Morpheus Coaching

• Neurological Levels (aka ‘logical levels’  is a concept within Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP). It refers to a number of levels at which we operate and for which we can either develop blockages and development.

The levels are:

• Identity
• Beliefs and values
• Capability
• Behaviour
• Environment

with a further level of ‘beyond identity’ (purpose, spirituality) on top.

The received wisdom from Robert Dilts, one of the founders of the concept, is, that one cannot solve a problem at the same level to which it exists. The logic of the model can be seen by saying the phrase “I can’t do that here!” a number of times, each time stressing a different word in the sentence; consider how different the meaning is for “I can’t do that here” from “I can’t do that here“

I am currently using logical levels within team development sessions and the impact is quite pronounced. This (anonymous) case study will give you a taste of this approach.

Context: knowledge workers (education), team size 10, span of age 30 years, span of experience 20 years.

Challenge: Individually team members able, competent, loyalty to their discipline rather than colleagues or organisation.

Desired outcome: Increase collegiality, cooperation and, for some, collaboration. TEAM to perform as a team without the conflicts that have been simmering on and off over the years previous. TO create a new history.

I facilitated and used an opening activity utilising different representational systems, based in the future, and towards a solution (as opposed to away from: “We want to stop doing this, that and the other…”). I set the scene; it was the same date two years hence and we were meeting up again. The team was now a success (by any measure) and colleagues from other organisations come to see how things are done. I split the team into three groups and tasked each similarly; they were to ‘take us on a tour of the department’. The only difference was that one group concentrated on visual things, what we saw, others saw,  and other visual clues indicating success, one group on the auditory clues (‘the soundtrack of success’) and one on the feelings around the department.

This activity produced an amazing amount of information, volume and quality, and immediately challenged the team’s existing state of equilibrium. Things like changing soundtrack from blaming and defending to describing and explaining, to be more visible in journals and publications, to instill a sense of support and representation; these and others were enough to kick start radical changes – changes that in isolation might been seen as insignificant. So far this might seem as being nothing more than a motivational exercise as, in his comment Giovanni points out.

It is at this point that I introduced the neurological levels model into the proceedings.

The group were tasked with placing the points from the previous exercise against the relevant neurological levels. This had a powerful effect upon the group in that a picture started to emerge that in order for the success they described to be realised, problems relating particularly to the team’s behaviour and their team environment (atmosphere rather than the physical environment) were unlikely to be addressed simply by adopting different behaviours or by agreeing that things needed to change in the atmosphere e.g.  ”we need to be open and honest with each other”.

The group agreed that in order to move to the desired state they needed to have a shared team identity (this is who we are) and a shared and utilised set of beliefs and values and that are consistent with the team identity.

The group also recognised that they hadn’t felt the lack of capability to be an issue; it was more that some behaviours did not match that capability.

The group then worked upon identifying aspects of their identity and the beliefs and values impacting upon the team (including limiting beliefs).