Two Meta Programmes that can be the Cause of Stress in Business Owners

In my work with self-employed clients, in various contexts connected with their work, I often see a profile which shows a very score for Internal Locus of Control. Sometimes so high that the corresponding value for External Locus of Control is just 1. This is commonly combined with a high score for Internally Referenced.

It isn’t surprising that these two Meta Programmes are high in people who have decided to go-it-alone and become self-employed. After all, to start a business and drive it forward requires someone wiling to take control and make judgement calls about a lot of things. However, those with extremely high scores often find themselves suffering from stress and feeling as if they are unable to cope with demands of their business. My experience is that this often occurs because of two limiting beliefs:

a) that they are responsible for everything – including things over which they can have no influence at all, and

b) that they should not to seek the support and advice of others who could help them with various aspects of their business, as they should know best themselves

These two beliefs result in high levels of stress as they worry about many things which are out of their control, and also spend a lot of time on information gathering and other tasks that could more helpfully be obtained from others or delegated.

The powerful thing about working with these clients with MindSonar is that it provides evidence for some of the thinking patterns underlying their problems, and enables coaching to be focussed on moving to a more helpful thinking style. Of course, as we look across their full profile, it becomes clear which other Meta Programmes are also adding to their current issues and they too can be addressed as needed.

Going through a client’s MindSonar profile with them gives them opportunity to reflect more objectively on their thinking and to explore how these two Meta Programmes, along with the rest of their profile impacts upon their experience as a self-employed individual.

As a coach I find the MindSonar profiling tool incredibly helpful in this context and am seeing the positive impact it has upon my clients. In particular, I’m finding that the contextual nature of MindSonar makes it easier for my clients to accept the results and so be open to change. I have not found this to be the case so much with other psychometric tools which can be perceived of labelling the client, and putting then “in a box” – something which many people reject, especially those who are highly Internally referenced.

What combinations of Meta Programmes are you finding in your clients that re causing commonly seen problems for them? Let me know in the comments box below.

Listening with Meta Programmes – the key to successful communications

How many times do you, or those around you, complain that people just don’t listen or that they ignore requests and instructions? It seems to be a common source of stress and conflict in the workplace and at home, and a problem in public places where signage about use and safety are needed. So often, messages just don’t get through to the intended recipient.

Most of the time, the blame for the miscommunication is placed on the ithe listener (or reader) and so little thought is given to the original communication itself. However, very often the problem would be resolved if the wording of that communication were changed. If the focus moved from wishful thinking about the audience suddenly changing their response, to ways in which the communicator could change their messaging so that it would be heard by more people, then perhaps success would be more likely. It is also an important thing to consider when producing marketing materials for anything from business services to health advice.

One way to do this is to review the communication for the Meta Programmes that are behind it and then consider versions which come from other Meta Programmes. Here are some examples that come to mind:

  • “Please put your refuse in the correct recycling bins”. This comes from a Matching Meta Programme, so risks not being acknowledged by those with a strong Mis-matching thinking pattern. Simply adding something like : “Putting materials in the wrong bin prevents proper recycling” might address this.

 

  • “If possible, avoid calling between 1 and 2 pm as this is our busiest time”. This will be heard more by those with an Away From thinking pattern than a Towards. Therefore adding “To receive a faster response, please call before 1pm or after 2pm” might reach more callers.

 

  • “Contact us now to book your holiday” is very Proactive. Using the phrase “Call us to discuss how we can find the ideal holiday for you” will attract the Reactive thinkers.

 

  • Similarly “Call us now for information” might appeal more to those with an Internal Locus of Control, whereas “Call us now for advice” might attract those with a more External Locus of Control.

 

There are, of course, many other examples, and this exercise can be done with any communication. The more that is known about the audience for a communication, the more it can be refined. Understanding the Meta Programmes of the audience can make communications so much more effective.

I commonly came across these sorts of mis-communication when managing complex projects, particularly between the policy people (General, Activity) and the mathematicians (Specific, Information). Often it was as if these two groups spoke entirely different languages, so common were the mis-understandings.

This doesn’t mean that every sign and communication has to be written in a lengthy and multi-optional way, just that consideration of the audience is vital, particularly when miscommunication is occurring frequently.

Perhaps you’ve experienced this problem, or have observed it in your environment. I’d love to hear of examples and possible solutions – so let me know in the comments box please.