Context refers to the broader situation or environment (internal and external) into which information is placed to be absorbed. Context would include culture, beliefs, values, physical environment and even one’s personal state at the time. Change one or more of these and the ‘meaning’ of a particular piece of information may be transformed enormously.

The experience of someone I know well (and who has given me permission to use their experience) exemplifies this pre-supposition. The person, who I shall call Mike, has been chronically ill for a couple of years now with a whole host of physical and mental symptoms. A coherent and unifying diagnosis has eluded the numerous physicians he has seen and a filter of “It must all be psychological” appears to have crept into the medical minds involved. The symptoms they appear to be trying to make sense of are:

• Depression
• Anxiety
• Confusion
• Lack of concentration and focus
• An insistence by the patient that he is actually ill, despite all assurances given to the contrary
• A range of physical symptoms for which no physical cause has been found

From the perspective of these doctors Mike has all the classic symptoms of ‘health anxiety’ – a slightly nicer and more modern term for hypochondria.

But here’s the problem. Mike and some friends did a lot of their own research and discovered a condition that would explain all of his mental and physical symptoms – parathyroid disease. They put this possible diagnosis to his doctors who dismissed it as impossible due to his blood test results. Game over, you might be thinking. The doctors looked at the possibility and ruled it out. The answer must surely be health anxiety.

Pause a moment. Mike and his friends were so sure that parathyroid disease made sense of things that they directly contacted recognised experts in the disease who told them that the grounds used by Mike’s original doctors for excluding parathyroid disease were fundamentally flawed and one expert even expressed almost complete certainty that Mike has the disease. Suddenly, hypochondria is no longer the plausible diagnosis and parathyroid disease is in the frame again. Confused yet?

If you are I wouldn’t be surprised as things have been a real roller-coaster for Mike and friends as well. The key point is that all the doctors and experts were looking at exactly the same list of psychological symptoms. How they made sense of them depended entirely upon the context or ‘frame’ imposed by their beliefs about Mike’s health. Those who believed that parathyroid disease and all other physical conditions had been excluded saw evidence that confirmed their view that Mike is a hypochondriac. Parathyroid disease experts, who realised that the disease had been mistakenly ruled out, saw the classic psychological symptoms of the disease. And whilst a patient insisting he is ill despite no illness being found may be consistent with hypochondria, it is also completely consistent with a patient who is genuinely physically ill but who inexperienced doctors have misdiagnosed.

Same symptoms. Different filters shaping the context. Completely different conclusions reached. A classic example of the NLP Pre-supposition that ‘Meaning is context dependent’.

Social class might have significant influence on how a person perceived Margaret Thatcher. Opinion on particular economic systems (Capitalist or Socialist, for example) would be very relevant. Views on the European Community would also affect how individuals respond to Thatcher. Factors at the level of national identity will also be very relevant. For example, Argentinians are likely to have a view of Margaret Thatcher coloured by the Falklands Conflict and those of a Nationalist political orientation in Northern Ireland will likely have a very different view of Mrs. Thatcher than those from a Unionist background.

The key point I want to convey – and one that is fundamental to NLP – is that no-one is “right” or “wrong” in their opinion of Lady Thatcher, although many will doubtless claim they are objectively correct. Everyone responds to her through their own ‘map of the world’, completely with beliefs, values, cultural and social traditions and personal experiences. And it is likely that most, if not all, are doing so in good faith.

How can this appreciation guide you in a practical manner? Well, may I humbly offer my own decision today as an example (and it is merely my opinion)? I have many friends and colleagues who I know view Lady Thatcher in a very different way from me. I know that it is inevitable that if we discussed her legacy in detail such differences of opinion would swiftly emerge. So I have sat back and asked myself “What is my outcome? What do I want to have happen?”

The simple answer is that I want to sustain and nourish the positive relationships that I have with others. In light of this I have decided that there is no real point in entering into discussions about a former Prime Minister that could be contentious and are unlikely to change anyone’s mind. Setting a clear outcome that transcends potential passing discord, along with the recognition of the subjectivity of experience, and that everyone is acting in good faith, will (hopefully) enable me to comment on Lady Thatcher’s passing whilst still retaining the relationships with others that are important to me.

Think about such notions for a moment or two. Are there battles of opinion or judgment that you are fighting in your life that simply aren’t worth the effort? Are you engaged in struggles that, even if you ‘won’, would simply be Pyrrhic Victories? Are you fighting over differences of opinion rather than over facts that can be objectively established? If you sense you might be, step back for a few moments and ask yourself – “What do I really want?” Is being ‘right’ (whatever that might be) really worth the cost in damaged personal and professional relationships?

Or is the best policy to agree to disagree?

£6 billion was sunk into the Concorde project, even when it became clear it would never return a profit.

The Concorde Fallacy, also known as the ‘Sunk Costs Fallacy’ can be seen in many different areas of business. I have seen experienced investors in the financial markets pour good money after bad in the hope that they can rescue or recover their original investment, rather than make the smart decision to write-off what has been spent to date and move on. It can be very tempting to do this – it taps into primeval instincts about avoiding loss – but the overall effect can be that you lose more.

How do you overcome this particular fallacy? It is not always easy but a simple thought experiment can help. When considering the situation that you are preparing to invest further time, money, energy or effort in – ask the simple question:

“If this was a new opportunity for me and I had never previously invested in this, would I invest now based on what I know?”

If the answer is “No” – walk away.

Take some time to look at your business and ask yourself if the bias of the Concorde Fallacy is affecting any of your decision-making.

At one level, therefore, we might be entitled to opine that a large part of the role of the Pope is carrying on business as usual and this could simply be the job of an effective manager. Yet, clearly, the change of Pope is seen as being much more significant than that. There has been considerable interest in the previous history of Cardinal Bergoglio – what his interests were, what he focused on, how he carried out his previous duties within the church. From these indications commentators and the faithful are clearly attempting to detect what kind of a Papacy to expect. What shifts, priorities, focus, intentions etc can be inferred from a study of the man’s past?

This really illustrates very well the difference between Management and Leadership. A Manager to a large extent executes existing policy and practice, whereas a Leader (who may also manage) has the authority and desire to set out a vision and attempt to inspire and motivate others to follow. Clearly, in terms of authority, the new Pope has certain advantages in being able to push through new ideas and priorities in a way that is not usually available to other CEOs.

It is also worth noting the clear effect that the very personality of a Leader can have on those he or she is leading. Often these are communicated in terms of what we call ‘meta-messages’ in NLP. Meta-messages are communications that are delivered at a level higher than mere words. They are the unspoken communications that are implicit in behaviours and interactions. In a business context, what sort of meta-message is given by a Receptionist who does not make eye-contact with a visitor? A company that writes to its customers on re-cycled paper and appends to its emails a request that recipients only print the email if it is really necessary?

Let’s look at the meta-messages given within the first few days by Pope Francis. Firstly, there is the very choice of name – Francis. St Francis was well known for poverty, humility, championing the poor and challenging corruption. Many observers have already read great significance into what this may be hinting at for the new Pope’s pontificate. When Cardinal in Buenos Aries, the new Pope was known for travelling to his work by bus. Equally, shortly upon appointment to the Papacy, one of his first acts was to travel in person to his hotel to collect his cases and settle his bill. Again, these meta-messages conveyed through simple behaviours are consistent with a Papacy of humility and service.

Leaders can learn from this the fact that they will be carefully scrutinised by those they lead for signs of priorities, principles and intent that are far more subtle than the overt words and communications they issue. It is a wise choice for any leader to ask him or herself what could be inferred from or read into even the most casual of behaviours and actions.

For some observers, the meta-messages will be more telling than the more controlled and overt messages you may wish people to attend to.

There are other types of knowledge that are more variable but still objective, which can change over time and that we take steps to remain appraised of. For example, a responsible CEO and Finance Director are likely to ensure they take careful steps to know, on an ongoing basis, the financial status of their company. Not knowing this would be irresponsible.

A third type of knowledge would include our assumptions about the internal experiences of other people – their thoughts, beliefs, emotions, intentions and the like. The idea of developing some sense of another person’s inner world is known technically as ‘Theory of Mind’. Being able to develop a Theory of Mind for those we interact with is important for us to be able to understand them, communicate well and have some skill at predicting their likely responses. A potential hazard can emerge when we assume our tentative Theory of Mind is an absolute certainty and make no attempt to test it. In the NLP Meta Model we call this ‘Mind Reading’ (for obvious reasons) and if we make important decisions based upon Mind Reads that are wide of the mark we can end up in a real pickle! Unfortunately, there are many people who seem unable to appreciate the fact that their assumptions about others are merely that and they act without checking things out first.

A final category of ‘knowing’ might be said to include what we ‘know’ about the world in general and this area can be VERY subjective. In NLP we talk about these as Beliefs. Do you ‘know’ the world to be a hostile place? Or do you know it to be friendly? Do you know people to be dishonest cheats or generally trustworthy given the chance? Do you know that ill health is inevitable or an occasional and fleeting exception?

Depending on the category of knowledge we are referring to it is worth asking – if you know any of these things, how do you know? On some issues we will have clear, reliable and tested evidence. On others we may not have any evidence criteria at all but are acting ‘as if’ something we ‘know’ is true. If we are basing important decisions (including how we live our life overall) on such assumptions and we happen to be correct, we dodge the bullet this time. If we continue to do so without verifying our knowledge it is almost inevitable that eventually we will get a nasty surprise.

I would recommend, therefore, that you take a look at your own life and/or your business, go through each of the four categories of knowledge above and ask yourself honestly and candidly – “How do I ‘know’ what I ‘know’?”

Not necessarily, and here is why I would urge caution.

Appointing a coach who shares experience of your industry may mean that you share jargon and have a similar ‘map’ of the world but this can be hazardous. Often in coaching we find it useful to help the client challenge assumptions and limiting beliefs that are hampering his or her effectiveness. A coach can only really do this if he is able to take an external perspective of the situation. What may seem to be undeniable ‘truths’ and facts of life to the client may not be as clear-cut to a coach who can bring a fresh pair of eyes to the situation.

There is a risk that if the Coach has worked in the same industry he or she will share and be constrained by the same limiting perspectives as the client without realising it. Instead of the coach being able to expand the client’s ‘map’ with new perspectives, the coach and client may instead end up viewing the situation from the same limiting world-view with little possibility of change emerging.

An amusing example of this can be seen in the Eddie Murphy film, Trading Places. Murphy plays a low-level con-man, Billy Ray Valentine, who unwittingly becomes part of a cynical social experiment by two enormously wealthy brothers, Mortimer and Randolph Duke, who want to see whether they can take a nobody like Valentine off the street and transform him into a successful commodities dealer by giving him the opportunity. You can see how things unfold in the clip below.

When they first expose Valentine to the notion of commodities dealing he intuitively picks up the principles and they seek his advice on when to make a trade in pork bellies. Mortimer Duke, based upon decades of commercial experience, wants to buy pork bellies at a certain price but Randolph is keen to learn the reasons why Valentine intuits that they should wait for the price to drop.

Valentine brings a completely new perspective to the decision-making process by stepping into the imaginary shoes of a pork belly vendor preparing for Christmas and wanting to get amorous with his partner. Sure enough, Valentine’s perspective – unencumbered by the beliefs and assumptions of previous experience – proves to be correct and the Duke brothers save a very large amount of money by following his advice.

Of course a good Executive Coach needs to be skilled and experienced but coaching skills are transferable and generic and can be applied to a great many different contexts. It may well be that shared experience of the specific sector you work in will act against an effective coaching relationship. As they say –

“Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings oft times come gems.”

Being an outsider to the client’s sector can enable the Coach to have the innocence – the Beginner’s Mind, if you like – to ask the key questions that might not occur to others steeped in the assumptions, conventions and traditional practices of their industry.

If you are interested in Executive Coaching services in Cheshire or the North West of England please get in touch with us to find out how our Executive Coaches can help you and your business.

Memories aren't always as accurate as we like to think.

Memory researchers have compellingly shown that memory is a reconstructive, rather than a reproductive process. In other words, when we ‘remember’ something we are not pulling out a pristine recording of what actually happened – rather we are piecing together a version of what we believe (or would like to believe) happened.

Such recollections can be influenced by a wide variety of factors operating at the time of remembering, including bias, vanity and a desire for a narrative that sits comfortably with how we would like to think of ourselves. It is little wonder that in their excellent book on cognitive dissonance, Mistakes Were Made…But Not by Me, Carole Tavris and Elliot Aronson describe memory as “the self-justifying historian.

So, if you find that you remember something in a way that is dramatically different from someone else, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are lying – rather that one or both of you may be constructing a less than historically accurate recollection without any deliberate intention to deceive.

What if it’s you?

Selectively recalling things – either by only remembering what is consistent with the way you want things to be, or by massaging the actual memories – is one of the classic ways in which we bridge the gap between reality and what we wish was reality. Clearly, there are attendant risks in doing so, if the reality gap is one that is going to come back and bite us.

Organisations do this as much as individuals. Are there aspects of your organisation’s history that are conveniently not spoken of, almost by an unwritten rule, while you focus on other more flattering aspects of corporate history? Are there events that are simply air-brushed out of history?

Whilst such editing of history may be comfortable in the short-term it can prevent businesses learning the important lessons that their embarrassing mistakes can teach.

So how can you use this knowledge at a practical level? Firstly, simply by being aware that your recollection of past events (no matter how compelling it may seem to you) may not be fully accurate can help you develop a useful humility. Add to that the fact that you can now appreciate that when your recollection differs from another person’s it doesn’t mean they are attempting to deceive you. A number of options might explain things:

1. You are right, they are lying.
2. You are right and they are honestly mistaken.
3. They are right and you are wrong.
4. You are both wrong.

How do you unravel the enigma? Seek out objective, independent verification of what actually happened from contemporary records, evidence or the recollections of those you trust (whilst being aware that their recollections are also subjective, of course). And be prepared to realise that if your recollection turns out to be inaccurate it doesn’t make you a bad person!

Remember, facts are friends and healthy businesses and organisations remain connected with reality as it is and was, not as they would like it to have been. As Winston Churchill said:

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

How can you learn from something you pretend didn’t happen?

We all seek to make sense of ambiguous information.

Whilst the previous two patterns involve not noticing things – Selective Interpretation refers to how we make sense of things that we have no choice but to notice. A lot of the information that comes to us in life does not necessarily arrive in our in-tray already explained, labeled and interpreted. A good deal requires us to analyse it and decide what it actually means. If you want to look in greater depth about how we go about making meaning of things that are somewhat ambiguous you might like to get a copy of our soon-to-be-released eBook, An Introduction to NLP: Exploring What Works.

Without going into such depth, however, we can simply say that people tend to interpret ambiguous information in ways that preserve the things they want to believe are true – even if a less comfortable interpretation might make more sense of the data. This tendency is known as confirmatory bias and we often don’t know we are doing it. When it takes place in business contexts it can dangerously blind people to critical business intelligence that can be their undoing. Let me give you an example.

Some years ago I did a little consultancy work for a technology company that believed it had discovered a revolutionary new way of sending wireless data. The inventor of the technology, although certainly a genius in many ways, lacked a full, formal education in the field. It was not long before some technical critics, with highly relevant qualifications and experience with major companies in the space, began disputing the technical claims made on various online forums.

What was the response of the company behind the new technology? Well, they claimed that these technical critics were stooges and stalking horses for industry incumbents who were threatened by their revolutionary technology. Was this the case? I just don’t know but if it were the case then surely it would have been wise to offer a technical rebuttal – something that was never done. As events progressed all I can say is that the original spectacular claims of the company do not seem to have been realised in any way.

Since the company’s management were also major investors and shareholders in the business, and since their personal fortunes and reputations were dependent on the technology functioning as described, I wonder if it is possible that they were displaying powerful cognitive bias in ascribing malicious, commercial motives to those who challenged their claims, rather than accepting that they might be offering objective and valid criticism?

Knowing that human beings have this propensity to selectively interpret information in ways that confirm what we want to believe, we can take steps to safeguard against it. Any time you are interpreting important data and come up with your ‘first blush’ interpretation – ask yourself “What else could this mean?” and don’t stop until you come up with at least two other interpretations. This notion of avoiding cognitive bias is implicit in the concept of ‘Red Teams’ which have been used by companies such as IBM and SAIC and also many US military agencies. Using these ideas helps challenge risky cognitive dissonance resolving thinking by encouraging people to consider what information might actually mean, rather than what they would like it to mean.

In the next blog in this series we will be looking at how people and organisations avoid cognitive dissonance through the fourth strategy of Selective Recollection.