For many people there is a certain satisfaction in giving others good advice on how to solve their problems or live their lives. And these people find it quite frustrating when, after carefully designing and delivering the advice, the recipient doesn’t follow it: they either ignore it completely or follow for a while and then fall back into the old ways.
Today’s issue (27 July 2010) of the Pegasus NLP Newsletter explores the issue of advice giving and why it can be so difficult to get people to change their behaviours – even when such behaviours are plainly causing them problems.
Why people don’t follow advice
The reasons why people do not follow advice can be many and varied. The advice may not be suitable for them. They may not like being talked at.
They may not like a relationship in which somebody else is telling them how to live their own lives. They may have a high sense of personal integrity and autonomy – and recognise that, if the solution does not come from within them, it’s probably unsuitable for them and their lifestyle.
The old behaviour is better
This is explained indirectly by the fundamental NLP principles that “behind every behaviour is a positive intention”. In other words our behaviours are driven by our need to feel certain feelings and to avoid feeling other feelings.
In other words our habitual behaviours are our means of attempting to fulfil our personal Values.
If a person has used a particular behaviour to fulfil their values for years and if this behaviour does, indeed, fulfil their values – despite having considerable negative consequences – they are simply going to hold onto the behaviour until they find one that is, at least, as efficient in fulfilling these inner values.
The implications?
Nearly everyone loves to give advice to anybody and everybody.
Many coaches and therapists charge lots of money for advice in a genuine belief that is their job – which, of course, it absolutely isn’t! Their job is to assist people in defining their own solutions i.e. their own personal advice.
Many managers believe that their job is to advise their direct reports. Which, once again, it isn’t — their job is to coach their team in finding their own solutions.
The same applies to teachers, parents, friends, politicians, sales people, and so on.
The reason?
Here are three reasons (out of many) behind the universal drive to dish out advice.
Ignorance:a lot of people don’t realise that advice is their version of what would work for them if they were in the other person’s shoes. Which they definitely are not. They may have intentions — they may “mean well” but that’s not enough.
Lack of skill: it requires advice giving is easy. It requires considerably more skill to coach or assist somebody in examining the difficult situation, identifying possible solutions, and then selecting the one which would work best for them
Ego:there’s a certain selfish satisfaction in giving somebody advice which they then follow and which works for them!
Finally…
Oscar Wilde had some good advice about advice… “The only thing to do with good advice is to pass it on. It is never of any use to oneself.”
Hi Reg,
First of all I’d like to say that this post to the blog really does need to be read in conjunction with the newsletter which you mention in the second paragraph.
Changing behaviour is a great topic and, as I’m sure you are well aware, it opens a Pandora’s box; influence & persuassion is a mega-subject.
My own thoughts concur with yours in that people have to find their own solutions if and when they decide that their behaviour is a problem. The role of a coach is to identify possible problem areas, facilitate the process of change and nothing more, and certainly not dishing out advice.
I also agree that a person’s values relate to their behaviour, but I’m not sure that is always the case. Could it be that a person’s identity is incongruent with their values? If so, would not their sense of identity rule the day?
To put it another way, how many times have you heard, ‘I know that what I am doing is wrong, but that’s the way I am.’?
Then there is the matter of environment: time, place and the company you are in. I think this has a massive influence on behaviour.
I’m just scratching at the surface but I’ll leave it at that.
Hi Graham (apologies for delay in posting your comment – technical glitch at about 6.15 am this morning – now sorted on return home)
Today was the penultimate day of Practitioner Certification Programme and we were discussing this very topic – what influences behaviour. And there are many, many factors which would fill a couple of books and not just an 800 word article.
Looking at ‘behavioural change’ does simplify things a little.
Using the Logical Levels or (in Pegasus NLP) the ‘Personality Map’ we see there are four key influencers of behavour: Beliefs, Values, Identity or self etseem, and Mission or Vision.
See: http://www.nlp-now.co.uk/nlp_logical_levels.htm
These have most influence – and I’d find it difficult to identify a behaviour that wasn’t highly influenced by values…. But I’d love to be proved errant in this. 🙂
Hi again Reg,
I find the logical levels to be both absurd and very useful.
I think they are absurd in that they are not levels, which implies some kind of top-down or bottom-up hierarchy of influence. Your idea of a personality map is much more useful as a starting point. And the inclusion of mission and vision adds an important dimension.
In my view, the personality map only starts to make real sense when you think for yourself about how the components interact with each other. At the moment, I find it hard to come to any definitive view on this and for that reason I think it is important to discuss with others, but such opportunities are rare.
In terms of usefulness, my own interpretation of the personality map helps me to understand myself and gives me a basis for relating to others. In that sense it is a very useful aid, and even if it is inevitably an approximation, it is better than no map at all.
I would not want to take any dogmatic view of the personality map and how its components interact; rather I think there is huge value in allowing personal thought, practical use, feedback and discussion as an evolving process. (And I think that goes for most things in NLP.)
On the specific point you raise of values driving behaviour, I find that many people have a myriad of incongruent values from which they choose those which suit their purpose (mission and vision perhaps) depending upon the environment in which they find themselves.
Hello Reg
‘The old behaviour is better’ paragraph – wow this is a very powerful angle you have brought up here & to be honest one I have rarely, in the past, considered when advising people. The tap may indeed be broken and leaking all over the kitchen floor but the person still manages to do the washing up!
I found the whole article incredibly insightful & shows a unique understanding of truly helping someone. How often does ones ego, ‘Map of the world’ or indeed ‘Personality map’ come into play when attempting to give ‘impartial’ or best advice to a third party? probably a lot with most people. However it is understanding the third party’s ego, map etc that is key.
But wait there is a further level to this…as you say we are not actually seeking to ‘advise’ them per se; we want to assist them in coming to their own solutions, only then are we truly giving someone best council. Is there not an NLP belief that people have within themselves the best answers to their own problems anyway!?
The therapist or NLP coach’s own ego must also be kept in check, much better to have the person draw their own conclusions and succeed than get the temporary ego boost of knowing a person will follow YOUR advice.
I can hear John now ‘NLP is selling not telling’ 🙂
Hi Russell: yes, the NLP maxim or Principle that ‘People have all the resources they need’ is hugely important. It suggests that as people-helpers our role is to help them find these already-existing resources.
It’s a principle that the more commercial, ego-led, kick-ass and sock-it-to-’em style of NLP doesn’t tend to recognise.