convinced? How many times do you typically have to see, hear, read, or do something before you feel convinced about your own competency at it? Because feeling convinced is an inherent part of most decision making strategies, this meta-program deals directly with how we make decisions. And knowing what data a person uses to make a decision empowers us to communicate and influence more effectively. Time Span: Over what length of time? Consider all of the different facets that go into the structure of persuasion around a major purchase, like a new car. How do we go about gathering information in the first place for making this decision? What information do we need? What sensory systems do we use as we think? How often do we have to think about it before the information seems right? Here we distinguish two facets of the experience of being convinced to distinguish two meta-programs: Convincer Representation and Convincer Demonstration (#34). James and Woodsmall (1988), Woodsmall and Woodsmall (1998). 1) Representation: Which mode of awareness do you use (VAK and Ad)? 2) Demonstration: What process moves you from merely thinking about something to feeling convinced and persuaded? How many times does it take in order for you to believe something? Elicitation: C When in the process of decision-making, what representations evoke the convinced feeling in you? C Why did you decide on your present choice of car? C What helps you decide where to vacation? C As you make a decision about where to vacation, how do you think about such? Do you see, hear, or create feelings about it? C What lets you know that a product feels right for you? Looks Right (V+) Identification: 1) Looks Right: representations look right. When the visual qualities seem compelling, they act. Visual aids, diagrams, pictures, etc. assist them in their decision making.
Makes Sense (Ad) (meta-representation)
Sounds Right (At) Feels Right (K+) People who use visual convincers do things because their 2) Sounds Right: People who use auditory convincers have a representation that sounds right. They hear it as clear as a bell. What volume, pitch, voice quality, speed, style, etc. do you find most convincing? Here modeling the voice quality of one who a person finds most convincing really helps. 3) Feels Right: People who use a kinesthetic convincer have a visceral representation of their choice that triggers the right tactile or internal sensations—it feels right. Here hands-on experiences have a significant impact. 4) Makes Sense Linguistically: People who use the language convincer move above the sensory representations to the meta-representation of language. They encode their criteria, standards, and values for feeling convinced and ready to act. Now their feelings seems logical and reasonable, they “makes sense.” They like data, facts, and reasons. What specific ideas, words, values, expressions, etc. most effectively elicit persuasion? “Make sense” people commonly look to books, reports, letters of recommendation, etc. in feeling convinced. Languaging: Listen for a person’s sensory-system predicates. Pay attention to the representational system the person primarily favors. When communicating, present your information in the corresponding sensory channel, use appropriate predicates to juice up your descriptions and to match the person’s convincer strategy. Contexts of Origin: This will be similar to the Representation meta-program (#1). It is significantly impacted by experiences of coming to trust as a child as well as by experiences of belief in emotionally significant persons. Trauma experiences can undermine this process so that a person builds a belief system of categorically never believing in anyone. Self-Analysis: \_\_ Looks right/ Sounds right/ Feels right/ Makes Sense Linguistically Contexts: \_\_ Sports \_\_ Other: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_ High/ Medium/ Low level \_\_ Driver MP: Yes/ No \_\_ Process:
\_\_ Work/Career \_\_ Intimates \_\_ Relationships \_\_ Hobbies/Recreation \_\_ Automatic \_\_ Repetition \_\_ Time Period \_\_ Never (almost never)

Question 2

20. Movie Position:

Answer 2

Inside (Stepping in or Associating and Feeling) — Outside (Stepping out or Dissociating and Thinking) Description: As we process data, we can do it in one of two ways— we can step into the pictures and story to experience it or we can step out of it to just observe it. While traditional NLP uses the terminology of associated and dissociated for these distinctions, these are problematic terms for several reasons. Not the least of which is that in the DSM-IV and other psychological and psychiatric literature, “dissociate” is considered a form of pathology. That’s why we will avoid them for the most part in this work. When we step into the representational information that we create, we associate into the movie. Then
we think and process by experiencing the full impact of the movie emotionally. Creating an associated representation enables us to see what we would see, if we stepped into the movie. Representationally we are there again. We hear as if we were there, smell, taste, and feel as if immediately present. Bystepping into the picture, we entertain the thoughts of the experience and so re-experience it. When we step out of the representational movies, we think and process data with a degree of “psychological distance” from the emotional impact of the material. Stepping out enables us to see our younger self in the picture (we represent what we remember or imagine that we looked like back then). We are no longer there. We are on the outside looking in. We are observing or witnessing, not experiencing. We now see, hear, smell, and feel representations as if they stand “over there.” We have stepped outside of the image so that we can think “about” things. While stepping out will sometimes reduce the intensity of our emotions, just as often stepping out of one movie means stepping into another and in doing so, initiating even more emotion. “Going meta” in this way does not mean “unemotional.” It means that we do not have the emotions of the representations. Instead we have the emotions about the representations. In stepping out we often experience even more intense meta-feelings. As we observe the eye-accessing cues, we can note the extent that a person engages in any kinesthetic access. If a person accesses the kinesthetic mode and stays there, assume that he or she has entered into an associative mode of being inside the movies. If he or she accesses kinesthetic awareness, but does not stay there, you can probably assume that the person observed it, witnessed it, but is not currently experiencing it emotionally. Ellis (1976), Hall (2000 Meta-States). Elicitation: C Think about an event in a work situation that once gave you trouble and step back into that memory, what do you see, hear, and feel? C What experience surrounding work would you say has given you the most pleasure or delight? How do you typically feel while at work? C When you make a decision, do you rely more on reason and logic or personal values or something else?
Stepping in to experience Representing things as if inside the movie Identification: 1) Inside Perceiving, the Step In position. feel and re-feel from a full body state as if we were reexperiencing all of the sights, sounds, and sensations. This can range from a very light and mild emotional state to an extreme and exaggerated one. The more intense the emotional associating, the more changes will occur in skin color, breathing, muscle tension, and all of the other physiological signs.
Stepping out to observe Representing things as if up on a screen When we associate into a movie, we While we have a favorite way of experiencing the things we represent, we can use our preferred style
so much that we can get stuck in one or the other and either lose or fail to develop the flexibility of stepping in or stepping out. What we believe and value about each, how we identify ourselves regarding each, what frames we set about each—these strengthen and solidify each skill. The emoting style of association leads to a more social, spiritual, nurturing, affiliating, and tenderminded style of life and to the values of caring, empathy, understanding, and supporting. Out-ofcontrol stepping in and associating into representational movies that create lots of powerful emotions of distress, pain, trauma, and upset can create a living hell. Doing this repeatedly can cause the state and the experience to habituate and become chronic. When this happens the movie goes on automatic and can unconsciously keep playing over and over to continually evoke the negative and limiting emotions. All that a person may notice is the symptoms—unexplainable depression, despair, hopelessness, helplessness, etc. and/or the phenomenon of the cognitive distortions of Awfulizing and Catastrophizing (Ellis, 1976). The linguistic pattern of Awfulizing amplifies the emotional pain as it exaggerates the negative undesirable experience and puts it into a negative downward spiral. Along with that, we may also fall into the cognitive distortion of Emotionalizing. This means over-estimating the importance of our emotions and moods, assuming that if we feel something, it must “be real.” “I feel like a rotten miserable failure, therefore I am a rotten miserable failure.” Emotionalizing leads us to victim thinking-and-feeling, dis-empowerment, impulsive reactiveness, and impatience. 2) Outside Perceiving, the Step Out position. A level of objectivity arises from this style as we take the third perceptual position or a meta-viewpoint. This will be true to the extent that we step out into a witnessing role. In this role we will be thinkingaboutthe movie rather than experiencing it. Note the emotional affect the person demonstrates. It will be mild, dull, or bland. The person will be in the Satir category of the “Computer Mode” (see Appendix B). He or she will talk about an experience rather than of it. The person will operate more from reason and logic than emotion. This corresponds to William James’ (1890) “toughminded” category and associated corresponds to his “tenderminded” category. If the person steps out and into another movie, that person may step into an emotional state about the first state that is just as intense or even more so than the first. When we step out, we can more easily adopt the observing or witnessing style. This facilitates thinking scientifically and grounding things empirically, taking a theoretical orientation, being skeptical, reality-testing, adopting an experimental style, handling intellectual realms (e.g., lectures, examinations, science, technology), and the values of order, achievement, dominance, and endurance. Languaging: Use the language of association and stepping in if you want to pace someone who is already there and the language of stepping out for someone not psychologically in an experience. Listen for the reference of the state, is it a primary state experience or a meta-state reference? Contexts of Origin: We are born “in our bodies” as fully emotional and emotive beings. Unless there is neurological damage, we naturally and easily feel things and emote. It’s our heritage. We naturally represent things from out of our own eyes and therefore live inside of our mental movies. It takes learning to do otherwise. We learn to step out by modeling, identifying, and/or dis-identifying with others or as the case usually is, from traumatic experiences that make stepping in feel completely dangerous and terrible. We also step out because various cultural norms and taboos forbid us from
stepping in and feeling. Typically in the West, females have more permission for feeling or associating into experiences while males have more permission and encouragement for stepping out of to analyze things. Self-Analysis:
__ Inside associated in Feelings / Outside dissociated in Thinking / Balance Contexts: __ Negative Emotions __ Present __ Future __ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Positive Emotions __ Past __ Work/Career __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other:____________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No

Question 3

21. Exuberance

Answer 3

Timid Desurgence — Bold Surgency Description: By creating a movie or idea and stepping into those representations, we are able to directly experience and feel it. Yet doing so does not tell us anything about how much we will feel it or the degree to which we will surge forth with energy. Emotional exuberance or intensity differs from the mere fact of experiencing an emotion. Exuberance relates to how we experience the emotional state, its degree and intensity. Cattell (1989) describes this as the timidity to boldness factor in emoting. He takes the position that the continuum from timidity (desurgency) to boldness (surgency) is constitutionally determined for the most part. The term surgency means “to surge forth with energy, hope, excitement, fun, etc.” Desurgency means to move forward without these qualities. This meta-program measures the emotional exuberance of a person on a continuum from shy, timid, restrained, and threat-sensitive to adventurous, thick-skinned, and socially bold. Cattell (1989), Goleman (1997), Galen (1994). On a continuum between low and high exuberance and emotional intensity, we can value low to high levels of emotion and use such in our experiences and perceptual filters. What’s your style of emoting? Do you do so with energy that surges forth throughout your entire body? Or are you more reserve in your emoting? Elicitation: C As you think about a situation at work or in your personal life that seems risky or publically vulnerable, what do you think or feel? C Do you naturally draw toward or away from novelty? C Are you reluctant or excited to explore new territory and to take risks? C Do you think of yourself as a “sensitive person” with a low threshold for excitability?
Timid, Shy Bold, Outgoing Desurgency Surgency
Identification: 1) Surgency Perceiving: People with high emotional intensity seek out and enjoy contexts where strong emotions of excitement, fun, joy, and even of fear are welcomed. They enjoy the limelight, center stage, attention, and receiving recognition, and so engage in more risk taking. They often think and act in very creative ways. They also enjoy dangerous types of experiences (e.g., rollercoasters, haunted houses, horror movies, etc.). They often enjoy feeling fearful. Cattell (1989) writes, “Their physical underactivity provides immunity to physical and social threats that others find noxious.” (p. 136) When over-done, this pattern can lead to anti-social behavior and when combined with concrete thinking, many behave like the “fools who rush in where angels fear to tread.” “Their bold inattentiveness to danger signals and the press for excitement, in combination with low intelligence, inevitably resulted in poor and rash judgment. This combination is often found in prisoners.” (p. 141) 2) Desurgency Perceiving: People with low emotional intensity cling to certainty and predictability and develop neither criminal-like thinking nor creativity. With their low tolerance for fear and arousal, they protect themselves by going into a shell, fear attracting attention, avoid risks, secure themselves with routinized lifestyles, etc. When over-done, one can feel fear and anxiety driven, act like a doormat for others, and experience a body full of nerves. Languaging: The timid and fearful are silent and introspective in how they talk and feel. They are full of cares and worries, reflective of danger and risks, cautious, negative, and avoidant. Because they will internally process their emotions we may think of them as unemotional. Those who are bold and take risks move forward in a cheerful, happy-go-lucky style; they are frank, expressive, quick, alert, and talkative. They will more likely be external processes. Contexts of Origin: Jerome Galan, eminent development psychologist sees this as a basic temperamental type, yet one that can be changed through experience. It undoubtedly originates from physiological factors and nervous system functioning that we were born with. Kagan believes it lies in the excitability of a neural circuit centered on the amygdala. It can also be conditioned by experience that allows, permits, or reinforces surgency or not. Long-term chronic trauma experiences can alter thinking-emoting, acting, blood-chemistry, and the habitual way of experiencing life. Self-Analysis: __ Desurgency / Surgency / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ___________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No

Question 4

22. Stress Coping

Answer 4

Passive, Assertive, Aggressive Description: This meta-program relates specifically to stress and how we cope and perceive when we feel stress. Stress can take one of two forms. It most typically arises when we face threat and danger in our world. Acute stressors are the dangers that suddenly arise, chronic stressors exist when we live in an environment where such physical threats are ever-present. Stress also arises from a sense of overload, from the sense that we have too many things to do, too many demands to meet, too many things on our plate. When we feel overwhelmed in this way, whether it is an acute situation of overload or a chronic environmental sense, we feel “stress” and go into the fight/flight mode. This fight/flight or General Arousal Syndrome describes a neurological process, cued by the conscious mind via messages of “danger” or “overload.” Yet once in operation, it runs entirely by the unconscious mind or autonomic nervous system. This system prepares our physiology and neurology for accessing a high energy state so that we can fight or flee. Via repeated experiences of fight/flight, trauma, distress, etc., a person could learn to “turn it off” through repression, denial, and other defense mechanisms. Those who do this repeatedly and make it their driver program for responding become dissociated from the emotions of fear, anger, etc. When one over-does this, one can create what is called “dissociative” disorders of personality. Hall (1987), Goleman (1997). We have two primary patterns for coping with stress, the “go at” and the “go away from” responses. How do you neurologically and perceptually think about, perceive, and sort for things when in stress? Do you think and perceive stressors as something to move toward to confront, take on, and deal with, or do you perceive the stressors as something to move away from and avoid? Do you aggress at the stressors or take the passive role by moving away from them? Selye (1976), Hall (1987), Lederer and Hall (1997). The “go at” and “go away from” emotional coping responses arise from the fight/flight syndrome built within our neurology. Consider these response styles of the General Arousal Syndrome on a continuum from one extreme of passivity to the other extreme of aggression. Consider how the person responds in other arenas: work/career, home, relationships, hobby, sports, etc. Elicitation: C When you feel threatened, or challenged, by some stress, do you immediately respond on the emotional level by wanting to get away from it or to go at it? C Tell me about several specific instances when you faced a high stress situation that felt threatening. How did you feel and respond? C Do you detect a “go at” or “go away from” response to it? Or do you think and choose the best course?
Passive Assertive Aggressive Type B Type C Type A Go away from Think and choose best course Go at Identification: 1) Aggressive Perceiving, going at the stressors. More often than not, these people actually like challenges, stress, pressure, and adventure. Look for the automatic and immediate response which wants to take on the challenge or stress. When over-done or when engaged in with little thought, aggressive responders become violent, dangerous, and out-of-control. At moderate levels, these
individuals manipulate through intimidating and threatening. In the field and literature of stress and stress management, Type-A personality describes these people. 2) Passive Perceiving, moving away from the stressors. These are the people who are forever seeking to avoid and get away from stresses, confrontations, threats, and dangers. They want more than anything to make peace, to create harmony, and to make things pleasant and nice for everybody (Satir category of Placator, Appendix B). When over-done, they transform into people-pleasers and door-mats and unintentionally play into the “go at” responses of others. We think of them as having a Type-B personality. Both styles of responding operate as a function of stress and insecurity. Messages which cue the brain of “danger” or “overload” activate the autonomic nervous system to go into these fight/flight responses. In long-term intimate relationships, as many as 90% of marriages involve the attraction of opposites. This suggests that we typically value and adore the behavioral traits of the opposite style and unconsciously need to “marry” it and yet, so often resist doing so. 3) Assertive Perceiving, keeping presence of mind to think and choose. The tempering quality of assertiveness lies in the middle of the continuum. Here we have learned to stop fighting or fleeing and have learned how to cope with the internal sense of stress by thinking and talking the stress out rather than acting it out. We still experience the emotion and urge to fight or flee, but will control (or manage) that urge without acting on it. Consequently, we can maintain enough presence of mind to think and talk out stresses—which is a description of an emotionally healthy person. The Fight/Flight stress responses also relates to whether we typically step in and associate emotionally or step out to analyze things (Movie Position, #20). Fight/Flight responses experienced in emotional association will show up in overt and obvious ways. We will see changes in breathing, skin color, eye dilation, etc. When we see a “dissociated” fight/flight response to high stress, the person will seem cold and unfeeling, unemotional, and unaffected. Some people will access the “computer mode” (Satir category). If the person gets stuck in that mode, then he or she will continually push away awareness and expressiveness of the emotions. Languaging: Aggressive responders will typically use the modal operators of possibility, while passive responders will use those of necessity. Those with the go at approach style will think and talk in terms of possibilities, ideals, and hopes as they focus on what they want. People who primarily avoid (move away from) will think and talk in terms of what to avoid, laws, rules, protocols, and necessities that they feel imposed on them in terms of shoulds, musts and have tos. To pace and communicate with an aggressive responder, take his or her idea and wrestle with it. Explore it, ask questions about it, have the person future-pace it. A person with the “go at” style wants you to confront it, deal with it, and grapple with the ideas. Because these people appreciate directness, forthrightness, and confrontation, affirm these qualities in them. To pace and communicate with a passive responder, hear his or her ideas out fully and completely without interrupting. Give verbal and non-verbal “go ahead” signs that essentially say, “Tell me more, I have a lot of interest in what you’ve got to say. I want to understand you and your point of view.” Don’t disagree directly or vigorously. Talk about the importance of finding harmony and peace, and of
being pleasant and nice. At times an assertive person may choose to go to computer mode and analyze or just witness a situation. The difference that will cue you here is that of choice. When you ask about the stress state, the person can access the kinesthetic feelings of that state and choose to step out of that stress to deal with it. Contexts of Origin: This meta-program arises neurologically in response to the nervous system’s sensitivity to stress. Nobody is a passive or aggressive as a category. We rather function in passiveaggressive ways or in aggressive-passive ways. Physiological nervous system sensitivity: those who typically move away from stress, conflict, distress, etc. may have a more finely tuned and sensitive set of sense receptors, whereas those who move toward such do not find the sensory impact significant until much later. Modeling and identifying with significant persons during childhood plays a role in developing and modifying these styles. Trauma experiences that induce states of stress can habituate and become so chronic that a person moves to one extreme or the other of passivity and aggression. Self-Analysis: __ Passive / Assertive / Aggressive Contexts: __ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No

Question 5

23. Authority

Answer 5

Internal — External Description: This meta-program deals with where we look for the authority, rights and privileges, and permission to do things. Do we look internally to our self, to our own thoughts, feelings, frames, etc. (Internal) or outside to some reference out there (External)? This perceptual filter concerns where we posit our locus of control and judgment. Do we put the authority for our judgments, understandings, and action as coming from inside ourselves or outside? Who (or what) do we use as our reference point? When we sort for authority, do we posit, frame, and feel the authority as internal or external? Through the process of maturation over the lifespan, as babies and then children we entirely used an external frame of reference—referencing our parents, teachers, culture, friends, mentors, etc. As we grow, we develop more and more of an internal frame of reference. This occurs as we come to feel more and more sure of our own thoughts, values, beliefs, skills, tastes, etc. The majority of personality models views a mentally-emotionally healthy person as moving more and more to selfreferencing without losing the ability to do other-referencing as needed. The studies about our locus of control reveal the same thing. “Locus” refers to a circle. If we draw a circle of authority, would we put ourselves inside or outside of that circle? Elicitation:
C Who do you reference and rely upon for authority? C To what extent do you feel that the locus of control in your life is inside yourself or outside in others, in rules, in social conventions, etc.? C How do you know that you have chosen or acted right, or that you have done, chosen the right bank (right car, etc.)? C When it comes to decision-making, how do you go about it? C What kind of information do you want in making decisions? C How do you know when you’ve done a good job? C How do you feel about taking charge of your own life in your finances and career?
Internal Referencing Balanced External Referencing Locus of Control Within Locus of Control Outside Identification: 1) Internal Referent Perceiving: Those who operate internally evaluate things on the basis of what they think is appropriate. They motivate themselves and make their own decisions. They choose and validate their own actions and results. While they may gather information from others, they always assume the right and power to ultimately decide for themselves. As their locus of control is internal, they live “from within.” Internal referencing people can easily decide within themselves and know within themselves what they want, need, believe, feel and value. 2) External Referent Perceiving: Those who operate externally evaluate things on the basis of external authority that which is outside—in the world of rules, people, and events. They look outside for guidance, information, motivation, and decisions. They feel a greater need for feedback about their actions and results, and they can even feel lost without guidance or feedback from others. Because their locus of control is external they live “from without” and often fall into a pattern of people pleasing. This can be both their gift and their curse. Some feel so dependent on others that they live their life totally in reference to the values and beliefs of someone else. Generally speaking, the person with the internal reference will tend to ignore feedback or at least not take it very seriously while the person with the external reference will need and want it. Regarding criticism the first will either ignore it or handle it in a straightforward manner, while thesecond will personalize it and use it for feeling bad. Given this, people who are internally referenced will be easy to manage. All a manager has to do is provide the standards, strategies, and reasons, and if there’s buy-in, the task is as good as done. For them, feedback can be felt and interpreted as intrusion, distrust, and micro-managing. Externals, on the other hand, need lots of feedback, want it, and feel neglected, ignored, and even disrespected without it. Because externals care about what others think, selling and influencing them involves using others—testimonies, experiences, etc. Internals will not like that approach and may even find it irritating. This means that relationships and all of the facets of relating (respect, rapport, listening, caring, etc.) will play a bigger role in influencing an external than an internal. In the area of learning, while internals will take new information and materials and apply it to self more readily, and know within themselves what fits or doesn’t, they may also be less open and
receptive to outside information. The more they already “know,” the more closed-minded they will be. The best learning occurs when we shift to external reference, and after practice and incorporation, shift to the internal frame. Languaging: Listen for whether the person tells you that he or she decides (Internal) or whether they get information from some outside source (External). An excellent follow-up question is to ask, “Do you just know inside or does someone else have to tell you?” (External)? Those who look within for authority will say, “I just know. I feel it. It feels right.” They come from their own internal state will speak of their own values, beliefs, and understandings. They will come across in an assertive and forthright manner. Those external referenced will say, “My boss tells me. I look at the figures…” Those coming from some external source will speak of placating and pleasing others. In pacing and communicating with those with the internal referencing metaprogram, emphasize that he or she will know inside. “You must make the decision—it belongs to you.” “What do you think?” “What do you feel?” Help the person to clarify his or her own thinking and feeling. With externals emphasize what other’s think. Give statistics, data, and testimonials. “Most people find this product or service very useful.” The internal referencing use their own frames-of-reference to decide which stereo to buy as they identify their own personal inclinations. The external referencing care about information from external sources (i.e., mass media, consumer reports, advertising, and opinions). Internals with an external check or Externals with internal check provide a more challenging pattern to discern. Use language that matches the person’s style. For Externals, positing authority, right and wrong, what’s proper, acceptable, etc. outside on authority figures, teachers, people who have the cultural symbols of authority. For Internals, authorizing of one’s life based upon what’s within, intuition, inner potentials and talents, inner vision, etc. Those who become entrepreneurs, leaders, and pioneers typically use internal referencing. They blaze new trails. Managing these self-regulating people involves communicating with clarity, about goals, procedures, or criteria, do that and then turn them loose. They will dislike tight supervision. Those who do external referencing typically depend on external checks. They excel in jobs where their program to “go external” to get the facts and figures fit the situation. Managing someone who uses an external frame-of-reference will be generally easy and direct when matching this style. Give such persons feedback, information, validation, praise, affirmation, and commendations. Contexts of Origin: Who we model and identify with early in life will grant us either permission or prohibition for internal or external referencing for authority. What were we rewarded for positing authority and control internally or externally? Cultural norms play a role here. Cultures that encourage obedience, respect, honor, status, etc. will be more external referencing, whereas in cultures that emphasize democracy, equality, informality, first-name basis of acquaintance, etc. will favor internal referencing. McConnell (1977) quoted research on regional contexts (the north versus the south in the USA) as having more internalizers versus externalizers (p. 298-302) which, interestingly enough, affects survival rates in tornados and hurricanes.
Self-Analysis: __ Internal / External / Balance
__ Balanced __ Internal Referencing with some External check __ External Referencing with some Internal check Contexts: __ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other:_____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No __ If Other-Referencing: referencing off of who or what? Reference person or group?

Question 6

24. Attention:

Answer 6

Self-Referent — Other-Referent Description: This meta-program deals primarily with our attention when it comes to self and others, hence how we relate to each other. Where do we invest our attention as we move through the world, taking in information, communicating, relating, taking action, etc.? Do we fundamentally attend to ourselves (Self) or to others (Other)? Do we focus our attention on what we think, feel, want, choose, and do? Or do we focus our attention primarily on what others think, feel, want, choose, and do? This emotional meta-program relates to the investment of our attention and how we emotionally see the world of others. James and Woodsmall (1988). Woodsmall and Woodsmall (1998). Elicitation: C Where do you put most of your attention—on your own thinking and choosing or externally on circumstances, events, rules, others, etc.? C In relationships do you find yourself primarily attending to your needs or to those of others? C If there’s a conflict of interest, do you focus on your needs or those of others? C How easy or hard is it to attend to others? To attend to self? C Where do you put most of your attention—on yourself or on others? C Who do you first seek to take care of or attend to?
Self Referent Balanced Other Referent Strong Boundaries Highly Skilled at Empathy Identification: 1) Self-Reference Perceiving: When we operate by the self referencing metaprogram, we think, feel, and evaluate on the basis of ourselves—what I think, feel, and want. Self-referencing people motivate themselves and make decisions by themselves. They choose and validate their own actions and results. While they may gather information from others, they decide on their own. They attend to their own needs and take responsibility for themselves. Self-referencing people easily decide within themselves and know what they want, need, believe, feel and value. Those who filter both by internal and self referencing are independent thinkers who need much less confirmation or validation from others. They trust their own understandings, values, beliefs, desires, tastes, etc. This results in the emotions of independence, autonomy, confidence, clarity, selfmotivation, and proactivity. When over-done, the Self referencing can fail to attend to others, neglect
loved ones, children, and key business relationships. 2) Other-Reference Perceiving: In this meta-program we focus attention primarily on others, and we care primarily about others, value and nurture others, their interests and concerns. Our other referencing perception leads us to attend to what others think and want. We may default to them, even in significant decisions. Other referencing is sometimes related to External referencing. A person can internally reference in terms of authority and be Other referencing in terms of where they put attention when relating to people. Attending to others is an essential meta-program for anyone working with people in customer service, the helping professions, coaching, therapy, and even managing. Attending to others facilitates the emotional intelligence of empathy. It involves the skill of taking secondposition. When over-done, one can attend the needs of others and neglect one’s own needs or even betray one’s own values. Languaging: Listen for the linguistic cue of the use of the word “you.” When Other referencing people talk about themselves they often say “you.” Selfreferencing people typically are more direct and will use the personal pronoun “I.” Often those who reference externally feel more insecure and so trust others for validation. They feel more dependent upon confirmation by others. They generally appreciate clear-cut guidelines, prizes, feedback, recognition, etc. They can enjoy and participate as a team player more readily as well. The self referent (and internal referent) will process things in terms of how they experience management, communication, and generally ready to speak their mind about things. This can make them more challenging to manage or to step into the role of a team player. Those whose attention is on others will thrive in teams, be highly aware of how others are doing, and extend themselves to meet the needs of others. They may also more typically not speak up for themselves and so may not express dissatisfaction until they are at a threshold point. Contexts of Origin: Who we model and identify with early in life will grant us either permission or prohibition for self or other referencing. What were we rewarded for, attending self or other? Cultural norms play a role here also. Western cultures typically encourage more self-referencing, whereas in Eastern cultures it is for other-referencing. Gender conditioning favors males to filter by self, and females to filter for others. Self-Analysis: __ Other / Self / Balance __ Balanced in both other-referencing and self-referencing __ Other-Referencing with Self-referencing check __ Self-Referencing with Other-referencing check Contexts: __ Relationships __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Sports __ Other:_____________ __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Driver MP: Yes/ No __ If Other-Referencing: referencing off of who or what? Reference person or group?
__ Work/Career __ Intimates

Question 7

25. Emotional Containment

Answer 7

Uni-directional — Multi-directional Description: This meta-program relates to how we experience and express our emotions in terms of focus or diffusion. It refers to directional quality of our emoting when we experience a feeling state. When some people emote, they do so in a uni-directional way, others do so multi-directionally. The
fact that we can displace our emotions, get angry with our boss or some authority figure, and displace our emotions on our children, pets, spouses, and friends describes a multi-directional use of emotions. If we were to ask, “What are you so angry about?” the person may not even know the source of the emotion. He or she may focus on some tiny trigger that sets it off. Emotionally do you see emotions as contained to specific events and situations or as diffused? Elicitation: C Do your emotions often bleed over and affect some or all of your other emotional states? C Or do your emotions stay pretty much focused on whatever it relates to? C When you get mad at work (or home) do you take your emotions with you and displace them on others? C How easily can you let strong negative emotions go?
Uni-directional Multi-directional Contained, Focused Spreads out, Diffused Identification: 1) Multi-directional Perceiving: When some people have a “down” day at work, their “down” emotions immediately and powerfully affect every other area of life. The emotions are not contained to the context or to whatever triggers them, but “bleed over” to other things or even to everything. The emotional state that relates to one facet of life spreads out multi-directionally. When over-done, that pattern leads to moodiness, instability, displaced emotions, and other forms of emotional instability. The person seems unable to keep the emotions about that one facet limited or contained to that area. As a meta-program, multi-directional is a great choice when experiencing powerfully the bright and positive emotions. We can then spread or diffuse those delightful emotions everywhere in our world. Problems with the multi-directional meta-program occur when we experience negative emotions and then diffuse an emotional storm by displacing them on innocent bystanders. People who diffuse emotions from one source to many other sources will more like experience the phenomena of “psycho-eating,” “psycho-sexing,” etc. In spreading and diffusing their emotions, they become less aware of those emotions, less clear as to what evokes them, or what mental map and criteria they relate to and so they will eat to de-stress, feel comfort, love, fulfillment, sociality, and many other emotions (See Games Slim and Fit People Play, 2001). 2) Uni-directional Perceiving: Some people contain their emotions and emote in a direct and singular way, uni-directionally. If he feels upset, down, angry, joyful, contented, etc. at work, then he will keep those feelings contextualized to that referent. The person does not let the emotions bleed over into other areas of life, relationships, hobbies, recreation, finance, etc. She may feel her emotions fully in the area of reference, but will not relate them to other areas. The emotional state is “cleaner” and more distinct. When balanced, this enables us to keep our emotions appropriate and contextualized. When overdone, this pattern can prevent us from using good feelings in one area of life to spread to enrich our states in another area. It then reflects overly rigid ego boundaries. Languaging: The person with the multi-directional filter will often displace emotions from one context to another context and even allow a strong negative (or positive) emotional state to collapse
into other states. Their emoting style operates in a diffused way, without boundaries or constraints. The uni-directional sorter segments and sequences their emotional states so that this or that emotion about a particular situation stays contained. Case Study: Jane never seems to know what she felt about anything in particular. Her feelings about work, her children, a friend, Bill, her aging parents, her health, etc. was almost entirely dependent upon the emotion of the day. She colored everything else with that emotion. By way of contrast, her husband Bill never experienced his emotions in a multidirectional way. He could easily and quickly tell you what he felt about work, about his marriage, his hobbies, his children, etc. If he had a bad day at work, he would feel upset, frustrated, angry, confused, or whatever about work, but would leave it there and come home and have a delightful time. Jane didn’t know how to think or feel about Bill’s uni-directional focus and diffusion of his emotions. “How can we have a tiff and then go out and enjoy the kids riding bikes? He acts like nothing is eating away at him.” Bill similarly didn’t understand Jane. “How can she treat me and the kids so bad when she’s had a falling out with her mother? Can’t she leave that there, take a break from that and quit fuming and fussing about it?” Contexts of Origin: We learn this meta-program. It is determined by the permissions or prohibitions we received or created for experiencing and registering emotions according to which areas we viewed as acceptable and which as forbidden. A child may experience a home context where parents accept his or her fear, but reject anger, frustrations, etc. The child models and identifies with how parents and others separate or don’t separate the various facets of their emoting. Self-Analysis: __ Uni-directional/ Multi-directional / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: __________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No

Question 8

26. Rejuvenation

Answer 8

Introvert — Extrovert Description: The terms introvert and extrovert in this meta-program are not about being social, having social skills, or even liking people and wanting to be around people. These terms, which usually convey these ideas do not mean that here. The terms rather refer to how we process things and deal with our thinkingand-feeling when we are tired, exhausted, stressed, or generally need to renew our batteries. In this meta-program, the word extrovert is for those who re-charge their batteries by getting with people, talking, going out, and needing the encouragement and presence of others. Introverts are those who, when they need to re-charge their batteries, want to be alone, spend time by themselves, and not be around a lot of people. The term ambivert is used for those who have a balanced mixture of the two styles and can do either.
Carl Jung described the Introvert / Extrovert category as an attitude preference. He said it begins with an awareness of whether we pay attention to ourselves or others, whether our attention moves inward or outward. Woodsmall created this meta-program by introducing this distinction into NLP. (James and Woodsmall, 1988). The context of this meta-program occurs when a person feels down and wants to feel better. Does the experience of interacting with others rechargetheir batteries or expend them? Each feels most comfortable within the given realm. Those who are introverts enjoy the peace in his or her own inner world of personal thoughts and ideas. They experience such as solitude. The extreme introverting style enjoys a reclusive style. Because they attend to ideas, concepts, thoughts, they often have a greater depth of concentration and introspection. They view extroverting as shallow and inauthentic. Extroverts prefer the company of others and so love crowds, parties, events, etc. Because they love people, they tend toward a sociable, action-oriented, and impulsive style involving high social adjustment skills, talkative, gregarious, outgoing, etc. Typically, these people experience the aloneness of solitude as distress and pain of loneliness. Elicitation:. C When you feel the need to re-charge your batteries, do you prefer to do it alone or with others? C How do you rejuvenate your emotional state and get into a better state of mind? What do you like to do? Do you prefer to do this alone or with others? C How do you emotionally see others as sources for rejuvenating yourself or opportunities to serve others and contribute? C Do social events wear you out or recharge you?
Introvert Recharges by Self Ambivert Extrovert Balance Recharges with Others Identification: 1) Extrovert Perceiving: When it comes to the context of needing some mentalemotional rejuvenation, encouragement, support, and personal renewal, some turn their attention primarily to others. They have an extroverted meta-program style when stressed or down. They need others to re-charge their batteries. Being alone feels like loneliness for them and depletes them. 2) Introvert Perceiving: These are those who turn their attention inward, get off by themselves when they need to deal with their stresses, negative emotions, demotivations, etc. They have an introverted meta-program style under stress. They do not need others to re-charge their batteries. They get with others to express their energy, visions, hopes, resources, etc. They may be very social, but they use social interactions for expressing their strengths rather than renewing their state. Introverts experience time alone as solitude and find it refreshing. 3) Balance between Introvert and Extrovert Perceiving: Those who can equally use either pattern have an balanced meta-program style that we can call ambivert. They can recharge their batteries alone or with people. It doesn’t matter to them. Extroversion and introversion in this context refers to our desire, need, and enjoyment of experiencing
other people and social environments or solitude when down, discouraged, negative, or stressed. James and Woodsmall (1988) say by introverting a person will have fewer friends, but deeper relationships, reflect before acting, enjoy working alone, score high on aptitude tests, love concepts, value aesthetics, and look to self for causes. By extroverting, a person has lots of friends and acquaintances, but usually not many deep relations. They look outside of themselves to others or the environment for causes, and may even fear being alone. Languaging:. Listen for the context of re-charging one’s batteries and a person’s desire for encouragement and validation from people or through oneself. Listen for the attention meta-program of self referencing for introverts and other referencing (Attention, #24) for extroverts when it comes to the context of feeling down and needing a shot in the arm. Contexts of Origin: Some neurological studies suggest innate factors that predispose a person toward a more shy and retiring style versus a more engaging style. Yet that does not entirely explain this meta-program. How significant persons model social interactions, skills, and whether they make it a joy, or a living hell, powerfully conditions one toward extroversion or introversion. Self-Analysis: __ Extrovert / Introvert / Ambivert or Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No

Question 9

27. Somatic Response:

Answer 9

Inactive, Reflective, Active, Reactive Description: Some people process information and emotionally respond in a very active, quick, immediate, and impulsive way—they have an active style. Others engage in the handling of information more reflectively, thoughtfully, and slowly—the reflective style. Emotionally and somatically they do not activate their motor cortex programs that evoke them to feel the need to act as they think. At the other extremes on the continuum we have those who do not seem to engage in information processing much at all, or at least with much reluctance—the inactive style, and those who are over-active, maybe even reactive and unable to effectively even think in a clear way before responding. Woodsmall (1988). Elicitation: C When you come into a social situation (a group, class, team, family reunion, etc.), do you usually act quickly after sizing it up or do you engage in a detailed study of all of the consequences before acting? C How do you typically respond when you encounter something new or different? C How much do you feel the urge to act when you are just thinking or talking? C How hard is it for you to just sit still when engaged with a fascinating subject? C How old were you when you first started earning money outside your home?
Inactive Reflective Activ Reactive
Identification: 1) Active to Reactive Perceiving: Those with the active pattern feel the need to act as they think (Active) or before they think (Reactive). Their motor cortex is easily activated and so they orient themselves in the world as doers. They make things happen. They often act first, and think later (which can have its drawbacks). This sets them up to be entrepreneurs and go-getters, they are the movers and shakers who shape the world to their visions. While they will more likely make lots of mistakes, they also get things done, and have many more successes.3 Applied socially, the socially active person immediately takes action. He or she will go at or aggress toward the person or event, either out of a sense of threat (Stress Coping, aggression, #22) or desire (Motivation Direction, toward, #35). If too active, the person will respond impulsively and unthinkingly. Those with the Active meta-program both make lots of mistakes which also is the foundation for scoring lots of successes. Typically they will talk fast, think fast, and act fast. They like to get things done; they like to “take the bull by the horns.” When wellbalanced, they are proactive. They will typically use the meta-program of internal reference (Authority Source, #23) as well. Pace them by saying, “Just get up and do it.” “Go for it.” When this is over-done, the impulsive energy leads to reactivity. Well-balanced and modulated, it can lead to the resourceful state of proactivity. The question about how old were you when you first began earning money outside your home comes from Roger Dawson (1992). He asked this question of hundreds of job applications for years and wrote this, “I’ve found a very direct correlation. The younger you were when you first started earning your own money, the more initiative you’ll have. And the more initiative you have, the more you will function on possibilities rather than necessity.” (p. 153). 2) Reflective to Inactive Perceiving: Those with the reflective pattern are able to think things through without activating their motor programs. They like to study things first, engage in a good bit of pondering, and than take action. This makes them more passive as they sit back to contemplate before acting. A belief frame that supports this perceptual filter is, “Don’t do anything rash!” Applied socially, the socially reflective person thinks and studies prior to taking action in reference to groups. They can even let things go for a long time without taking any action at all. They feel more inhibited about taking action out of fear of making a mistake (Risk Taking, Aversive, #46). They may feel less confident and more insecure. When overdone, they may procrastinate to their own detriment and move into the inactive pattern. They will more rarely be in the forefront of the business world. Typically they will have the meta-program of both external reference and other reference. They work best in contexts that demand more thought and reflection. 3) Balanced between Active and Inactive Perceiving: Those who have a choice regarding these response styles have a richer repertoire of options and can operate in a more balanced way. Look for them to operate primarily in the Representation meta-program of language (#1) and to communicating assertively even when in stress (Stress Coping, #22). Applied socially, the socially balanced will equally use both styles as they eagerly pursue their goals in group contexts with sufficient reflection about them. They take time for analyzing feedback before they move forward. Languaging: In your communication match each meta-program style by appealing to the styles and values of each. Observe the level of physiological and neurological activation when a person is
talking or listening. Contexts of Origin: How we are wired in our physiology and neurology can set a predisposition for these modes. The extent to which our motor cortex has been conditioned to act can be increased or decreased with the use of certain psychoactive drugs. These styles also come from modeling and identifying with key people in our lives, even dis-identifying with others. We sometimes learn and come to believe that one of these meta-programs is the acceptable one, one prohibited, one leads to success, another leads to pain. As children we are generally wired to immediately “act out” emotions and ideas. So most of us have to first learn how to slow down our reactive processes, and learn to reflect on things. Trauma experiences inducing fight/flight patterns may lead to a reactive style. Self-Analysis: __ Active / Reflective / Inactive / Reactive Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ___________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No

Question 10

28. Social Presentation:

Answer 10

Shrewdly Artful — Artlessly Genuine Description: How do you perceive your social presentation in the world? How much do you care about what others think about you? How much do you mentally and emotionally manage your image? Cattell (1989) describes those who move through life, in relation to other people and various social groups, as warm, artless, spontaneous, and naive versus those who move in a very artful, even shrewd, and socially correct way. One believes, values, and cares about their social presentation, the other doesn’t care that much and may even dis-care, disbelieve, and dis-value it. Cattell (1989). Elicitation: C When you think about entering a social group or going out in public, how do you handle yourself? C Do you really care about your social image and want to avoid any negative impact on others so that they recognize your tact, politeness, social graces, etc.? C Or do you not really care about any of that and just want “to be yourself,” natural, forthright, direct, transparent, etc.? C How do you emotionally perceive your image or reputation in the eyes of others? C How much time do you spend anticipating what others will think of you?
Artlessly Genuine Doesn’t care about social impressions Socially naive Artfully Shrewd Manages social impressions Socially sophisticated Identification: 1) Artful and Shrewd Perceiving: Some people really care about the impressions they make on others in their social presentation and want to ensure that they create no negative impressions. They value the image they create in the minds of others and so are more likely to be in
other referencing in their attentions (Attention, #24). They value politeness, tact, etiquette, protocol, etc., and strongly dis-value too much self-disclosure, expression of thoughts and feelings, spontaneity, etc. They will generally have lots of social ambition. When over-done, such persons can be very manipulative, “political,” selfish, etc. 2) Artless and Genuine Perceiving: Some people de-value the whole social presentation and think of it as play acting, “not being real,” “being a fake,” or a hypocrite. They prefer to “just let things hang out.” Typically they will have little or no social ambitions, are more resilient to disappointments with others, and can come across as artless and crude in their social manners (or lack of them). In this way, they will be more self referencing in their attention (Attention, #24) and internal in their locus of control (Authority Source, #23). When over-done, a person may behave rudely and inappropriately in public, he or she may even develop an anti-social style. Languaging: Which set of values does the person highlight and talk about the most? These metaprograms lead both to the social butterfly, the politician, and the socially adept and to the socially crude and rude, the artlessly forthright person who always speaks his or her mind. Contexts of Origin: These meta-program styles typically arise from modeling and identifying with early role models, parents, teachers, etc. who showed a positive portrait of the importance of social adeptness, or dis-identification from hypocrites and manipulators, and/or modeling within an antisocial group of rebels. They may also be connected with our innate predispositions for timidity or boldness (Exuberance, #21) and passivity versus aggression (Stress Coping, #22). Self-Analysis: __ Artful and Shrewd / Artless and Genuine / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No

Question 11

29. Dominance:

Answer 11

Power, Affiliation, Achievement Description: In the social realm where people interact, relate, and communicate we have the emergence of social phenomena such as “power,” “control,” and influence. How do you perceive, think about, and handle such experiences? When in a group or social event, what are your thoughts about these facets of human experience? What’s your style and focus? What do you filter for? Harvard professor, David McClelland, developed the McClelland Model by looking at three central aspects of human interacting—power, affiliation, and achievement. From this three-fold focus, Joseph Yeager (1985) constructed what he called the Yeager Power Grid. This meta-program relates to how a person adapts to the “power” moves of others in a group, organization, team, family, community in terms of such social interactions as one-upmanship, putdowns, trying to take control, influencing, persuasion, etc. This meta-program describes the style a person uses in handling or not handling power effectively. Yeager connects this to the passive
aggressive meta-program using a 1-to-10 scale, 1 for passive (like Charlie Brown), 5 for assertive (like Snoopy) and 10 for aggressive (like Lucy or Attila the Hun). Yeager (1985), McClelland (1953), Woodsmall and Woodsmall (1998). Elicitation: C What are your motives when interacting with others given your preferences of the following? Power (dominance, competition, politics) Affiliation (relationship, courtesy, cooperation) and Achievement (results, goals, objectives)? C If you used 100 points as your scale and distributed the hundred points among these three styles of handling “power,” how much do you give for each? __ Power __ Affiliation __ Achievement C What’s your focus when you’re working with a group of people around these three values? C If you allocate a percentage of power, affiliation, and achievement out of 100, what percentage would you estimate for each? C How much do you emotionally see things in terms of power, affiliation, and achievement?
Achievement Affiliation Power Getting Projects Done Getting Along and Enjoying Each Other Being in Charge and Calling the Shots Identification: 1) Perceiving via Power: People who sort for power operate fully as “a hierarchical animal” (Yeager, 1985, p. 110), and value the experience of dominating, competing, playing politics, being in charge, and calling the shots. When they feel satisfied in this pursuit, they feel combinations of superiority and satisfaction. When negotiating, they typically think in Win/Lose terms. When overdone, they think, “It’s not enough that I win … others must lose.” (Attila the Hun meta-program). In their language they will talk about power struggles, who’s in control, status, influence, positions, reputations, politics, confrontations, etc. As a leader, power people will be either seek to empower themselves (authoritarian) or others (authoritative). They move toward control, being in Their strength is in their ability to direct and charge, status, and recognition. apply pressure. 2) Perceiving via Affiliation: referencemeta-program (Attention, #24) and manage relationships by turning on courtesy, cooperation, empathy, politeness, comradrie, etc. They value and care more about creating and maintaining good relationship with others via thoughtfulness. They think in Win/Win terms when working with others and will not play if everybody can’t win. Their talk will be friendly and cordial; they will talk about cooperation, relationships, and emotions. As leaders their affiliation People who sort for affiliation use the other
needs will give them the interpersonal skills that many middle and upper management lacks, but also undermine their ability to be firm and to create the necessary structures for accountability. Their strength is their charm and friendship. 3) Perceiving via Achievement: People who sort for achievement care most of all for getting things done. These are the practical results people who can focus on the task of the group and on the team performance and make things happen. They will talk about competition, accomplishments, successes, tasks, risks, adventures, etc. As a leader their focus will be on productivity and profitability. Their
challenge will often be that of releasing and delegating. Their strength is their positive success orientation, ability to consult and achieve, and to create a winning environment. Languaging: Listen for the words and ideas which indicate one of these three arenas in the context of social groups and organizations. Contexts of Origin: The value and style that predominated in the way one’s parents and teachers operated in the family and school may predispose one to likewise sort. Did one identify and model this style or did one dis-identify from that style of orientation? Self-Analysis: __ Power/ Affiliation/ Achievement/ Balance Contexts: __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
__ Work/Career __ Intimates __ Relationships __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Sports __ Other: ______________

Question 12

30. Work Style

Answer 12

Independent, Team Player, Manager, Bureaucrat Description: This meta-program refers to how we process and handle the experience of working with
other people in a task-oriented situation like work. How do we perceive ourselves vis-a-vis the group? How do we want to relate to the group? What’s important to us about that? In response to this question, people generally sort for playing different roles, for being independent, a team player, managing or running the organization, or a part of a bureacracy. Because this meta-program relates to any context that involves getting a task accomplished, it is especially applicable for business. It provides valuable information for determining a person’s suitability for self-management, working as a team player, and/or managing others. It also provides insight into a person’s flexibility in inter-personal relations. Do they naturally think about the success of others, do they desire to assist them, to manage processes of the organization, or to lead out to new areas? James and Woodsmall (1988). Elicitation: C Ask the following questions successively in the following order. 1) Do you know what you need to be more successful at work or in this task? 2) Do you know what someone else needs to function more successfully? 3) Do you find it easy to tell someone what they should do? 4) Do you have a sense or vision of what else is possible in the future? C As you think about a work situation where you felt the happiest, when and where did that occur? C What factors contributed to your sense of fulfillment in that situation? C How long can you work alone? Independent Dependent Self Others only Identification: 1) Independent or self only Perceiving: The answers to the series of four elicitation questions will be Yes, No, No, No or Yes. This describes those who perceive, value, and orient themselves independently. They have the capacity for management in that they know the strategies for succeeding, but they do not want to manage. Independent workers like to do things on their own. They also like to Team Player Self and Others Manager/Leader Bureaucrat Self and Others Self assume and take responsibility for their own motivation and management. They score high on selfcontrol and discipline, internal and self referencing metaprograms (Authority Source, #23, Attention, #24). Those who operate from a polarity response will sort for independence because “they can’t be told anything” (Self-Instruction, strong-will, #49). 2) Dependent, or Others Only, Perceiving: The answers here will be: No, Yes, Yes-or-No, No. They typically will wait on the boss, the system, or a spouse to tell them what to do. They may intuitively lack awareness about what to do, simply do not trust their own judgments, or function by a passively waiting style. Typically, once they are given instructions, they do not hesitate to take action. (Self-Instruction, compliant, #49). 3) Team Player Perceiving: The answers Sometimes, Sometimes, Sometimes, Sometimes describes those who perceive, value, and orient themselves via a team playing mode. Depending upon the
circumstances and contexts, they may or may not want to play a manager role, but may want to cofacilitate the success of the group as a whole. Team players like the comraderie that comes with working as a team and doing something together. They like the terms and concepts of togetherness, “family,” “just being around people,” etc. 4) Potential managers, self but not others, Perceiving: The answers Yes, Yes-or No, No, Yes describe those who have the interest to potentially become managers. They know what it will take for others to succeed, yet they feel hesitant or inhibited from intruding or getting involved in such communications. Various beliefs, values, experiences, lack of skills, etc. may hold them back. Typically this means that they do not yet desire to manage or lead, but they could potentially develop those skills. 5) Managing or self and others : A Yes answer to all questions. These people know the structure of success in an activity, care about it, think about others, and love to communicate about it. Their metaprogram gets them to value and orient themselves to manage self and others. They know what they need to do to increase their success, know what others need to do, and don’t hesitate to say so. Often these managing types, with their “take charge” attitude will assume that others should have and use the same principles and values that they do. In adaptation, they operate from the Judging perspective (Adaptation, #37). Managing persons enjoy the supervisory role of directing and guiding 6) Bureaucrat Perceiving: These will also answer No, Yes, and Yes, and Yes to the questions. They want to manage others and have no one, including themselves, to manage them. Not a pretty picture, is it? Languaging: Notice the emphasis in your client upon the subject of affiliation, team playing, or independence. Then pace your communications according to the person’s way of filtering things. Contexts of Origin: The debate continues about whether leaders and managers are born or develop. Here the style of social action in early life, the thoughts-andemotions surrounding such, identifying or dis-identifying from such models seems to primarily create this way of sorting. Obviously, trauma experiences can provide a strong stimulus to stay away from trying to work with or through people. Experiences early in one’s career contribute to the development of this meta-program. The person who experiences a great deal of satisfaction through working on a team or in management will undoubtedly attach a lot of pleasure to such. The same may occur if one experiences a positive role model in this area. Self-Analysis: __ Independent/ Dependent/ Team / Potential Manager/ Management / Bureaucrat Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No

Question 13

31. Change Adaptor

Answer 13

Closed — Open to Change; Late—Medium— Early Adaptors
Description: We all have a thinking and feeling style about change. This change adaptor metaprogram relates to how open or closed we are to change. Do we do so quickly and easily? Do we embrace change? Or do we fight it, resist it, fear it, hate it, and even when we want to make a change, find ourselves fighting the process of change? This meta-program is related to the meta-programs of Risk Taking (#45) and Decision Making (#46). Regarding this change meta-program there are numerous distinctions (noted by Denise Pederson): Speed of changing: Change motivation: Quality of Change: Slow — Medium — Fast Externally — Internally motivated Cosmetic — Core This meta-programs begins with ideas and beliefs about “change” in general, typically drawn as a conclusion from specific changes that one has experienced. How we have meta-stated ourselves about the idea or concept of change sets up this meta-program. Do we welcome change, long for it, desire it, bring a willingness to it, or resist it, fear it, hate it, etc.? In welcoming change, there are other qualities and textures to the experience: welcoming uncertainty, willing to suspend judgment and to be tentative. How open or closed we are to change depends on our beliefs about change. In this, it is important to discover if there are any beliefs in the back of our mind about change that may sabotage the transformation process (i.e., “Any change that I make will eventually revert back to its original status.”) A belief like that will be incredibly unuseful when engaged in coaching, counseling, consulting, or training for change. A belief like that would potentially make change incredibly difficult and challenging and lead to other beliefs about the inability to sustain a transformation. Hall and Duval (2004 Meta-Coaching Vol I.: Coaching Change). Everett Rodgers (1995) covers the subject of adapting innovations and posits the following adaptor distinctions: Innovators: Venturesome Early Adaptors: Respect Early Majority: Deliberate Late Majority: Skeptical Laggards: Traditional Elicitation: C How willing and open are you generally to welcoming change into your life? C Do you tend to be a pioneer in change (a change embracer), an early adopter, adopter when the wave of change has come, a late adopter, or even a change resister? C How do you emotionally see change? C How do you emotionally keep things the same? C What do you feel emotionally when you experience change, planned or unplanned change?
Closed to Change Late Adopter Open to Change Early Adopter Identification: 1) Closed to Change Perceiving: The more closed we are to change, the more we
dislike it and perceive it as disrupting or even threatening. This will make us more likely to be a late adopter to changes and will follow innovations rather than lead or champion them. 2) Open to Change Perceiving: The more we are open to change, the more likely we will be an early adopter of new technology, models, and processes. This will make us the early and medium adopters. We will perceive change as desirable, exciting, and enriching (see Operational Style meta-program, #36). Languaging: Those who embrace change will talk about adaptations, modifications, changes, etc. Those less open or closed to change will speak about keeping things the same, avoiding changes, and protecting the hard-earned status quo. When communicating change to a single person, to a workforce, or to a community, match the language of those who are being addressed. Frame the change in terms of either sameness or difference, depending on the receiver’s meta-programs. Listen especially for the Relationship Comparison meta-program (#4) of language. The sameness— difference meta-program critically influences our feelings and perceptions about change. One question that elicits that meta-program is: “How do you react to change and how frequently do you need change?” Those with the sameness meta-program generally prefer things to staythe same and so do not like change. They will more likely resist and refuse change and so dig their heels in against it. Those with the difference meta-program, on the other hand, love change and often thrive on it. It is sameness and regularity that they dislike and resist. In-between these choices are the sameness with difference who accept change from time to time if it is not too much or too radical. They will accept change if it is gradual. Those who sort for difference with sameness have a mild taste for change and so will seek out low levels of it. They prefer changes that evolve and which are not revolutionary. Contexts of Origin: How much change we experience as children and how prepared we were for such changes mostly determines whether we fear or embrace change. Change feels threatening and dangerous to the degree that we think or feel that we don’t have the resources to handle it, to the extent that we don’t think of change as natural, inevitable, and the only constant, and to the degree that we value or over-value stability, sameness, and familarity. Numerous factors influence a person to be closed to change including low self-confidence (SelfConfidence, #50), preference for sameness, low on Ego Strength (#54). Numerous factors also influence an openness to change—beliefs in the value of change, the toward Motivation Direction meta-program (#35). Self-Analysis: __ Closed to change / Open to Change — Late / Early Adopter Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No

Question 14

32. Attitude:

Answer 14

Serious — Playful
Description: Our attitude about ourselves, others, work, health, and life in general can be anywhere on a continuum from serious to fun and playful. The degree of humor in life measures how much lightness or heaviness we bring to things and filter things. As a perceptual lens, serious versus playful offers two very different ways to look at life, self, others, work, hobbies, and the world. Each metaprogram filters and colors our basic philosophy about life and so relates to our Scenario Type metaprograms (#6) and our Philosophical metaprograms (#10). Elicitation: C Is your general attitude about yourself and others serious or humorous? C How much humor do you generally experience about yourself when you make a mistake? C How easily do you laugh at yourself and especially at your fallibilities? C How much are you a serious person—earnest, committed, focused, downto-business? C Would those who know you best say that you have a good sense of humor and are generally playful in your approach to things? C Is your perspective on life more on the humorous or serious side? Bland Serious Balanced Playful Identification: 1) Serious Perceiving: The attitude and perspective of the serious person comes from believing, caring, being in earnest, disciplined, committed, and focused. These are the positive traits that enable a person to be “serious” and to take things seriously. When over-done, the person may accept the idea that “the end justifies the means,” which can invite all kinds of cruel and inhuman activities. There’s a difference between believing in something strongly and believing in one’s beliefs. When we forget that our beliefs are but beliefs—maps created by fallible brains, maps that are not real, but just representations of reality, we close the subject to any new learnings and adjustments. In this way we become fanatical. That is, we believein our beliefs, forgetting that they are just beliefs and so become what Eric Hoffer calls “the true believer.” 2) Humorous and Playful Perceiving: The attitude and perspective of the humorous and playful person is most natural. joking, etc. came easily and naturally to us. As children, play, fun, laughing, We have to learn how to become serious, to “get that smile off” our face, to endure punishments, insults, threats, etc. Some people turn to humor as a way to fend off the dangerous and threatening facets of life. Comedians often grow up in homes and situations where there is much pain, tragedy, and heartache. The person who processes everything in terms of humor may also come from the failure to grow up, to mature, to find a passion or commitment in life. 3) Balanced between Serious and Playful Perceiving: The healthiest perspective is that of the metastate of being playfully serious (and not, seriously playful). It is to find one’s talents, passions, interests, visions and be able to focus with concentration and discipline on it and yet at the same time to know and embrace our humanity, fallibility, and to step back to take a light and playful view of
things. Languaging for Pacing: How much does humor play a role in a given person’s communications? How much laughter, word play, punning, and enjoying seeing the silly side of things is there in the person’s perceptions? Contexts of Origin: Early pain, trauma, tragedy, and heartache can lead to both views and beliefs, that life is hard, painful, and serious, or that life is ridiculous and comic. Self-Analysis: __ Serious / Humorous and Playful / Balance Contexts: __ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No

Question 15

33. Persistence

Answer 15

Impatient — Patient; Reckless — Persistent Description: One of the factors that plays a role in how we perceive, sort for things, and filter our experiences is our degree of patience or impatience. When we meta-state ourselves with these emotional states, we set patience or impatience as our meta-program frame. With patience as our meta-program, we develop the ability to “hang in,” persist, calmly consider things, and hold the course. Without patience, mind, focus, concentration, and persistence wanes. Contexts of time pressure, social pressure, or other kinds of pressure frequently induce states of impatience thereby undermining persistence. With impatience as our metaprogram frame we become more active, even reactive in our Somatic Response meta-program (#27). Elicitation: C How patient and persistent are you when you feel the pressure of a situation? C In work and task contexts, do you look for and expect quick results or do you think patiently about the processes involved and realistically consider the time element? C What evokes impatience in you? How often does that occur? C How do you access patience as a resource state? How easily can you do that? C To what extent do you naturally operate in a patient and easy-going way?
Impatient with things Patient with things Reckless, Impulsive Persistent, Reflective Identification: 1) Impatient Perceiving: The states of patience and impatience are fairly easy to detect. In the state of impatience we are in an animated state that with being full of energy, movement, activity, nervousness, distraction, etc. Calibrating to this state means observing a person’s state when calm and cool and then contrasting it to when a person’s attention seems to be scattered, the person has a lot of “nervous energy,” and the person keeps changing the subject. At that time, exploring what’s on the person’s mind and his or her sense of pressure helps to capture the thing about which the person
may be impatient, frustrated, fearful, apprehensive, or worried about. 2) Patient Perceiving: The person who sees the world, life, others, and self through the lens of patience has a long-term view and so can persist toward desired goals. This is the natural and organic view of those connected with nature and the seasons, who knows about planting in the spring and harvesting in the fall and that no amount of demanding, yelling, tantruming, or putting the pressure on self or others will speed up the natural systemic processes. Languaging: The language of impatience is the easiest to identify and catch. The language is demanding, the pace is quick and sometimes jerky as the person jumps from subject to subject. Contexts of Origin: We are all born impatient. It’s the nature of being an infant and child; we want what we want now. By contrast, patience is learned. We develop patience over time as we raise our frustration-tolerance. This occurs through growth and maturity. Where do we learn how to handle our emotional states? Who do we use as examplars? Families pass down such knowledge through modeling, through beliefs, and through cultural or ethic identities. Self-Analysis: Impatient — Patient; Reckless — Persistent Contexts: Summary When we use the “body stuff” of our kinesthetic sensations to somatize our evaluations we create “emotions”—motions in our bodies that create urges to move out and do something. That’s why every emotion has an action tendency within it. The origin of the word “e-motion” speaks of this “moving” (motion) “out” (ex-) and so describes emotions as how our motor programs trigger us to move out. What occurs in our bodies has correlations in our head. Together our mind-body-emotion system works as an integrated whole. As a result, this creates many of the meta-programs or perceptual filters that governs what we focus on and pay attention to as we move through life.
__ Work/Career __ Relationships __ Sports __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No We “go at” and “move away from” experiences, information and people both mentally and emotionally. We feel confident or insecure about doing so, we reference from what we think-feel or care more about what others think-feel. We have an action style from low to high activity. We have a strategy for trusting or distrusting. And when we emote—we do so in a focused and directed way, or in a way that indicates that we are all over the place. All of this emoting comes out of a basic style of exuberance or lack thereof. Take some time right now to review and contemplate your “emotional” metaprograms. C Are any of these meta-programs drivers in you? Which drive you too much? C In which meta-program do you lack the flexibility to shift to the other side of the continuum at your
discretion? C What thoughts, beliefs, or values drive your emotional meta-programs? As you take second position to somebody with a different emotional metaprogram, try it on fully and notice the different world or Matrix that it generates. What would you experience if you used this meta-program more often? What emotions does it evoke within you? How do you feel in your body and what “urges to act” (or not act) do you detect? Finally, it’s important to remember that we are more than our emotions. We have emotions and we emote as expressions of our thoughts, yet we “are” not our emotions. These body correlations of our thoughts and values indicate what meanings we have attached to things, positive and negative. Yet it is common for people to identify self with emotions. To what extent have you identified yourself with your emotions? Do you now have permission to know yourself as a person who is more than your emotions? that permission even now?