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

One of the first things I do is to engage in negotiation to establish a three–month moratorium on sexual activities outside of this relationship during which time he will have a chance to try out some of the new behaviors which will satisfy the needs that he has which monogamy denies at this point. That will also give her three months to engage all her resources in finding ways to discover how she can develop security for herself and in this relationship, so that the notion of his being involved with another woman doesn't threaten her in the way it presently does.

As we mentioned before, I can send them out to find models. I'd ask the wife «Are any of the women that you know and really respect in a non –monogamous relationship? How do they take care of their sense of security?» I'd say to the husband «Do you know any men who you really respect and admire, and who are monogamous and perfectly satisfied with their own desirability? Good, I want you to go hang out with them and find out what they do.»

The search for alternative behaviors can be carried out internally with all their unconscious resources, and also externally by using models around them. Don't be afraid to give them homework. Have them go out and find appropriate models to watch and listen to.

Woman: You said if there's a basis for negotiation, then there's always a frame in which there is a possibility for change.

Those two things are synonymous. By frame or basis for negotiation I mean «Is there some common outcome which you can both agree to? For instance, are you committed to staying with this woman? Are you committed to staying with this man?» That may be the only frame that they can agree on, and of course each of them may have conditions.

Once they have agreed on an outcome frame, then you can negotiate on the way of achieving it. «George, there is some set of behaviors that will satisfy your needs and still be within the frame of your staying with this woman.» «Jean, there are some behaviors that we're going to have to discover for you which will allow you to stay with this man and still have the kind of security that you desire. Our task now is to discover what those behaviors are.»

Man: When you ask the framing question, and one of them responds «I don't know if I want to stay together or not» how do you proceed from there?

Then I negotiate for a trial period of trying out new choices. «George, are you willing to spend three months accepting this constraint of being monogamous which you consider artificial?» Or «Jean, are you willing to spend three months not accepting the constraint that you desire for your security, in order to find out whether there are behaviors that can be discovered which will satisfy you within this framework?»

Being very explicit becomes important at this point. Whenever there is a head–on–head disagreement about a certain piece of behavior within the relationship, then jump out to the outcome frame and find out if there is one that is acceptable. If there is one, you can proceed. If there's not, you may as well be explicit about that and save everybody time.

Finding a common outcome or agreement frame between members of a family, couple, or organization is a very important step that many therapists or consultants miss. They usually attempt to find specific solutions too soon, and then there are objections. I'd like to have you do an exercise in which your primary task is to find a common outcome. If you also have time to identify a workable solution, fine.

Do this in four–person groups. A and B are members of a couple or organization. C is the programmer. D will be the meta–person. I want C to specify the context—business or therapy. A and B will then generate some conflict, and C, the programmer will do the following:

1) Ask A and B what, specifically, they want, and then restate it to their satisfaction as a pace.

2) Ask both A and B what their specific outcome will do for them (their meta–outcome) and restate it.

3) Find a common outcome such that when you state it, both A and B agree it is what they want. «So what you both want is …»

When you are the programmer, I want you to get as general as you need to in order to find an outcome that both partners will agree to. Sometimes all you will be able to get agreement on will be, «So you are both here in order to find some way to continue your relationship to your mutual benefit and satisfaction.»

Determining an agreement frame also gives you a way to sort behaviors for relevance during the negotiation process itself. This is particularly important in business meetings and negotiations. Conservatively speaking, eighty percent of all the time spent in meetings is wasted, because what is said is not relevant to the outcome. It goes like this: we're talking about campaign X for product Y and Jim says «Oh, you know what we could do over here with product Z?» It's a great idea, actually. It's wonderfully creative—and wholly irrelevant in the context.

Unless you challenge that first irrelevant remark, you unleash an avalanche of free association which is more appropriate for the psychiatric couch than a board meeting. Later it will take you ten minutes to get people reoriented to the frame within which you are working. If you make the outcome frame explicit at the beginning of the meeting, you have a basis which is explicit and agreed upon for sorting out what's relevant and what's irrelevant. We call this a «relevancy challenge.» When someone becomes irrelevant, you can say «Jim, I don't understand your remark relative to what we've already agreed upon to do here at this meeting. Why don't you bring that up Friday at our product development meeting?» The next time he makes an irrelevant remark, I'll say «Well, I'm not sure how that connects with what we're doing here," and point to the flip chart. Then the next time that he starts to make an irrelevant remark, I'll probably just have to glance over at the chart, and that will be enough to anchor him into stopping.

In corporations in which we have installed these programs, after a few meetings the total meeting time drops by about four–fifths. People look forward to the meetings, because the criteria for relevancy are made very explicit and things get done. The relevancy challenge is not part of the organizational behavior of most business organizations, and it ought to be for purposes of efficiency.

You can see the same process more clearly in an arbitration situation. There are two groups head–on–head; they are just locked together, and they've completely forgotten the context. The outcome frame has been completely forgotten and most of their behavior is irrelevant with respect to it. Most negotiators will tell you that they are always brought in at the worst possible time—when there's a deadlock. I personally think it's the best possible time, because all the issues have been sharply defined and the differences are known clearly. You know exactly what needs to be done.

My first move is to get the two groups away from each other, and then I loosen the frame. I have to reestablish a broad outcome frame— which is the traditional notion of the basis for negotiation. As soon as the outcome frame is established, then I have a basis for relevancy challenges. I can dismiss certain things as being counterproductive, because both sides have already committed themselves publicly to the outcome frame.

At that point I have enough slippage that I can find ways of balancing the two proposals and coming up with a give–and–take. I will insist that the outcome frame contain what both sides should have put there to begin with: items which are not essential, which are «throwaways» for the purpose of barter. I've got to have an equal amount of those on both sides. I've got to create room to move first. If I don't have maneuvering room, then I'm stuck.