Letters to the Editor

Have you ever watched a game of football and read the write up in the papers the next day to wonder ‘Were they watching the same game as me?’ That is a bit how I felt in reading Mike and Susie’s reply to my article on NLP (Linder-Pelz & Hall, 2007). I would like this opportunity to reply to both Mike and Susie to hopefully reinforce what I was really saying, and to assist readers to understand how both Mike and Susie, no doubt with the best intentions, have distorted my article to suggest it says something it does not. I will only focus on their first paragraph, as in making use of the primacy effect there, they are so off the mark to not even be wrong.

Mike and Susie firstly say that I assert ‘that NLP is atheoretical, it has nothing to do with psychology’ (Op cit).

I use the word atheoretical in the article once. The context is of the founders adopting an atheoretical orientation in creating and maintaining NLP. To interpret this to mean I am saying NLP is atheoretical is to imaginatively distort my words.

I would say again this atheoretical orientation and focus on modelling, is one of factors which differentiates NLP from psychology, but to interpret me as saying NLP is atheoretical misses my point.

The key activity of an NLP practitioner is that of modelling. Such people are not interested in finding broad theories, rather they are interested in finding the specific tacit structure of one particular person who stands out from the crowd and then finding ways of installing that structure in others. In doing this one may adopt a theoretical orientation and if one does one is probably engaging more in psychology. When one engages in NLP one adopts a very much more hands on and experiential approach.

The second part of the above says I assert NLP has nothing to do with psychology. Nowhere in the article is this said. If Mike and Susie read my chapter on NLP coaching in Palmer and Whybrow (2007) they will see I readily acknowledge the psychological underpinnings of NLP. NLP in it’s adventure goes right back to the third force of psychology; humanistic psychology, with George Kelly and Fritz Perls, to suggest I assert NLP has nothing to do with psychology, is ridiculous.

Mike and Susie’s next point is I assert NLP ‘is not primarily a communication model’ (Op cit).

Again no where in my article do I say this. In fact to the careful reader of my article I point out NLP is a communication model when I say ‘The benefit of noticing sensory predicates according to this model is that it facilitates rapport and communication if when talking as coaches we match our client’s ongoing representations’ (Grimley, 2007) and later the careful reader finds; ‘the Milton model encourages artfully vague communication in coaching. The idea is to match the client’s model of the world, distract and overload their conscious mind through linguistic ambiguity, and then gain access to the unconscious mind and facilitate change at that level’ (Op cit). I do however suggest that to define NLP as ‘a communication model’ is not to define NLP according to the two traditional definitions, which in my opinion are more comprehensive and informative.

Finally in their opening paragraph, Mike and Susie tell readers I say there ‘is no room for development and diversity in the field of NLP’. Yet again, nowhere in the article is this said. In writing the article I was calling for NLP to be developed by introducing a more positivist paradigm which could more robustly provide evidence for the effects of NLP. Even Carl Rogers used Q sort, (Stephenson, 1953), to demonstrate objectively positive forward movement in his clients. This orientation and development of NLP can be seen also in the very first International Neuro-Linguistic Programming Research Conference to be held at Surrey University this year. The development aspect can be seen when the call for papers points out: ‘This conference seeks submissions that contribute to the development of research into NLP. All submissions are expected to demonstrate how they have used recognised research methodologies or scholarship, and this should be made explicit in submissions. Submissions should also demonstrate clear linkage to literatures outside the field of NLP practice; submissions that are referenced solely to nonacademic NLP sources are unlikely to be successful Please note that this event differs from most existing NLP conferences, in that it is not a forum for demonstrations or presentations of NLP models or techniques; nor is it a platform for marketing participants’ businesses, whether freelance or corporate’ (www.nlpresearch.org/).

I would finally like to point out that I did seek clarification as to where I was ‘factually incorrect’ (Op cit) Having had the author’s reply I can only stand by my original article which was factually correct. John Grinder, the Co-Founder of NLP, did challenge Mike Hall in his ‘riotous proliferation of ever higher levels of Meta States’. The fact that John Grinder subsequently has not attended one of Mike’s Meta State workshops despite repeated invitations, suggests Meta States is a process which adds no value according to one of the co-founders of NLP, and only reinforces the theme of my article. Let us evaluate through current methodological practice the basics of NLP and see if there is any added value there, before we grow it into an eclectic mish mash of techniques and assumptions which is incapable of falsification and highly amenable to sharp marketing practice.

Hopefully re-orienting my article according to the above intended meaning rather than the interpretation provided in the first paragraph of Susie and Mike’s reply to me, is useful for those wishing to understand my thoughts concerning the present state of NLP as a coaching model.

Bruce Grimley
E-mail:[email protected]

References

Linder-Pelz, S. & Hall, M. (2007). Let the research begin: A reply to Bruce Grimley. The Coaching Psychologist, 3(3), December, 145-148.

Grimley, B. (2007). NLP Coaching. In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow, Handbook of coaching psychology. A guide for practitioners. London: Routledge.

Grimley, B. (2007). Time for NLP to get positive: A response to Linder-Pelz and Hall. The Coaching Psychologist. 3(2), August, 79-83.

Stephenson, W.U. (1953). The study of behaviour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reply from Susie Linder-Pelz

I think this is a useful clarification by Bruce of his thoughts and intentions. Let us all remember that in having this debate Bruce, Michael Hall and I all share an interest in having an informed discussion on the relatively uncharted territory of NLP and theory. Having read more of Bruce’s writings I still believe that we differ in how we use the terms ‘theory’, ‘atheoretical’ and ‘development’ in relation to NLP. Perhaps the best way forward is to address more specifically our understanding of these terms. Quite fortuitously, we have an opportunity to do just that as I have been asked to write a book on evidence-based NLP coaching and have invited Bruce to give some input.

E-mail: [email protected]

Dear Editor

Questioning the sufficiency and status of psychometric validation

The article by Almuth McDowall and Rainer Kurz on feedback into the coaching process (The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 4, No. 1) illustrated strengths and latent risks of the subject they addressed. Strengths because they wrote clearly, analytically and with consideration of the implications on individual behaviour; latent risks because of the way in which they referred to complex issues of ‘validation’.

In the dominant style of psychometric canons, McDowall and Kurz use the term ‘psychometric validation’ on the assumption that the quality of ‘reliable and robust information’ this process can provide constitutes a sufficient and necessary basis for a ‘sound model’ for the coach and client to explore accuracy of information and levels of selfinsight and confidence. I question the assumptions underpinning their assertions while at the same time I readily appreciate the value of psychometric validation, respect the degree of safeguards it represents and applaud the industry invested in the process of competent psychometric validation.

As Pinker (2007) explains, latent meanings of language can conceal significant realities, often unwittingly. The emergence of coaching marks an opportunity for coaching psychologists and others who value the technical strengths of psychometric validation to also recognise its limitations and important threats to the coaching process sufficiently to qualify recommendations by acknowledging the extent to which tools which have been subjected to ‘objective’ psychometric validation incorporate latent biases of their designers. Effective contributions of users of psychometric instruments are conditioned by the extent to which such latent biases are controlled by acknowledging in explicit detail the model of the person assumed in the traits or other entities measured.

Inventors of ideographic tools, such as repertory girds (Kelly, 1955/91), offer alternative styles of feedback , based on models of agency of a coaching client which contrast with those of psychometrically validated instruments; for they were invented as psychometrically robust measures for selfvalidation. As Powell (1988) and Harri- Augstein and Thomas (1991) have shown, repertory grids can be adapted for feedback in coaching, with the advantage that the language used is negotiated with coaches in situ. The effectiveness of such feedback is not necessarily any less because of the kind of validation provided differs from that advocated by McDowall and Kurz. As there are contexts where it can be readily linked to what Warr (2007) terms ‘facet-specific’ dimensions of behaviour; in such circumstances, use of such tools may in fact prove significantly more effective, at least for some client groups so that dogmatic insistence on psychometric validation is unjustified and invalid. While, as Warr observed, substantial statistical evidence of the impact of selfreferent measurement instruments is not available, their scientific status remains open to confirmation or disconfirmation; accordingly,it should not be foreclosed by unsympathetic psychologists without explicit argument based on relevant detailed evidence.

Practical choices are not necessarily between psychometric or self(-referent) validation of tools used for coaching feedback; reliable and robust uses of repertory grids require quite some rigour as Jankowitz (2004) and Fransella et al. (2004) explain. The point at issue is that It remains at least possible that alternatives to the use of tools that have undergone thorough psychometric validation, as McDowall and Kurz assert. In the larger picture of the evolution of coaching psychology, awkward questions about fruitful feedback within the coaching process may turn out to be a spur to use of self-validating measurement instruments in the hands of coaches who combine good understanding of psychometrics with an appreciation of alternative reliable psychological measuring instruments that offer additional customisation to individual clients in situ.

Kieran Duignan
Simply Enabling, Croydon.

References

Fransella, F., Bell, R. & Bannister, D. (2004). A manual for repertory grid technique (2nd ed.). Cheltenham: John Wiley.

Harri-Augstein, S. & Thomas, L. (1991). Learning conversations: Self-organized learning ways to personal and organizational growth. London: Routledge.

Jankowitz, D. (2004). The easy guide to repertory grids. Cheltenham: John Wiley.

Kelly, G. (1955/91). The psychology of personal constructs. London: Routledge.

McDowall, A. & Kurz, R. (2008). Effective integration of 360 degree feedback into the coaching process. The Coaching Psychologist, 4(1), 7-19.

Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought. Language as a window into human nature. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Powell, K. (1988). Stress in your life. London: Thorsons.

Warr, P. (2007). Work, happiness and unhappiness. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.