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.