• Is there a difference between NLP and Neuro-Semantics?
• If there is a difference, is it critical and significant or peripheral?
• What are the differences between NLP and Neuro-Semantics?

To the first two questions, you will find that the answer in this article is, Yes, there is a difference between NLP and Neuro-Semantics, and yes, it is a critical one. To the third question, this article then details those differences. I could not have written this article when we began Neuro-Semantics, even two years ago I could not have written it. The critical differences that I’ve detailed here between NLP and Neuro-Semantics have been developing and are continue to develop. Here I have attempted to briefly summarize them. To make this as clear as possible I have created the chart on the next page to set forth the key differences. The text that follows the chart then offers a description of the distinctions.

As I identify these differences, I do ask that you do not read them as absolute statements. They are not. I have not written them to be absolute statement, only general ones. For example, what Neuro-Semantics has mostly done is to much more fully develop referencing, reflexivity, apply to self, community, systems, etc. This doesn’t mean that there is none of this in NLP, of course there is. In describing the differences, I most want to point to the key emphases in the two fields.

In the following descriptions then you will find many general statements about NLP and Neuro-Semantics. These are statements that are generally true of each model and field. For more specifics, check out the other articles on www.neurosemantics.com about both NLP and NS. As an NLP Trainer, I have over the years written numerous critiques with others on NLP. These were designed to offer feedback and insight as we acknowledged weaknesses in the model or the use of the model. Since the founding of Neuro-Semantics our focus has been to lead in a way that takes these critiques into account.

At its heart, the Neuro-Semantic difference begins with an attitude of apply to self. This focus leads to more congruency, more willingness to look at oneself, to use the processes with oneself, and to consciously aim to continually grow and improve. In turn, this leads to being more open and to honestly acknowledge the facets of NLP that we have found which do not work or are over-emphasized to the exclusion of something else. None of this is to say that one is right or better, but rather to point out differences, especially in terms of focus and direction.

When Neuro-Semantics began, it grew out of NLP and so it was not differentiated from NLP at all. We founded it during the days when Bandler had filed a 90 million dollar lawsuit against the field of NLP so we could continue if the worst-case scenario occurred. Today Neuro-Semantics has become significantly differentiated from NLP and I can only imagine that this will only continue in the years to come. The Neuro-Semantic difference supremely lies in an attitude—in an intentional stance about who we are who use the model. To that end we have adapted a statement from Richard Bandler and have added the word relationship.

“Neuro-Semantics is an attitude, that grows out of relationship and that leads to relationship, backed up by the methodology of modeling and that leads to hundreds of powerfully transforming patterns.”

From Representation to Referencing

The focus in NLP, and this is the genius of NLP, is on representation. Recognizing that we think in terms of our sensory systems and uses what we see, hear, feel, smell and taste to re-present to ourselves within our minds gives us control knobs for “running our own brain.” We have a Movie Mind and this empowers us to take charge of what plays out in the theater of our mind. Oftentimes the simplest shifts or alternations in the cinematic features (“sub-modalities”) that we use to encode our understandings is sufficient to create powerfully positive transformations.

The focus in Neuro-Semantics moves on from representation to references and referencing. First we bring in the world by taking a referent event and representing it. From there we transform the same event into frames of reference, and then frames of mind. This moves us up the levels as we classify or categories our learnings from the events. In this way we create layers of embedded frames that make up the matrix of our mind. And those layers emerge organically as the mind-body-emotion system grows. In moving up the levels, we do this primarily in language, hence the true place for the linguistic of NLP and the symbolic levels of Neuro-Semantics.

From Linear to Non-Linear Thinking

NLP mostly and primarily involves linear thinking. We see this most prominently in the domain of eliciting and modeling of strategies. While there is a place for a meta response in the strategy model using T.O.T.E. format, it is a minor piece and de-emphasized in actual practice. NLP mostly talks about sending or swishing the brain somewhere, moving from present state to desired state, identifying desired outcomes and formatting them to be well-formed and then just future pacing the experience. All of that is linear in nature and structure.

Neuro-Semantics focuses on and involves non-linear thinking precisely because it is driven by reflexivity. In Meta-States training we always begin with a warning that the kind of thinking required to understand meta-states is very different from the kind of thinking that governs NLP. At first, learning to think in non-linear ways can feel very disconcerting. Non-linear thinking means reckoning with going round and round in loops, spiraling up and down the levels of the mind, recognizing the numerous feedback and feed forward loops in a system, and recognizing that multiple processing will be occurring at any given moment.

From Non-Systemic to Highly Systemic

NLP talks about systems and well it should. It brought lots of system features in when it began by modeling Family Systems, Bateson’s cybernetics, and Korzybski’s non-aristotelian system. The problem is that it mostly talks about systems and actually operates in ways that are very non-systemic (i.e., linear, black-or-white, either-or, etc.). This has led several of us (Dilts, Bandler, McWhorter, and Hall) to work on creating models for “systemic NLP.”

To the extent that Neuro-Semantics has reflexivity built into its structure, it is systemic at its heart. Having incorporated many of the non-aristotelian principles of Korzybski into its structure, Neuro-Semantics identifies and uses both feedback and feed forward loops in its patterns and even has a self-correcting loop built into the model and community itself. This grew out of the 4 meta-domains (see User’s Manual of the Brain, Volume II, 2003) and led to the Matrix Model (2003).

You can see and experience the feedback loop in the Matrix model in terms of a number of the Neuro-Semantic patterns. For example, Mind-to-Muscle pattern enables us to feed forward a great idea into our body whereas the Intentionality pattern enables us to feed back to ourselves our intentionality up the levels. In the Neuro-Semantic community, we have built feedback into our trainings so that the trainers receive feedback (especially the Trainers and Coaches). We have numerous forums for feedback as well as our Neuro-Semantic Developers Colloquium.

From Techniques to Persons in Relationship

Much of the power of NLP is that it has focus so much on techniques and has developed many powerful techniques and patterns that allows a communicator, therapist, hypnotist, manager, etc. to do things to people. Yet this has also had many unfortunate consequences. It has led lots of people to judge NLP as manipulative and focused only on “programming” into others without a proper balance on relationship, rapport, ethics, or ecology. In many places in Europe, NLP is known so much for its techniques that it is also criticized for the same—that it is only about techniques, and the model is but a collection of techniques.

The focus on techniques has also brought out another NLP/ NS difference. NLP is mostly trained from a meta-program of procedures whereas Neuro-Semantics is mostly trained from an options point of view. This is one of those things that many people first notice in our trainings.

Neuro-Semantics focus much more on persons and relationship than on techniques. While there are many patterns and processes, the over-arching idea in Neuro-Semantics is to make sure the technology serves people and is offered in a healthy, balanced, ecological, and human way. To that end, Neuro-Semantics puts the focus on the personal context, on co-creating a solution with the client or customer, and on operating in Win/Win relationships with others. This is part of the vision for Neuro-Semantics as a community and movement.

From Doing to Others to Apply to Self

NLP certainly has the power for us to work “magic” on people. That’s what Bandler and Grinder found as the modeled Satir, Perls, and Erickson and so they wrote about “the structure of magic.” The problem with this is that the focus is on the NLP practitioner doing something to the client. And when that’s the focus, then the frames by implication is that the person doing it to another doesn’t do it on oneself. As a consequence, NLP as a model has a lot of criticism and bad press. Many NLPers who haven’t applied the model to themselves do not even know how to. And that leaves them not “walking their talk” and so being incongruent, they give NLP a bad name.

In Neuro-Semantics “apply to self” is built into the model. This has also become a major focus and emphasis, apply the magic first to yourself, and only then to others. Doing this enables Neuro-Semanticists to walk their talk, receive the benefits of the magic personally and to then be walking examples and models of the powerful tools and patterns. It makes for personal congruency—and personal power.

From Power over to Power with … or Authenticity

With NLP’s focus on techniques, it followed that there has been a strong emphasis on power, success, and effectiveness. This shows up in the advertizing and marketing of NLP. It shows up in the seminars and trainings. Robbins is a prime example, “Unlimited Power,” “Awakening the Giant Within,” “Date with Destiny,” etc. This over-focus on “power” and materialistic success predominates as focus on relationship, wisdom, ecology, community, etc. all take a back row seat. It also explains why there’s been so much bad press around the theme of manipulation. Of course, I’m using the term “power” here in the traditional sense of power over others rather than in the sense of power with others.

From the beginning, Neuro-Semantics has held forth a vision that emphasizes relationship, being authentic, connection with others, conducing business ethically, and creating Win/Win relationships that believe in abundance for all. I see this as a prevention to the “guru” mentality that has grown up in many parts of NLP (not to mention other seminar businesses). To be truly successful, Neuro-Semantics stresses the wealth of connection and relationships, and power with others as equals and colleagues. The foundation of this is being true to oneself. So in many Neuro-Semantics trainings we have consciously focused on balancing Being, Doing, and Having, especially in those trainings on building wealth and personal mastery.

Personal power and authenticity can go together. But it is not the old definitions of power as power over others, doing things to others apart from their awareness, etc. Personal power in the sense of being personally effective, taking effective action, achieving one’s goals, and getting things done—in Neuro-Semantics we see that as a natural outcome of finding one’s own talents, passions, values, and visions.

From 2 to 4 Meta-Domains

In traditional NLP there are only two meta-domains, the Meta-Model and Meta-Programs. These are taught separately as different domains with little interconnection. Other domains exist in NLP, but not meta-domains (e.g., “sub-modalities,” strategies, time-lines, modeling, and hypnosis). These are also talk separately as if the domains have no inter-connections.

In Neuro-Semantics, the third meta-domain was initiated as the Meta-States model was discovered and articulated. The modeling influence of Meta-States then opened our eyes to other meta-domains. The first to be discovered was that of the meta-modalities or “sub-modalities.” This revealed that there was no sub in “sub-modalities.” When we play with the cinematic features of our mental movies (the “sub-modalities”) and use the distinctions of the visual, auditory, kinesthetic systems, we were really framing from a higher level, an editorial level to the movie. From this discovery, we came up with six new sub-models or patterns (The Structure of Excellence: Unmasking the Meta-Levels of “Sub-Modalities,” 1999). Meta-States also revealed that “time” and time-lines were also meta-states and could be tremendously enriched by the principles of Meta-States.

From “Sub-Modalities” to Meta-Modalities

In NLP we consider “sub-modalities” as the periodic elements of mind and so use them as a chemist would in putting together the building blocks of experience. This metaphor further encourages the breaking down of experience and so a reductionistic approach. For some in NLP, (especially those who bought into DHE, see article on website, “Ten Years and Still No Beef!”) “sub-modalities” govern everything.

In Neuro-Semantics we now recognize that there are no sub level for the so-called domain of

“sub-modalities.” The problem is a problem of mis-labeling. The cinematic features of our mental movies in the sensory channels are not at a lower or sub level, but are actually the meta-frames. As we now recognize that you have to go meta to even detect the so-called “sub-modalities,” we have to go meta to them to alter how we have framed a mental movie from color to black-and-white, from loud to quiet, etc. In meta-stating these distinctions, we are moving up and so gestalting the experience. We move up the levels of frames in order to create new generalizations of believing, valuing, expecting, deciding, intending, etc.

From Primary to Meta-Levels

While NLP speaks about meta-levels (meta-position and Neuro-logical levels), it focus mostly on the primary level. It does so to its glory as it speaks about the representational level of the sensory systems and the distinctive features of one’s internal movie. It also does, yet to its detriment, when it confuses beliefs, values, criteria, etc. as if they were primary level phenomena. After all, these are not primary level phenomena, but meta-states (layered thoughts-and-feelings about various ideas) and that’s why merely shifting the cinematic features (translated to NLP jargon, “sub-modalities”) seldom works.

From beginning with meta-states, Neuro-Semantics focuses on the layering of level upon level and the systemic nature of the meta-levels. Here our emphasis moves from the linear nature of NLP that focuses so much on the externals to our focus on internal thoughts and our layering of them. By distinguishing the levels and seeing how we layer frame upon frame to create the embedded frames of any given matrix, Neuro-Semantics provides principles and guidelines for dealing with this richness of interaction.

In Meta-States, there are principles governing the levels, detailed lists of the numerous ways levels can interact, and questions for flushing out the meta-levels (see Meta-States, Secrets of Personal Mastery or Accessing Personal Genius training manual).

In moving up the meta-levels our challenge lies not so much as to what is “out there” at the primary level, but in how we apply the higher level meanings to those events. Focus now shifts to how we have interpreted the events and how that interpretation impacts our lives. After all, the impact that anything has on us lies in the meanings that we give that thing. Our meta_level meanings creates the difference that makes the difference. This is why Neuro-Semantics places its focus on how we utilize and reframe our meta_levels for the best impact in our lives.

From State to Fluid Meta-Levels

NLP does have some “logical levels,” at least those centers of NLP that accept Bateson’s Levels of Learning and Robert Dilts’ Neuro-logical levels. While this model does not fit the criteria for being true “logical levels” it does provide a wonderful list of 6 distinctions about human experience. Yet the “logical levels” of this model are static and hierarchical. Using such nominalizations as “beliefs,” “values,” “identity,” “mission,” etc. the model talks about these layerings as if they were things.

Neuro-Semantics, starting from the Meta-States model, denominalizes “logical levels” in terms of the verbs or processes—this gives us layering, leveling, and embedding. From this we can more easily detect and work with the layering of the mind as we classify experiences using various categories. In this way, we type or format an experience and treat it as a member of some class. This describes the psycho-logics of our mind-body-emotion system and reveals that meta-levels refer to the ideas and feelings we embed other ideas and feelings within. This allows us to explore, “What do you think or feel about X?” Neuro-Semantics also uses the linguistic distinction of multi-ordinality to work with the reflexivity of certain words (nominalizations that we can apply to itself).

In Neuro-Semantics we see “logical levels” as dynamic and fluid. We layer thought upon thought and feeling upon feeling. The resulting system creates a dynamic and ever-moving matrix of our mind.

This highlights yet another NLP/NS difference. NLP, derived from Perls, Satir, and Erickson, spoke a lot about “parts.” This was a contribution that Leslie Cameron-Bandler brought in from T.A. (Transactional Analysis). In Neuro-Semantics we typically avoid such elementalism (Korzybski) and speak about things in a more holistic and systemic way, the mind-body-emotion system.

From No “Why” to Several “Whys”

n NLP practitioner we are taught to “Never ask Why.” The “why” question is considered taboo. Why? Because “it only elicits defenses, excuses, and rationalizations. It only takes you back into history.” This is certainly true with the “why” of identity or history questions. “Why are you that way?” “Don’t you know better than that? Why did you do that?”

Neuro-Semantics restores several “Why” questions to the process of modeling experience. While we seldom ask the “why” of identity or history, we most definitely ask other why questions. We ask about the why of intentionality, the why of outcome, and the why of reasons and reasoning. Why is that important to you? Why do you want that? Why would that be significant to you? And when a person is in a good state, a state we would like to confirm and solidify, we coach a person into that by asking why, “Why do you like that? Why do you believe that? Why do you want that?” We ask that because we know that in response, the person will find or create reasons and explanations that will support the experience.

Sometimes we want to know a person’s reasons for why he or she does a particular thing or feels a particular way. Why do I want to know this? Because reasons operate in our mind as our knowledge base, paradigm map, and domain of understanding by which we give meaning to things. In this, reasons create powerful motivations in our propulsion system (moving toward values and away from dis-values). If a person has enough reasons to do something, that person will do it. And if I can discover the reasons for an unwanted behavior, then those reasons provide a leverage point for me as a coach, therapist, manager, or communicator to reframe and invite a change of behavior.

Also, in so designing a customized propulsion system for an individual, we do well to assist that person in uncovering and/or creating high level away from reasons for changing the behavior as well as high level toward reasons for pulling the person towards the desired behavior. These why’s are critical to understanding and changing behavior and Neuro-Semantics provides the tools for doing just that.

From Dissociated Emotion to Meta-Emotions

In NLP, the term meta is generally defined or understood be equated with “dissociation.” To go meta for many trained in traditional NLP means to “become dissociated.” And being dissociated for them means to not feel, to be “just in the head.” This makes meta and the meta-position and anything that has meta as a preface something un-emotional, devoid of emotion, or non-emotional. And since in many parts of the NLP world, NLP is much more about controlling emotions than experiencing them, emotions are seen as to be controlled.

Neuro-Semantics takes a completely different position on all of this. First, in Meta-States, we understand that while sometimes a person can step back from one state of strong negative emotions and into a state of witnessing, observing, and calmness, the meta response or move generally involves some emotion and oftentimes more emotion. Joy about joy usually increases the joy. Joy of learning turns up the positive emotions for learning. Fear of fear increases the fear, as does anger at fear, fear of anger, shame of anger, etc. The term meta only refers to taking a position about another experience of feeling, thought, or physiology. It is not the same as dissociation.

This is important in Neuro-Semantics because we see emotions as part of the mind-body-emotion system and therefore to be experienced, even the so-called “negative” ones. That’s why so many have said that “Meta-States brings the kinesthetics back into NLP.” “Neuro-Semantics is about getting the neurology activated along with the mind.” We are always associated and always dissociated. It’s just a question of what mind-body states are we experiencing and which are we not experiencing at any given moment.

From Individualism to Community

NLP’s focus is almost entirely on the Individual. This is seen in the models and patterns that we have in NLP, in the individualistic nature of the founders and leaders and in the overall general direction—”run your own brain.” While there were invitations in NLP (Bateson’s anthropology and cultural studies and Satirs’ Family Systems), NLP has been very individualist.

Neuro-Semantics uses its systems focus to shift focus from the individual only to focusing also on community, culture, and social contexts. Using Meta-States, Neuro-Semantics has begun to model cultures and cultural phenomena and to use more and more group dynamics, teams, and networking to expand Neuro-Semantics around the globe.

From Remedial to Generative

Here is another generalization; in spite of NLP talking about generative change, most of the early patterns of NLP were remedial—curing phobias, re-imprinting the past, decision destroying, time-lining old emotional hurts, etc. In fact, as a psychologist, when I first found NLP and began teaching it, I put the best of NLP patterns together on Trauma Recovery and began teaching workshops on that. This really isn’t any surprise, NLP came from three therapists who worked with people with problems and many of those problems had to do with getting free from the past.

So what NLP envisioned in terms of generative or transformative change, Neuro-Semantics has more fully actualized. By making commercial models on weight control (Games Slim and Fit People Play), business (Games Business Experts Play), coaching (Meta-Coaching), etc. our primary focus, we have shifted from remedial change to transformative change. This has led to patterns that have to do with increasing performance, becoming masters of our matrix, playing new frame games, etc.

From Unconscious to more Consciousness

Coming from modeling Ericksonian hypnosis, traditional NLP has a strong emphasis on the unconscious. It even takes a cue from Erickson to assume that “the unconscious” is always much wiser and reliable than the conscious mind—which both Bandler and Grinder have come to describe as “a dick head.” In fact, to take Grinder’s Whispering in the Wind book seriously, we should never trust the conscious mind and should use Six-Step Reframing as the quintessential NLP pattern. Why? Because he created it when he was delirious and not in his conscious mind and because it depends on “the unconscious” rather than the conscious mind.

Neuro-Semantics puts a lot more focus on becoming mindful or conscious. We have also called into question this over-valuing of “the unconscious” mind as if there were only one unconscious mind (see article on website, Which Unconscious Mind do you Train?). For us in Neuro-Semantic, it is consciously running our own brain, being mindful of what we are saying and doing, and consciously present to this moment that makes us uniquely human. Yes, some states of “consciousness” are painful and problematic. Yet it is not consciousness as such that’s the problem, but the kind of consciousness. That’s why we focus on bringing a witnessing and non-judgmental consciousness to our own states.

From “Pure NLP” to Developing and Ever-Changing NLP

Finally here’s another difference. Today there are NLP Training Centers and trainers who are arguing for a return to “pure NLP” and that they and they only do “pure NLP.” Several of them have set 1985 as an arbitrary date for this. Prior to this date, NLP was “pure” after that date, it began to be corrupted by other influences. Grinder argues for this saying that we need to distinguish NLP^modeling from NLP^application (see Whispering in the Wind, 2002). He argues that Six-Step reframing is NLP^modeling and not NLP^application.

Of course, this is such a strange twist on a model that began as a paradigm shift and that presented itself as an ongoing ever-growing and developing model. In fact, it began with the founders saying, “We have no theory; we’re only modelers. We only care about what works and describing it.”

Neuro-Semantics has focused more on commercial models that apply the numerous meta-domain models rather than on the models themselves. They are only tools, only maps. Our question is entirely practical, What can we do with them? Can we use them to become financially independent, to become fluent and master stuttering, to master fears and become courageous, to defuse hotheads and other cranky people, to become resilience in business, etc.? And because of this, these have become the Neuro-Semantic “Gateway” Trainings.

Summary

• While Neuro-Semantics grew out of the roots of NLP —along with Korzybski’s and Bateson’s work (and others, see the article The Roots of Neuro-Semantics), Neuro-Semantics differs from NLP now and will continue to in the years to come.
• The vision and mission of Neuro-Semantics is to be much more congruent and aligned with the presuppositions of NLP and to refine the model as new information, research, and models arise.

Author:

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D. lives in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, researches, writes, models, is an entrepreneur, and trains internationally in Neuro-Semantics. With thanks to Michelle Duval, a master Neuro-Semantic Coach in Sydney Australia for some of these distinctions.

References:

Bandler, Richard and Grinder, John. (1976). The structure of magic, Volume II. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.

Bateson, Gregory. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.

Bandler, Richard and Grinder, John. (1982). Reframing: Neuro-linguistic programming and the transformation of meaning. UT: Real People Press.

Bandler, Richard. (1985). Using your brain for a change. (Ed. Connirae and Steve Andreas). Moab, UT: Real People Press.

Bodenhamer, Bobby G.; Hall. L. Michael. (1999). The user’s manual for the brain: A comprehensive manual for neuro-linguistic programming practitioner certification. United Kingdom: Crown House Publishers.

Hall, L. Michael. (2000 second edition). Meta-states: Managing the higher levels of your mind. Grand Jct., CO: Neuro-Semantics Publications.

Hall, L. Michael; Bodenhamer, Bob. (1997). Figuring out people: Design engineering using meta-programs. Wales, UK: Anglo-American Books.

Hall, L. Michael; Bodenhamer, Bob. (2001 fourth edition). Mind-lines: Lines for changing minds. Clifton, CO: Neuro-Semantics Publications.

Hall, L. Michael; Bodenhamer, Bob. (1999). The structure of excellence: Unmasking the meta-levels of submodalities. Grand Jct. CO: Empowerment Technologies.

Hall, L. Michael. (2000). Frame games: Persuasion elegance. Grand Jct. CO: Neuro-Semantics Publications.

Korzybski, Alfred (1933/1994). Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. Lakeville, Conn: Institute of General Semantics.

• Where does Neuro-Semantics come from?
• What are the theoretical foundations of Neuro-Semantics?
• What contributing forces influence the development of Neuro-Semantics as a model and field?
• How does Neuro-Semantics differ from NLP as a model?
• What is Neuro-Semantics not?

What is it?

Do you to know what it is? Neuro-Semantics is a model that describes how we humans incorporate meaning (semantics) into our body (neurology) so that we feel meanings and do so in terms of our emotions and states. Neuro-Semantics is an inter-disciplinary field that explores the structure of meaning and how those meanings become embodied within us. In Neuro-Semantics we approach the mind-body-emotion system in several ways. From the mental dimension, we explore how language works inside of us, how we attribute meaning, create meaning by words, associations, framing, metaphors, etc. From the neurological dimension, we explore how our body works with ideas to “realize” or “actualize” them and how what we do influences what we believe.

Neuro-Semantics, as a field of study and as a model, arises from many sources. Much of it comes from psychology, linguistics, semantics, anthropology, systems, etc. In this article, I will sketch out a brief history of the key sources that have come together to create the foundation of this inter-disciplinary study.

Why am I doing this? First I want to locate and position Neuro-Semantics as a field, and to distinguish it from those disciplines that gave it birth. Why is this important? I want to do that to set the boundaries and parameters of the field. As a new emergent field, this isespecially important at the beginning in order to make clear what Neuro-Semantics is and its focus of attention. And why do that? Mostly because there are many who are entering this field as trainers, coaches, and researches who keep asking me about this! So for those entering the field, as well as those already in this field, and for those who are just now discovering this field and examining it to see if it fits with their interests, I want to provide a clear sense of what Neuro-Semantics is and what is not.

From General Semantics to NLP

To give credit where credit is due, it was an engineer, Alfred Korzybski, who first gave voice to the terminology of neuro-linguistics and neuro-semantics as he founded the field of General Semantics with his classic work, Science and Sanity (1933/ 1994). By these terms he referred to the human mind-body system as a holistic system of many interactive parts. It was his way of re-uniting the fragmented elements of “mind,” “body,” “emotion,” “beliefs,” etc.

In thinking structurally about a living human mind-body system in interaction with the world “out there” beyond the human nervous system, he looked at it in terms of information coming into the protoplasm of the human nervous system and how the nerve impulses from sense receptors to the internal processing structures of the brain and how we abstract from one level to another level to create our inner “sense” of the world. We map the world into ourselves and we feel that map (or layers of mappings) as feelings, emotions, and intuitions.

To understand this dynamic communication process, Korzybski used a metaphor, that of mapping a territory. What we humans do in and with our neurons, nerves, nervous energy, and nervous systems is create a map, so to speak, about what we are encountering and interacting with. Out there in the world there are energies —energies that we recognize as the electromagnetic spectrum. We translate and interpret these energies as light, sound, sensation, smell, taste, and balance. We do that by the protoplasm of our body which we experience as our sense receptors. At the end of our nervous system we have eyes, ears, skin, olfactory and taste buds, and inner ear hairs and structures that enable us to “sense” the world. We then use these senses (the sensory modalities) to “make sense” of the world.

Our first maps about what is “out there” are strictly neurological and occur a long time prior to awareness or consciousness. The energy “out there” impacts and stimulates our sense receptors and we “sense” things in terms of the sense receptors. We see objects, hear sounds, feel textures, pressures, moisture, temperature (sensations), we smell smells and taste tastes and have a sense of balance or dizziness. These sensory systems interpret the energies in these terms.

Yet if we close our eyes and press on our eyelids and we will see colors and shapes. Pressure on the end- receptors of eyes is translated and interpreted as light. Each end-receptor funnels, channels, and interprets “energy manifestations” out there according to what it is designed to pick up and interpret. Each sense maps the world according to its own design. Even at that level, it’s just a perception.

From this Richard Bandler and John Grinder created the components of NLP in the early 1970s. They specified the “languages” of thought in terms of the sensory systems— the Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, etc. systems. We re-present to ourselves in our mind what we have seen, heard, and felt. This gave rise to the VAK. We think in terms of pictures, sounds, and sensations. We make a movie in our mind. We also say words about our movie, and so the meta-representation system is language. This was the genius of NLP.

NLP began with the presupposition that Korzybski specified, “The map is not the territory.” This means we do not deal with reality directly, but indirectly. We deal with it through our maps. If our world seems impoverished and we feel unresourceful, the problem lies in our maps. Do we have a rich enough map to go places, do things, understand things, etc.? If not, the problem isn’t ourselves or the world, it’s our map. So the solution is to enrich our map. Successful and effective people have rich and empowering maps for navigating the territory.

What does all of this mean? It pinpoints that at the heart of NLP is a Communication Model. It’s a model about how we use the languages of the mind to construct our maps and how to enrich those maps. It’s also about identifying and modeling the maps of experts to streamline the learning process. NLP originated from the modeling of three world-class therapists from three different fields to create a model of how language works (the Meta-Model) and how to use language for more precision or for more artful mapping (the Milton Model). From Family Systems they modeled Virginia Satir; from Gestalt Therapy they modeled Fritz Perls; and from Ericksonian Hypnosis they modeled Milton H. Erickson.

NLP provides powerful models and technology for “running one’s own brain” and thereby changing our states and experiences. As a model, NLP is not about any particular field. It is a meta-discipline. It’s a model about the structure of experience and so has practical applications for business, negotiating, selling, parenting, therapy, education, training, influence, marketing, writing— in a word, for anything that involves communication, relationship, and people skills. That some people have taken the model and misused it speaks about the power of this cutting-edge communication model.

It was from here that Neuro-Semantics began. What NLP did not have was a model about self-reflexive consciousness and how to model, take into account, or use reflexivity in communication, relationship, or modeling. With the Meta-States model I provided those structures and so created another meta-domain of NLP— Meta-States.

From “General” Semantics to “Neuro” Semantics

Where did Meta-States come from? From two key sources—Alfred Korzybski and Gregory Bateson. It was in Korzybski’s “levels of abstraction” (his Structural Differential) and his theory of multi-ordinality that I found much of the structure of Meta-States. Having immersed myself in Korzybski’s work for many years, when I “stumbled” upon Meta-States while modeling the structure of resilience, I found myself referring mostly to many of the features in General Semantics. That was 1994-5.

So after I first introduced Meta-States in England under the sponsorship of Denis Bridoux and Dr. Philip Nolan (Post Graduate Professional Education), for three years we followed that up with a series of workshop on GS and NLP. These trainings in England were first entitled The Merging of the Models: General Semantics and NLP and later Advanced Flexibility (which is available as a training manual). It was during that time that I was able to more fully develop and articulate the structures, processes, guidelines, and patterns in Neuro-Semantics.

We were able to translate abstract ideas and concepts in Science and Sanity that informed General Semantics into practical Neuro-Semantic tools—extending the Meta-Model, developing the first meta-level questions to deal with human psycho-logics (“logical levels”), use mathematics for modeling (finding variables in an experience and identifying those variables as functions of some multi-ordinal concept). What has and remains abstract and obtuse in General Semantics became dynamic processes in Neuro-Semantics.

For more on this, see Chapter 8 in NLP: Going Meta: Advanced Modeling Using Meta-Levels (2001). It is entitled, “Levels of Abstraction: Alfred Korzybski’s Neurological Meta-Levels.” Also, Communication Magic (2001).

From Bateson’s Frames and Meta-Function to Neuro-Semantics

Another crucial source in the Roots of Neuro-Semantics is anthropologist Gregory Bateson. It was his fabulous work, Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972) and his treatise Mind and Nature (1979) that completely captured my attention on several accounts.

First there was his use of the meta-function (his phrase) regarding the structure of complex experiences from schizophrenia to national personality traits (cultural phenomena), to wisdom, art, change, learning, and so on that enabled me to see the systemic nature of meta-states. Once I had constructed the first tentative Meta-States model, I began testing it with numerous experiences that had layers of thoughts and feelings like proactivity, forgiveness, self-esteem, etc. With each of these, I kept revisiting Bateson’s way of thinking to borrow more and more of his formulations about frames and making a move to a meta-position.

In Neuro-Semantics, Bateson led us to move beyond modeling the individual to working on cultural models, cultural modeling, anthropology, and cybernetics. It was from Bateson that I build systems thinking and systems dynamics into the feedback and feed forward loops of the Matrix.

To see how much Bateson’s thinking, terminology, and conceptions inform Neuro-Semantics, see Chatper 7 in NLP: Going Meta: Advanced Modeling Using Meta-Levels (2001). That chapter is entitled, “Bateson’s Logical Levels of Learning.” Also, see The Bateson Report (2003) which contains more than a dozen articles on Bateson and our use of his work in Neuro-Semantics. Also, the training manual, Cultural Modeling using Neuro-Semantics.

Cognitive Psychology’s Contribution to Neuro-Semantics

Even though neither Bandler nor Grinder were psychologists, psychotherapists, or had any extensive training in therapy, they model three therapies (i.e., Family Systems, Gestalt Therapy, and Ericksonian Hypnosis) and so constructed a model that is now recognized as a Cognitive-Behavioral model. In psychology textbooks, NLP is classified in this way and has for more than 15 years. Why is that? How did that come about?

Possibly for two reasons. First, Korzybski’s presupposition is that we operate by the mapping and the maps we create in our heads about things—a cognitive premise. Second, Noam Chomsky who created the Transformational Grammar model for linguistics (in which field John Grinder was an expert and contributor) was a key person in the founding of the Cognitive Movement. In fact, it was Chomsky more than anyone else who single-handedly defeated Behaviorism in 1956 with his paradigm changing book, Aspects of Grammar. For more about this, see Howard Gardner’s book that documents the history of, The Cognitive Movement.

There’s a third reason, Bandler and Grinder also relied on, and quoted, George Miller for his classic 1956 paper “The Magic Number Seven Plus or Minus Two” that launched the Cognitive movement as well as relied on him with Gallanter and Pribram for Plans for the Structure of Behavior (1960). From this book came the T.O.T.E. model that NLP turned into the Strategy Model (see NLP: The Structure of Subjective Experience, Volume I, 1980, Dilts, et al.).

In addition to this, my training, first as a psychotherapist and then as a psychologist was in Cognitive Psychology, specifically in Albert Ellis’ RET (later REBT) model, Aaron Beck’s work, and William Glasser’s models of Reality Therapy and Control Theory. These and other cognitive models were the guiding models and principles that guided my thinking and so became intimately incorporated in Neuro-Semantics.

Minor contributions, still within this general area included the field of Meta-Cognition. This field arose in 1977 and focuses mostly on the study of memory and meta-memory devices. Key thinkers, theorists, and researchers in this area work on how feedback loops govern feedback loops at a higher or meta-level. For more on this, see chapters in Meta-States Magic (2003).

Logotherapy, a cognitive psychology/philosophy, also contributed to the early development of Meta-States and hence to Neuro-Semantics. Neuro-Semantics takes from Viktor Frankl’s work on the therapy of meaning (logo-therapy) a focus on meaning and meaningfulness in a philosophical sense. It is, after all, the search for meaning and the use of our powers to create meaning that fill our neurology with the most intense and powerful emotions.

Cognitive Linguistics and Neuro-Semantics

While studying the linguistic distinctions that Korzybski highlighted in General Semantics, I continued reading in the field of linguistics. I did that, in part, as one of my natural interests and, in part, as part of my degree in psycho-linguistics. What I found was fantastic—at least to me. It seems that the linguistic foundations of NLP, Transformational Grammar, was rejected by its founder Noam Chomsky in 1976, one year after the appearance of The Structure of Magic by Bandler and Grinder.

What did this mean? What was the significance of Chomsky throwing out Deep Structure (D-structure) and declaring that the Transformational Grammar approach was untenable and unworkable? How did this relate to all of the information in NLP books about the Surface and Deep Structure? As I began searching I found out that the field of Linguistic had shifted emphasis over the years and that by the 1990s Cognitive Linguistic has taken over. Transformational rules had given way to thinking about grammar in terms of “space” (hence the book, Space Grammar) and the use of our “representational screen” to posit objects (nouns), trajectories of movements (verbs) to objects. See Harris, The Linguistic Wars for more on this as well as works by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson.

Philosophy of Mind, Neurology, and Neuro-Semantics

There are many thinkers who write on what is called “philosophy of mind.” These writers and theorists offer numerous conceptualizations for how to think about “mind.” These frameworks provide the presuppositions that we begin with. Among them, I continually return to Bateson (Mind and Nature) for insights. Among others who I have found influence and whose influence on my thinking is incorporated in Neuro-Semantics are Daniel Dennett (Kinds of Minds, Consciousness Explained, Intentional Stance), Stephen Kosslyn and Olivier Koenig (Wet Mind), Julian Jaynes (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind), etc.

Neuro-Semantics is also based in Neurology, the levels of the brain-body structures that make up our neurological structures is detailed in Korzybski who also specified things about the representational systems that I’ve never seen reproduced in NLP.

It is to John Searle (The Construction of Social Reality) as well as other writers in anthropology, cultural studies, social psychology, etc. that Neuro-Semantics owes a debt.

From the Human Potential Movement to Self-Actualization

NLP arose as a child of the Human Potential Movement precisely because among the key leaders after Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers was Fritz Perls (first resident scholar to live at Esalen), Virginia Satir (first director of research at Esalen) and Gregory Bateson (last resident scholar to live at Esalen). Further, the very presuppositions of NLP were the premises that Maslow created about the “bright side of human nature” —regard the goodness of human nature, positive intentions, growth, self-actualization, and modeling extraordinary people.

In Neuro-Semantics, this is especially the center and heart of all that we do. And this has led me to create the Matrix of Self-Actualization, the Self-Actualization Quadrants (created from the axes of meaning and performance), and update Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs so that the pyramid diagram becomes a Volcano of human energies.

What Neuro-Semantics is Not

With these fields and sources of Neuro-Semantics, I hope it is clear that Neuro-Semantics is a meta-discipline about the structure and form of things, not another psychology or philosophy. Neuro-Semantics is the study of how we translate data into information and then into communication to create our inner worlds of reality, our inner Matrix of frames within frames within frames.

Neuro-Semantics therefore is neither a psychology nor is it a psychotherapy. It is not primarily about the healing of human hurts, although it certainly has powerful applications to therapy. Neuro-Semantics studies the structure of how people get hurt, find healing, and move on to actualize their greatest potentials. In this Neuro-Semantics transcends any particular psychotherapy as it is looking for the structure that makes such therapies effective. Nor is Neuro-Semantics a theology or religion. Undoubtedly people will use Neuro-Semantics to model various spiritual experiences and perhaps to explore various theologies, but that is not what Neuro-Semantics is. It is only an application. Neuro-Semantics holds no allegiance with any particular religion whether Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, etc. It is not related to any New Age ideology or to any alternative healing modality.

From Practical Down-to-Earth Pragmatic Applications

Neuro-Semantics also arose from another source. While the original model of Meta-States was the brain-child of L. Michael Hall, very early I looked to others to help me explore what we could use it for and where we could go with the model. It was in this way that Dr. Bob Bodenhamer and I began our conversations. At first we worked on some books together, but it soon became evident that Bob’s skills at the clinical level of working with clients would become a source of using the new patterns and ideas. Because I had closed my psychotherapy practice and training center, I was mostly traveling and training. So it was with Bob’s clients and students that we “tried out” and experimented with many of our new ideas and models.

This moved Neuro-Semantics from the conceptual level to the practical level of everyday life. What I worked through conceptually on paper, I then asked Bob to test with the people with whom he was working. It was in this way that the Meta-Yes Belief Change pattern emerged as well as many others. In the development of various patterns we would give it a go, adjust the steps of a pattern to create a more streamlined sequence, add or subtract steps, put in new preframes, etc.

We then began transferring the same to our trainings. I came up with the Mind-to-Muscle pattern while doing a training in Wealth Building because I felt the need to transfer the great ideas that were already in the minds of participants (they knew good and well what to do), they just were not actually doing them. This came about in a training when I just so happened to ask if anyone knew any principle about finances, financial intelligence, creating wealth, etc. Hands went up all over the place. I inquired about what they knew. After 30 minutes of that I had discovered something very important. I did not need to share anything else about the content of building wealth. Everybody already knew plenty. If I were to keep adding other “great ideas” they would just be even more overwhelmed and have more to feel bad about since they were not doing the most simple of things like the principle “Spend less than you make.”

For me that was an “Ah ha!” moment. The problem wasn’t knowing, it was doing. The problem wasn’t lacking great concepts, wonderful principles, or inspiring ideas. No. They knew. The gap was between knowing-and-doing, between the head and the legs. It was at this point that I began asking myself many questions, questions that would stimulate the creation of a new pattern:

• How can we close this knowing-doing gap and get what they know in their heads into their muscles?
• Can ideas or concepts move from “the head” into “the body,” into muscle memory?
• What is muscle memory anyway?
• How do ideas get into muscle memory? What are the mechanisms involved?
• How can we take ideas about wealth building and translate them so that people actually act on what they know and learn?

Everyday practical life and challenges—this is one of the ongoing sources of Neuro-Semantics. Today we have lots of people doing this very thing. That is they have eyes to look for gaps, for problems, for needs. That’s why Neuro-Semantics has gone the way of creating dozens of Gateway Trainings and using the hard questions we find in those fields—the places where other fields and disciplines are stuck to stimulate creativity. Bob Bodenhamer has done this with people who block and/or stutter. I have done this with Defusing Hotheads and other Cranky and Stressed-out People. We have people now doing this in criminal justice departments, with weight management, fitness, stress management, resilience for times of change, leadership, etc. This also is the focus for the Neuro-Semantics Developers and the Developer’s Conference which we run to support the ongoing creativity and development of the community.

Author:

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D. is a cognitive-behavioral psychologist who discover the Meta-States Model and with that founded Neuro-Semantics, later he co-founded the Society of Neuro-Semantics with Bob Bodenhamer. Michael is a modeler, entrepreneur, and international trainer.

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

• What is the quality of training trainers in NLP today?
• How satisfied do you feel regarding the currently quality of NLP trainers?
• If leaders and trainers are the ones who call and train a community in a given field, model or discipline, how pleased are we with NLP leaders and trainers in general?
• What do we need in order to raise the level of skill, competency, and integrity in NLP leaders?
• What problems has the NLP community experienced and suffered over the years due to problems in the training of trainers?
• What is the next level of quality and competency for trainers training?

For many of us in NLP who truly care about this field and want to see it succeed in terms of gaining more credibility academically, gain more effectiveness in the world of business, and gain more acceptance publically—we’ve got a problem. We have a lot of serious challenges facing us. After 30 years, NLP is not only not recognized for its credibility, it is all too frequently seen in a negative light.

We could spend time exploring why this is so, where this comes from, who has contributed to this problem, etc. Yet to do would not help and it would not be applying NLP to ourselves. The issue we need to focus on isn’t the source of the problem, we rather need to focus on constructing some powerful solutions to turn things around. Since I see this problem almost everywhere in the world—in the USA, Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia, South America—the problem must be a systemic problem.

Perhaps there is something amiss in the very way that we train trainers. Actually, this isn’t a new thought or one that I’ve invented. I hear this from NLP trainers, thinkers, and leaders everywhere. The very conflicts between various “schools” or “camps” in NLP suggests that there’s some inadequacy in how trainers have been trained.

Training of Trainers —Past and Future

So how are trainers trained? How do we designed trainers training? What do we seek to create or achieve in such trainings? What strategies and processes do we use? What structures and networking do we initiate that allow trainers to develop excellence, high quality, congruency, integrity, a cooperative and collaborative style, etc.?

Interesting enough (and sadly enough) I don’t think I’m over-stating things to say that, like most things in NLP, the intent and design of most trainers training is primarily about making money through a training. It’s about keeping a training center profitable by adding the pinocle of the training track. We put on Trainers Training when we think we can market to enough people to profitably conduct another training. In this, trainers training in NLP does not seem very strategic or systemic in terms of thinking about the entire community. In fact, it often seems to be the opposite, promoting a given “camp” or school of NLP.

As a result, many trainers are not very skilled, lack the competency even in the context of presenting NLP information, facilitating the processes, eliciting states in an audience, engaging an audience, and building skill and competence in participants. Among those who have this level of competency, there’s a great many who do not have the business skills for creating, building, and sustaining a viable business. And for those who do, they often lack the skills for networking, collaborating, and creating coalitions so as to not be stuck in a small proprietary business and feel that they are in competition with the rest of the NLP community.

Then there’s the problem of scarcity. Beyond all of the petty competition, small-minded nit-picking and highlighting of differences in this tiny little community, there is the attitude that there’s not enough. This leads to fear of sharing, childish clinging to “intellectual property,” refusal to acknowledge sources, and other toxic ideas, feelings, and experiences that come from a sense of scarcity rather than abundance. So, what can we do about this? How can we create a new, different, and better future?

Taking Trainers Training to a New and Higher Level

Suppose we acknowledged these problems and difficulties and set our aim to step back and reflect on the training of trainers and leaders in NLP. If we did, we could begin asking some very important questions that could perhaps allow a vision of what’s possible to arise.

• What kind of leaders and trainers do we want?
• What kind of trainers would truly represent the spirit of NLP, that is the essence and heart of what we envision NLP to be?
• What qualities do we want in our trainers and leaders?
• How would we go about training in those kinds of traits, features, skills, and relational qualities?
• How could we measure or benchmark the quality of trainers?
• How could we create a network of cooperation and collaboration world-wide and raise the vision of trainers that we are all in this together?

These are among the first questions we could begin to ask if we step back and use our models and skills to think strategically about the training of trainers. Then we put our heads and hearts together to begin designing trainers training that’s not just about helping someone change careers, we could envision community building.

Trainers as Leaders and Models

A beginning place might be to set a frame for all NLP trainers about leadership. Whether a trainer realizes it or not, everyone who teaches, presents, trains, and even uses NLP publically with clients is in a leading role and will be seen and evaluated as a living model of NLP. So every fuss, every conflict, every negative comment about others, every lack of state management, etc. will be seen as “That’s what NLP is!”

In other words, I’d suggest we strategically focus on building in a strong sense of personal responsibility in trainers that how we talk, act, relate, and live will communicate as much about NLP as the content of what we present in a training. This means that merely developing trainers who can “talk” about NLP, reason, argue, and debate about NLP should not be our goal. Rather, we should develop trainers who can walk the talk. That’s what a true and powerful leader does. In fact, that’s the heart of leadership—leading out and showing the way by action. Words come later. Words give cognitive content to what we are actually doing.

What if we used this criteria for determine regarding when a trainer is ready to be certified? What if how the person lives NLP and operates from congruently walking the talk became the certification point, not finishing a training, passing a paper-and-pencil test, or making a great presentation in a training? Would that change things? Would that refocus the meaning of “Trainer?”

What if we began to hold ourselves as trainers and newly trained trainers to that level of quality? What if quality of living the models and patterns, of “apply to self,” became the first criteria? And what if we created networks for that kind of accountability?

Raising the Benchmarking Level

Of course, then we would have to ask another question. How would we measure or mark or determine “walking the talk?” That’s pretty vague? How do we denominalize such ideas as “congruency, integrity, leadership, cooperation, collaboration, professional, etc.?”

We speak about de-nominalizing overly vague and fluffy terms (nominalizations) in NLP all the time. This corresponds in the academic and scientific communities to operationalizing our terms so that we can agree upon a way to measure things. In the business and consultancy fields we speak about benchmarking best practices so that they can be replicated. This corresponds to modeling in NLP.

In the past two years in our Meta-Coaching training, we have set out to benchmark the intangible nominalizations that are called “coaching skills.” To date, we have benchmarked 25 of the key skills and set them out on a 0 to 5 scale with specific empirical or sensory-based behaviors to indicate degrees of the skills. This has allowed us to set a benchmark for each of the skills and to be able to precisely measure the quality of any coach’s skill level. Our next step is to now transfer this to the domain of training and do so with training and leadership skills, which is what we’re planning to do this year—for the first time ever—at our Trainers Training.

As we have been benchmarking in this way, it has provided fascinating insights into the structure of the experience of skill development. It provides a mirror so that we can see where we are in terms of the quality of a given skill and what are the behaviors that will enable us to take our skill to the next level. It also invites true feedback (in contradistinction to judgment). Now colleagues can reflect back in specific see-hear-feel terms precisely what we are doing so that we can make cleaner and more discreet shifts in our actions, gestures, language, etc.

Benchmarking as a process also does something else. When a coach or trainer is benchmarked against certain criteria it sets a frame that skills are skills and that they can always be improved. In doing so, we begin to set frames in our own mind about how we want to take our own skills to the next level. Of course, an arrogant person wouldn’t want to do that. A know-it-all would feel threatened by such. A trainer who wants to play the Guru Game and build up his or her own “camp” of devotees would find that too risky, too vulnerable.

Yet isn’t that the kind of trainers and leaders we need to take NLP into this twenty-first century? Don’t we need and want authentic trainers? Trainers who are congruent, real, down-to-earth, loving, playful, learning, growing, and open to feedback? Wouldn’t trainers like that give NLP a much better name and reputation?

Back to “Apply to Self”

Given all this, the question undoubtedly arises in your mind, “Am I personally applying this to myself?” Ah, the “apply to self” criteria! Perhaps the reason we all do skip around the apply to self frame at times is that it is so challenging. It doesn’t leave us alone. It calls us on the carpet. It demands that we make ourselves accountable.

In thinking through this and stepping back to more strategically think about Trainers Training, I am introducing several new things in our Neuro-Semantic/ NLP Trainers Training program this year. This year in Australia, I have assembled a team of 9 trainers from many countries (Australia, USA, South Africa, New Zealand, England, etc.) to co-train with me—so that we can demonstrate team work and collaboration. This year, we will use benchmarking of skills and I will give the trainers in training 3 days to benchmark my skills as they watch me do a live training (“Accessing Personal Genius”). This year, we will spend four days on the Business aspects of Training to equip people with the entrepreneurship skills necessary. This year, we will spend considerable time creating community and collaborative relationships and practice state-management skills for conflict resolution among us as trainers and leaders.

It’s just a beginning. There’s much more to do. But at least it enables us to take a few faltering steps to raising the level of training trainers so that we ourselves develop the internal quality that reflects well on the presuppositions, models, and patterns of NLP and Neuro-Semantics.

Author: L. Michael Hall, Ph.D. models positive psychology as a psychologist, trainer, and entrepreneur. He lives in Grand Junction Colorado and Sydney Australia.

While I didn’t know it at the time, my discovery of the Meta-States Model in September of 1994 launched what I would begin calling Neuro-Semantics the next year. It was in 1995 that my years of study in Science and Sanity, my presentation of the Meta-Model at the General Semantic Conference in New York led to several General Semantics / NLP workshops that year which then initiated my use of the term Neuro-Semantics. That’s where it came from.

Then, the next year, with “the ninety-million dollar law suit of Richard Bandler against the field of NLP,” and Richard’s demand that I sign a new Trainer Contract which required that I would be signing off anything I developed so that he would claim it as his intellectual property convinced me to make the decision to trademark Meta-States, Neuro-Semantics, and Meta-NLP. That was also the year that I began collaborating with Bob Bodenhamer for writing some books together, and so we decided to join forces in getting the trademarks and along with Robert Olic, we created the first Society of Neuro-Semantics. That was 1996 / 1997.

It was at that time that I also decided to close my psychotherapy practice and NLP Trainer Center in Colorado and to begin traveling internationally to lead out in creating and promoting Neuro-Semantics as a field and model. A few more years, and there were lots of people wanting to become Neuro-Semantic Trainers so I designed that program and began the certification under the auspices of the International Society of Neuro-Semantics. I did so having been recognized as an NLP trainer and co-developer by eight different international NLP organizations.

By 2001 I had become fully aware of the need to focus on the subject of leadership. I felt the need to work on leadership for myself and for those who were already naturally leaders in Neuro-Semantics. It was then that I recognized the need to develop a Neuro-Semantic Leadership Team. So I created the Dreamers team of ten key Neuro-Semantic people, some were trainers but half were not. I continued that last for almost two years, using it as council of bright minds to help me make decisions for the movement and community. Yet as time proceeded I became increasingly aware that there was something basically missing with that group. We were doing far too much talking and discussing without doing.

AS I became aware of this contradiction, I realized that what was missing was that we had no criteria for leadership. No standards. That I had invited people to be a part of a leadership team who were not leaders, not leading out anywhere, but armchair critics. So, thinking that through with several people, I realized that the people helping with the decisions and directions needed to be the same people who were doing—who were actually investing their time, energy, money, reputations, etc. in training and promoting Neuro-Semantics. So that led to two new developments. If they were actually doing, then at least they were stepping out and leading.

First, in 2003 I created a list of criteria for Neuro-Semantic Leadership and then later than year I invited a dozen key trainers who were training and certifying people to join me and co-train the Trainers’ Training with me on the Gold Coast in Australia. So in the next year (2004), eight of them began the journey to become Master Trainers and when they would reach that level, I would appoint them to be the Neuro-Semantic Guardians of the Vision. I set out the basic structure and pathway and together we forged the relationships that enabled us all to begin to co-create the process.

That process was well underway, when the following year (2005), a major problem arose with one trainer. Because it involved myself, I stepped aside from the “Conflict Resolution” process that we had in place for disciplining that trainer, and the co-trainers took charge to handle that. Then in September of 2005 at the Neuro-Semantic Trainers’ Training in Johannesburg, South Africa, we decided to change the process I had started, sped it up, and so we initiated the official Neuro-Semantic Guardians in spite of the fact that only one person (Colin Cox) has fulfilled all of the criteria for being recognized as a Master Trainer.

So in November of 2005 I sent out what follows to explain the “Guardians” group and the reason for that name. Numerous Trainers had asked about the term, several who did not like it asked for some explanation as to why we chose that name. Among the questions they were asking were the following:

Why “protect” Neuro-semantics with a group to be called Guardians?

Is the idea of “Guardian” echoing the scarcity that’s dominated NLP history?
Will the “purity frame” prevent further development?
If Neuro-semantics comes from abundance why not name the group function e.g. Neuro-semantic Leaders or Neuro-semantic Developers or Neuro-semantic Promoters, etc.?

The Neuro-Semantic Leadership Team — “The Guardians”

Thanks for these great questions. Yet do take a deep breath and know that the development of the leadership team does not come from scarcity or the fear of repeating the history of NLP. Actually, it comes from the very opposite. It comes from a desire to create a positive legacy for Neuro-Semantics for preserving our vision and values as we grow and expand.

Precisely because there was no guidance or guardianship of the original model of NLP that some were able to take the powerful technology and misused it. And they mis-used it in such a way that the name “NLP” today in so many places has a negative reputation for “manipulation.” Not only that, but today there is no regulatory board or agency that unifies the field of NLP. And that means that there are no standards or agreement about what constitutes NLP or competency. It means that there’s no one who can receive reports of misconduct or unethical behavior.

Writing that reminds me of what Robert Dilts once said. He noted this: “NLP was created by two madmen who modeled three wild individualists.” I don’t know the context of that quote. I’ll have to ask Robert. But he also said, that while Bandler and Grinder planted the seed gave birth to NLP they never stayed around to “father” it, to nurture the movement. Instead, they fought with each other and many others! So as parent, so the child.

By way of contrast, I want the richness and abundance of the Meta-States model which has led to the Neuro-Semantic community to be guided as it matures. I want to stay around and nurture it and to create an entire team of co-leaders to help me nurture and equip that community. Obviously neither I nor anyone else can stop someone from learning the models (from books tapes, trainings, etc.) and then mis-using them. While that will happen, that’s not the point of creating a leadership team.

The point is that we are creating something more than just some ideological tools, we are creating community—a community of men and women living the meanings of Neuro-Semantics, especially its vision and values. And it is that community that we want to guide, protect, and guard. The point is about how we manage ourselves as a society, as an association of people who share this vision and who believe in accountability, responsibility, and walking our talk.

As far as the abundance of giving things away, there are now some 3,000 pages of articles and patterns on the website. No one has ever suggested that I operate from scarcity. I continue to make available to all Neuro-Semantic Trainers the use of the 30 different Training Manuals that I have created and will continue to create for a mere $5 royalty fee for use.

So in 2005, I began Trainers’ Training by defining Neuro-Semantics in this way:

“Neuro-Semantic began as an Idea that gave birth to a Model that brought a Vision into existence which in turn birthed a Community from which many of us engage in Business.”

That means that the branding that I and the leadership team have been creating is more than just a model or an idea. It is also a community. We are not just selling an idea, we are selling the relationships that we have created. That’s why “one bad apple in the barrel can ruin many.” In publicity and branding, one rotten representation can spoil it for many. That’s also why at the Graduations from day one I have always asked graduates to go out and to “Make me Proud.” Since 2004, I changed that to “Make us proud!” because we are all in this together.

While I am not sure who came up with the word “Guardian,” it came from the idea of guarding. If we could turn “guide” into “Guidian” that would be a better term. In any field, if there is not a system of accountability, if a community will not police itself and hold a standard of ethics, someone else will eventually have to come in to do that. As far as the other names, I have designated those people who creatively develop new patterns, models, products, and services in Neuro-Semantics, the “Neuro-Semantic Developers.” As far as “leaders” go, while the Guardians are leaders in their own right, their primary function is that of guiding and guarding the vision and values that define Neuro-Semantics.

In business, we recognize the importance of getting the right people on the bus and the wrong people off (Jim Collins, Good to Great). The small business owner who does not do this, or the international corporation who does not do this, is asking for trouble. Today the idea of buy-in, responsibility, ownership, and accountability is simply a part of how professional people and communities conduct themselves. They do that to translate their highest visions and values into reality, which is similarly the guiding principle in formulating the Guardians group.

We are doing the same in the field of Coaching. Michelle Duval and I have also put together a group of Meta-Coach Guardians to uphold the practice of Meta-Coaching to professional and ethical standards.

The Leadership Group of Neuro-Semantics, birthed Sept. 15, 2005, is now named “the Neuro-Semantic Guardians.” What is the purpose of this group? It is simply to guard the vision, the mission, and the values that we all share and believe in. This vision is simple and yet profound —it is to perform the highest of meanings so that we can congruently be professional men and women operating from abundance and collaboration.

The latest step forward in NS Leadership

In the past two or three years I have become especially aware of the need for intentionally and strategically working on the development of leaders in Neuro-Semantics. With each Neuro-Semantic Training of Trainers, and the fascinating conversations we have about our vision and mission, about positioning ourselves, branding Neuro-Semantics, cultural modeling, and much more, I have been awakened more fully to the need to devote my energies to developing a team of leaders—a community of leaders who can and will pioneer the pathways to excellence into the future.

This is something that has never happened in the field of NLP. Today the field of NLP is paying the price for that as the lack of coherence, unity, and even basic cooperation is at an all-time low. There are fewer magazines today than ever before, there are fewer national associations, there are fewer conferences.

So I’ve return to researching and studying, to interviewing and observing, this time in the area of cutting-edge leadership, management, creativity, cultural change, etc. Part of my vision and mission right now is to put Neuro-Semantics on the international map. To that end I have spent countless hours in strategic thinking and brainstorming with scores of people from around the world. And slowly, ever so slowly, some tremendous ideas have been emerging, ideas to which I’m committed to turn them into reality.

One idea came from Jim Collins. He said that succeeding with a company to take it from being just a good company to a great one, we must first get the right people on the bus and the wrong people off. In his book Good to Great, this was one of the key secrets of the companies who truly became great in terms of long lasting change that transformed the very business. This, together with community, collaboration, benchmarking professional standards, and co-creating a group vision has been taking form in the two Guardian groups that we have formed.

I began picking out the Neuro-Semantic trainers around the world that I knew who are out there running successful trainings, creating training centers, and leading out by making things happen. They are not just talking about great ideas, they are translating those great ideas into practice—the heart of Meta-States, “apply to self,” and closing the knowing-doing gap. I’ve also picked out those who have been contributing to the community, who have been creating the community, who have been collaborating, and giving of themselves and those who have developed effective presentational styles.

Then to test them, to see what they’re made of, I have invited them to become part of a year to three-year program for moving to the place of becoming master trainers. When they reach that level, they will fully be those who are ready and able to guard the vision because they fully embody it.

In Meta-Coaching, Michelle Duval and I established the International Meta-Coach Foundation after conducting our first seven trainings and then invited Neuro-Semantic Trainers who are also in the Coaching business to step forward for a similar process. The process will enable them to become a part of the Meta-Coach Guardians and will operate as a board of examiners for maintaining the quality of the training and the standards of the competencies involves in Meta-Coaching. Our Sept. 2004 training in Sydney began with the first three who we later licensed to train Meta-Coaching, others joined us after that in the Meta-Coach trainings so that there are now five people licensed as Meta-Coach Trainers.

All of this is about leading—it is about the leading-following relational system. In fact, following, as a high level skill, is a critical part of leadership. Leaders learn to lead by following and often lead by following, by learning to be a part of a team. That’s what we have begun to create in Neuro-Semantics.

And Now, the Adventure

This brief history of leadership in Neuro-Semantics has identified where it started and where it has come to, in the coming years, we will be able to continue this story as new men and women arise in this community to contribute their leadership. Here’s to that ongoing journey!

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

• What makes a leader a leader?
• What qualifies a person to led and to step up to a position of leadership?
• What distinguishes a person as a leader?
• What enables a person to exercise influence with others?

While leaders come in many different forms so that there are many different kinds of leadership, leaders arise and express themselves in a given context. That context is the particular values, expectations, needs, style, and culture of some referent group. This realization, of course, leads to numerous other questions—questions that are more precise to our concerns.

• What qualities and traits do we look for in recognizing leaders in Neuro-Semantics?
• How will we recognize and qualify the men and women who will arise in Neuro-Semantics as leaders?
• What criteria of leadership will we set?
• If we want leaders who lead from the Neuro-Semantic vision, what will be the prerequisites of leadership?

Obviously, in Neuro-Semantics, we look mostly and preeminently for leaders who embody the principles of the neuro-semantic vision—its principles and practice. We look for practical leaders who are excited about the vision, who apply that vision to themselves, who look to add value to others, and who work at translating their talk into their walk. Conversely, we will not be interested in leaders who are driven by visions of personal glory (ego-driven leaders), the rank and status of privilege, or the ego satisfactions of someone who want to be a guru with his or her own kingdom.

To that end, I have set forth the following leadership criteria. This criteria comes immediately and directly from the Vision and Mission statement of Neuro-Semantics. As such it reflects the very qualities of individuals who are in actuality leading out in directions which fit the meaning and purpose of Neuro-Semantics.

In recent years, I have become aware that I should not only wait for men and women with these special traits and qualities to arise, but that I should intentionally plan to facilitate this kind of leadership development in people. Also, recognizing that most leaders in Neuro-Semantics will come through the Training and/or Coaching tracks, I have set forth the following 7 criteria as the foundation for leadership. These are divided into two categories: Being and Doing criteria.

Being Criteria:

• Authenticity: being and acting from one’s true self without masks and personas
• Integrity: being as good as one’s word, impeccably honest and fair-minded
• Congruent: applying the principles to self so that one walks the talk

Doing Criteria:

• Contributing: giving of oneself to others, serving from the NS principles
• Collaborating: operating as a team player, cooperating with others
• Pioneering: leading out into new areas
• Communicating: sharing and disclosing in ways that are clear, precise, succinct, engaging, and compelling

The following is still in its formative stages and I will be updating it in the years to come. In setting forth the following criteria, I first offer a definition and then a benchmarking from 0 to 5 of specific behaviors that evidence that criterion. About reading the benchmarks, start with 0 and move upwards. Or you could also start with “3” to look at a description of the basic competency and then read down the list for less and less of that competency or up the list for more and more of it. With each higher number, the person demonstrates increasingly more of the positive features of the quality and less of the negative features.

The Importance of Benchmarking the Skills of Leadership

We humans are multi-dimensional creatures. We simultaneously live at physical and meta-levels. On the physical level, we live in our bodies and have basic primary states experiences in the senses, and yet we also at the same time live at meta-levels. While in primary states we also live in our heads and see the world in terms of our beliefs and values. By encountering the world, each other, relationships, work, etc. we do so through multiple layers of filters. We do so through the meta-programs filters, through language filters, and through meta-state filters. This world of human constructs is where we experience our highest and best and most glorious experiences.

Yet here also we can construct some very negative and even toxic states. This is where the Meta-Model becomes a powerful tool for identifying toxic experiences and enabling us to escape that Matrix of frames. How?

First by the use of precision questioning of the Meta-Model. Doing that allows us to pull the constructs apart as we de-nominalize the processes that someone named into existence and mis–represent as a thing. Because we use the meta-representational system of language to construct our intangible realities, we are also able to de-construct the same by questioning the language. We do this with “failure,” a nominalization, by turning the noun-like term back into a verb so that we can see the process and our role in creating the process.

Yet the problem isn’t only with intangible realities that are problematic. The problem is with the intangible realities also. The problem is with such nominalized idea of “leadership.” What is leadership? The hidden verb, of course, is leading. Yet that’s pretty unspecified. Leading who? Where? When? According to what standards? Etc.

The BEING Criteria

Some of the criteria has to do with the person and character of the leader. These speak about the leader’s ability to lead him or herself in using and applying the models and premises of Neuro-Semantics. The presupposition is that one has to first learn the art of leading and managing oneself before attempting to lead others.

1) Authenticity: Authenticity: being and acting from one’s true self without masks and personas

Being real or true to oneself, to one’s gifts, talents, abilities, dreams, values, visions.

Definition: Authenticity refers to “authoring” one’s own life from one’s own thinking, feeling, speaking, and acting. It’s an expression of being personally real and true to oneself. This comes from “applying to self” and becoming congruent with one’s own truths. Authenticity speaks about being real— being and presenting oneself as one is without the need for pretense, arrogance (arrogating to oneself traits and qualities that one doesn’t have) or having driving ego-needs. Being authentic speaks about being willing to be human, fallible, to know not everything, and to not have to be the center of attention. Authenticity implies a solid enough sense of self so as to be modest, humble, and able to extend self to and for others. The opposite of authenticity is the shallow make or woman who is only known through masks, roles, personas, etc.

Authenticity Questions:

What do I really want and believe in?
What is really important to me?
What makes for a meaningful and significant life?
What do I really think and feel about the things that are important to me?
How true do I act on my own beliefs and opinions?
What are my passions, talents, and vision?

Benchmarking “Authenticity”

5	Will pay price to live up to highest values and visions and not follow “path of least resistance.” Willing to stand out from crowd.
4	Willing to take a stand on unpopular issue, speaks with energy, emotion, and enthusiasm about things one values and cares about. Willing to show emotion about such.
3	Mostly speaking and acting congruently, words and gestures match content of what one says. Speaks from one’s views and opinions even when in conflict with social group.
2	Sometimes speaking and acting in ways that reveals one’s true heart and views. Mostly trying to please others, fit in, and conform.
1	Speaking and acting in ways that are incongruent, not sounding believable because tone, volume, style doesn’t match content of words, outward expressions not revealing inward feelings and thoughts.
0	Playing roles to trick or deceive, acting as a “Yes” person to whatever is socially or politically correct or acceptable, not owning one’s own voice, lack of confrontation, hesitating when confronting.

2) Integrity.Integrity: being as good as one’s word, impeccably honest and fair-minded

Definition: Integrity speaks first about being whole and integrated which immediately leads to a forthright and honest presentation of self. When a person has integrity, there is an honesty and reliability in the person so that the person will do what he or she says. Integrity means making promises and keeping them, It means honoring the words we utter and not breaking our commitments. Integrity leads a person to typically do whatever it takes to come through with one’s word and that when we cannot, we immediately communicate that, apologize quickly, and make whatever amends seem appropriate.

Integrity also refers to telling the truth even when it’s difficult. It means living one’s life as an open book without a lot of secrets or cover-ups. Several of the pathways to integrity is making oneself accountable to others, receiving and integrating feedback, and staying in a community where we can be available for such. The opposite is being dishonest, lacking the strength of character to tell the truth and to be fair.

Integrity Questions:

Are you as good as your word?
Do you generally come through with what you do?
Can people generally trust you, depend on you?
Do you receive feedback graciously and seek to use it?
Do people have any basic integrity issues with you?

Benchmarking “Integrity”

3) Congruency: Applying the principles to self so that one walks the talk

Definition: Congruency speaks about being harmonious, in agreement with self, and arises from the ability to “apply to self.” Our speech and behavior fits with our thinking and feeling. This comes from applying and translating our ideas, principles, and beliefs to ourselves. When this happens, we can walk our talk. Our actions then appropriately reflect our principles and premises.

Since “apply to self” lies at the heart of NS, it lies as one of the key and central leadership criteria. Apply to self enables us to be congruent so that all of our parts are aligned and congruent with our values and visions. We are not inwardly torn, we do not fail to live up to our values. We can step back, evaluate ourselves with some fairness, seek feedback, and take responsibility for one’s own responses.

Congruency Questions:

Does you apply NLP and NS to yourself?
What are the indicators that you do?
Am I aligned with my values and visions?
Do others see me as congruent or incongruent?
Do I walk the talk?

Benchmarking “Apply to Self”

The DOING Criteria

From being comes doing. One of the central themes in Neuro-Semantics is closing the Knowing-Doing Gap so that we implement what we know. This leads to the being criteria of authenticity, integrity, and congruency. From there, we have the following criteria that manifests leadership.

4) Contributing: Giving of oneself to others, serving from the NS principles

Definition: Contribution means giving to the community and field, investing time, energy, ideas, emotion to making the field successful. In leading a true leader serves his or her constituency by investing self, time, and energy and by contributing to the health and vitality of those who follow.

Relationship to Leadership: Leaders lead. To be a leader means that a person demonstrates leadership which involves participating in the community, sharing, giving of oneself, having a voice on the egroups, assisting on trainings, referring people to trainings, writing articles that promote Neuro-Semantics, being moderators on egroups forums, etc.

Examples: It may mean leading out in a specific area of expertise such as what Bob Bodenhamer is doing with the work with Stutterers and what Michelle Duval has done with Coaching. It may be using NS in one’s commercial branding that helps to build credibility for the movement.

Contribution Questions:

What have you contributed to the community?
What investments of your time, effort, money, intelligence, etc. have you contributed?
When was the last time you contributed to the community?
What are you doing now?

Benchmarking “Contribution”

5) Collaborating: Operating as a team player, cooperating with others

Definition: Collaborating with others means cooperating, operating as a team player, helping, assisting, etc. A collaborative style such as that presupposes the ability to reference the thoughts, feelings, values, and needs of others, to take second position, to be empathetic, concerned, and even loyal. It means matching, supporting, and following the lead of another. If the person is naturally a mismatcher, he or she can turn off the mismatching to be a member of the team. As a team player, we are able to shift from sorting by self to sorting by others and thinking of the good fo the larger community. Opposite to collaborating is keeping to self, not sharing, not disclosing, not making oneself open or vulnerable to others.

Collaborator or Team Player Questions:

Are you a team player?
Do others describe you as a team player?
How well do you support others and contribute to the overall good of the community?
Are there people who think of you as not a team player?
Do you come from a sense of abundance?
How much flexibility do you have in shifting to Sorting by Others?

Benchmarking “Collaborative”

6) Pioneering: Leading out or moving out into new areas.

Definition:Pioneering refers to launching out into new and unexplored territories. As a metaphor, the pioneer describes a leader as one leading out to some new place, going first, being an example, trailblazing the path. As such a pioneer or leader sees a vision and begins acting to make it real. As others catch that vision, the follow that lead.

People who are actually leading out in some area by speaking out on something, creating a product or service, doing something that’s commercially viable, running a training company, developing a training, creating coaching practice, developing new program, model, idea, pattern.

Pioneering Questions:

Do people follow me?
Where and in what areas do they follow?
Can I communicate a vision clearly and precisely?
What have I provided leadership for?
In what areas am I now leading out in?

Benchmarking “leadership”

7) Communication:sharing and disclosing in ways that are clear, precise, succinct, engaging, and compelling

Definition: Leaders lead by communicating. They communicate a vision, an idea, a value, a hope, or a desired outcome. In leading by communicating, the communication typically is persuasive or influential because it has certain qualities. It is precise, succinct, clear, compelling, and inspirational. The communication effectively languages or frames the felt needs, emotions, values, hopes, dreams, fears, etc. of those who follow. Leaders lead by framing, building relationships, matching, negotiating, seeing and seizing opportunities, risk taking, and developing an entrepreneurial in attitude and disposition.

Communication Questions:

How precise, accurate, and succinct are my communications?
How clear is the vision or picture that I describe in word or in print?
How compelling, inspiring, or motivational are my words?
Do people seem drawn and compelled by the word pictures I draw or the frames that I set?

Benchmarking “Communication”

Conclusion: Seven Leadership Criteria

While I have chosen these particular criteria for leadership in Neuro-Semantic, they are not the only criteria I could have chosen. Nor do they only apply to Neuro-Semantics, they can obviously apply to many other leadership areas. In fact, When Certified Meta-Coach Joe Scott was living in England he took these seven criteria and these benchmarks and used them to create a Leadership Coaching program in his work with numerous CEOs. The CEOs that he worked with were leaders in a number of different businesses and found that these being and doing criteria applied equally well to that context.

Author:

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D. is a modeler of positive psychological experiences and leadership is simply one of the areas that he has been modeling.