The following is a guest post from Will Murray.
Think of someone you like, and notice your image of that person. . . .
Now think of someone you’re indifferent toward, and notice that image. . . .
Now think of those people simultaneously, and notice where those images are located in relation to you. Particularly notice which one is closer to you, and also if you see them left or right, front or behind, higher or lower than you are. . . .
The person you like was probably much closer to you than the other, and may be higher. Probably that image was larger, or more noticeable to you in some other way. The image of the person you are indifferent toward was probably much farther away, smaller, perhaps behind you, or lower. You many notice other differences that I didn’t mention.
That is a tiny taste of how your internal representations express how you relate to others in the external world. Many common expressions appear to be only metaphorical, but are actually quite literal descriptions of this internal world of relationship. We feel close to some people, and more distant from others. We stand behind our friends, but confront or oppose our enemies. We look up to those we admire, and look down on others. We work shoulder to shoulder with some people, while others are often underfoot. We look forward to meeting new friends, and put old relationships behind us. Some people are in our face, and we turn our back on others.
Most people are only dimly aware of this internal world, if at all, but with gentle questioning, everyone can become aware of it. In Lucas Derks’ wonderful book, Social Panoramas: changing the unconscious landscape with NLP and psychotherapy, he explores in detail not only how we see our images of people in our internal world, but how we can make changes in this internal landscape in order to alter how we spontaneously respond to them in the real one.
In my work with non-profit organizations, I use Derks’ approach routinely to reveal difficult relationships between people. A non-profit organization has two parts: the staff that does the actual work, and the governing board that is responsible for overseeing the work of the staff. Interpersonal difficulties often occur between staff members, and can also occur between board members. One frequent issue is when subordinates need to talk with their supervisors but don’t feel comfortable doing that.
A grants manager, Ellen, described feeling “micromanaged” by her supervisor, who makes frequent tiny edits to her writing and insists on several drafts before she accepts a final one. When I asked her why she doesn’t explain to her boss that she doesn’t need that kind of close supervision, she replied that she just doesn’t feel she should talk with her about it. Then I asked Ellen where in her visual field she sees her boss when she thinks about having that conversation. Ellen looked up to her right, and then said she saw her supervisor “quite a bit above me, about two feet above my eyes, about four feet in front of me, and to my right.” When I asked her to lower the image of her supervisor to her own eye level, she reported that she felt better able to talk with her. In a follow-up call about a week later, Ellen said that she felt much more at ease talking with her supervisor.
A graphic designer, Jane, in another organization similarly held her supervisor’s image quite a bit above her own eye level, and she felt intimidated and unable to converse with him without feeling nervous and apprehensive. I asked Jane to think of a different person, someone whom she liked and admired, and then asked her to locate that image. She saw the picture of her sister about three feet away, about two inches above her own eye level and about four inches to the left of straight ahead. When I asked her to move the image of her boss into the exact spot where she saw her sister, Jane said that now she felt she could talk with him with ease, without the apprehension she felt before. In a follow up call, Jane said, “Oh, now I can talk with him any time.”
Another kind of difficulty can occur between the board as a group and the staff as a group. To find out how the board and the staff relate to each other, I ask members of the board, “If you make an image in your mind’s eye of the staff, where do you see them relative to the board?” Independently I ask the same question of staff, “Where do you see the board in your mind’s eye in relation to staff?” At first they may not understand the question because they’ve never thought this way and never noticed it. They often first respond with roles (“the board has legal authority”) or functions (“the staff carries out programs”) or structures (“the staff reports to the board.”)
So I ask again, “If the board is at the center in 3-dimensional space (up, down, left, right, in front, in back), where in space do you see the staff?” That usually gets the kind of answer that I need. I elicit the information from the board and the staff separately, so that they don’t know each other’s responses. And since it is unlikely that anyone has ever asked them this kind of question before, their responses are fresh and unrehearsed.
In doing this I’m looking primarily for two different kinds of problem:
- A misalignment between staff and board, that expresses different views of the relationship that results in conflict, or
- An alignment of imagery between staff and board that both find unsatisfactory.
Misalignment: The board says, “We are out in front. The staff follows our lead.” The staff of the same organization says, “We are out in front. The board kind of follows us.” You can probably predict that there will be a struggle for leadership within this organization.
When I find a misalignment, I know that there will be problems with agreed-upon roles, difficulties with internal communication and nightmares in decision-making. The information I get helps me predict the kind of issues the organization is experiencing. And it also provides me with a way to engage them in making changes in how they interact that is independent of the content of the issues they are discussing.
Troublesome alignment that both find unsatisfactory: The board says, “We sit over the staff.” The staff says, “The board hovers over us.” In this case, the board does not trust the staff to do the work; staff feel stifled and stultified.
In another example the board says, “Our executive director is way out there.” The executive director says, “The board doesn’t have my back.” The board feels left behind, clueless and out of the loop, unable to help because they aren’t up to speed. The executive director feels that the board doesn’t support her. When this is the case, I need to find a different alignment that both board and staff find more satisfactory.
When I point out this kind of misalignment or alignment to the whole organization (staff and board) very often they experience an epiphany along the lines of, “Well that explains everything!”
In one organization, the executive director, Amy, wanted to have more of an equal relationship, and feel less overshadowed by the board chair. I asked Amy, “Right now, when you imagine the board chair, get a good look at his face, close your eyes, and extend your arm and point your finger right at his nose.” As you can guess, her extended arm and finger were pointed toward a place well above her head. I asked her to close her eyes again, and lower the image of her board chair to eye level. She reported feeling more able to stand up to him, rather than just go along with whatever he said. Then we rehearsed having her lower the image of her board chair to her own level when she would next see him, so that she could automatically experience him at the same level. Since this board chair would soon be termed out and would be leaving the board, Amy then practiced placing her incoming board chair in a more level, equal position, so she could begin the relationship with the new board chair on a more even plane.
Remember the executive director who complained that the board “doesn’t have my back?” I thought I heard a spatial relationship in this statement, so I asked where she saw her board in her mind’s eye: “They are very far behind,” she replied. When I asked the board where they saw the executive director, they unanimously responded, “We don’t know what she’s doing. She’s way out there, doing who knows what.” It would be hard for a board to have the executive director’s back if she is so far ahead that they cannot even see her back. To address this situation, we simply inserted in every board meeting agenda an item called “Crazy Ideas.” Crazy Ideas was a five-minute slot for the executive director to inform the board of new things she was thinking about. This item was not for discussion or comment, just an information piece designed to close the spatial gap between the executive director and the board, so that she was not so way far out in front of them. In a follow-up conversation with a board member, he reported that the board felt more in touch with emerging issues and appreciates the initiative that the executive director has. The executive director says that “for some reason now the board seems less out of it.”
I can also use Social Panorama with groups that are functioning very smoothly to see how their panorama expresses more useful models to offer other groups. For instance, one organization’s board said that they “surround the staff. We are above them in our oversight role, and we back them up, and we support them from below. We are like a cloud, and the staff is in the center.” The staff says, “We have such a supportive board. They are everywhere. It’s as if they are all around us.” You can imagine how much fun it must be to work in this organization, with their shared experience of each other’s role and position and the harmony that produces.
When the board president and the chief executive director have social panoramas that align with their respective roles, their relationships are productive, respectful and enjoyable. But when their social panoramas reveal problems, life can become difficult indeed—no matter what the issues.
Social panorama can help predict behaviors and relationships, and it can also be used to repair and enhance relationships and generate desired behaviors. It’s an indispensable technique to help organizations and individuals enhance their performance.
Reference
Derks, L. (2005). Social panoramas; changing the unconscious landscape with NLP and psychotherapy. London: Crown House Publishing.
