Richard Bandler - Reframing. Neuro–Linguistic Programming™ and the Transformation of Meaning

What I've done with this is relate his complaint about his daughter— that she doesn't do what he tells her to do—to his outcome of wanting her to grow up to be independent.

Woman: It's like having interchangeable lenses on a camera: you just put on a wide angle lens to get it into a wider frame.

OK, that's a nice visual metaphor for reframing. A behavior which in isolation seems to be a problem, or inappropriate, makes sense when placed in a larger context. This is really an example of a context reframe. I shift the behavior that the father complains about to the context of his daughter's growing up and becoming independent.

Exploring the father's intention will loosen up the ways in which he will go about expressing the message he originally intended. «Remember, be in at ten o'clock» is not the message received. How else could he get the message across to her that he wants her to be protected and yet allow her to grow up to be independent? How can he be assured—in a way that doesn't offend the daughter—that she is growing up appropriately? The specific behavior of coming home at ten o'clock may be totally irrelevant to achieving that.

This is the same kind of negotiation situation that you have with a couple of corporate executives who disagree on how to achieve a particular goal. You first remind them of the common general frame in which they are operating and that they will both agree with. You remind them, for example, that whatever specific policies they eventually decide on, their goal is to increase profits and maintain or improve the quality of the services or products they offer. We'll go into the business applications in more detail later this morning.

Woman: If you have not accurately specified the general frame— what the positive intention is—will you get a delayed polarity response?

Yes, typically you will. Whenever you deal with content, you run the risk that it is not appropriate for them. Even when the content is not appropriate, you may get agreement at the time, because of your rapport and personal power. But later you will get a backlash—a polarity flip.

There are three ways to avoid that. One way is to do a pure process reframing using the six–step model, in which there is no opportunity to impose any inappropriate content.

Another way is to take the time to gather lots of information. «Well, what is it specifically that you intend to do by demanding so vehemently that she be in at ten o'clock?» «Well, I want …» and you get whatever set of words are the appropriate ones for this particular unique human being. Then if you use that same set of nominalizations and unspecified verbs and idioms as you describe the new way for him to transmit the information, you will match what he is trying to do at the unconscious level, as well as at the conscious level. That will avoid the polarity problem.

The third and really indispensable way to be sure that your reframe is appropriate is to have enough sensory experience to notice the responses that you are getting, and observe whether your client is responding congruently.

Man: So far you've covered examples of incongruence between the intention and behavior. Do you ever have a case where a couple's relationship is in conflict because they intend different things? He wants more of this; she wants less of this.

If there's a basis for negotiation, there's always a frame within which they can both agree to a common outcome. Give me an example where you think there probably isn't a common frame.

Man: She wants monogamy and he doesn't.

OK. Let's role–play. Jean, you want an exclusive sexual relationship with him, and George is not willing to commit himself to that. First I ask for the meta–outcome of what each of them wants. I ask Jean «What is your intent in demanding a monogamous sexual exclusivity with this guy? What will that do for you?»

Jean: Oh, it will give me a sense of security that I'm the most desirable woman for this man.

Then I find George's meta–outcome. «What is your refusal to be monogamous based on? What will it do for you if you can be other than monogamous and involve yourself with other women?»

George: It lets me know I'm still desirable to other women, and makes me feel important.

Every time that I ask them an outcome question, I loosen up the context in which the behavior occurs. That gives me more freedom to move. George probably won't object to her having a sense of security, and she won't object to his feeling important and desirable. What they each object to is the specific behavior, not the outcome.

Now I use this information to formulate a common outcome that they can both agree to. «So am I correct that you both would like to find some mutually agreeable arrangement whereby, Jean, you can have a sense of security and desirability, and George, you will also feel important and desirable.»

If Jean and George both agree to this, I've got a common agreement frame within which to begin negotiations. Now I can work toward finding a specific solution. I can ask Jean, «What other ways could he unequivocally demonstrate to you that you have this kind of security that you desire?» And I can ask George, «What other ways are there for you to feel desirable and important?»

Man: Suppose that she says «No, that's the only way," and he also says «No, that's the only way.»

I have my doubts about that; I believe there is always something else behind the behavior and other ways to accomplish it. But if they both firmly believe that there are no alternatives, I will question the frame around our interaction.

«Look, I don't know of any basis for negotiation right now. Is there a basis for you two to continue together? Let's get explicit about this. I don't want to waste my time, and I don't want to waste your time and money. Are you interested in committing a certain amount of time and energy to finding out if things can be changed in a way that would be exciting and interesting enough for you to be together again? Or have you already committed yourself someplace else?»

If there aren't any positive intentions that they are willing to reveal, it may be that there isn't any basis for negotiation. Suppose she is already madly in love with someone else and carrying on an affair. It's just a question of getting rid of this creep and moving on. That's what's often called a «hidden agenda.» Getting explicit about a basis for negotiation and framing the overall process will smoke out hidden agendas, and that does everybody a favor!

Woman: If that's the case, since your investment is not to keep them together, doesn't she still need to work out the separation with you? Wouldn't she need to work out how to leave him and go to the other man?

Yes, if she's ready. And I've got to help him recover whatever parts of himself he has invested in being with her.

Challenging the negotiation frame usually scares them, and motivates them both to put more effort into finding mutually acceptable solutions. Then I can go for outcomes, or meta–outcomes—the outcome of the outcome.

«Jean, what would knowing that you are secure do for you?' «George, what would knowing that you are attractive to other females do for you?» Both will probably say, in effect, «Well, I'd have a sense of self–worth for myself that I don't really have now.» Now I've got a further loosening of the frame. In order to loosen the frame I can go to outcomes, or meta–outcomes, or meta–meta–outcomes. «Jean, are there any other ways to get self–worth?» Typically if I go that deep into intentions, there will be many behaviors which will satisfy that need. When you get that general, you're going to have to do a lot of experiential testing, because they really won't know at that point if the alternative behaviors will be acceptable.