New year resolutions – could understanding thinking styles make them more successful?

Every January the gyms become busier, the supermarkets’ salad section gets depleted and so-called slimming products fly off the shelves. Magazines (online and off) are filled with advice about goal-setting and making change. Yet, every year, everything’s back to normal by February with very little to show for early January’s enthusiasm. Most New Year resolutions are abandoned before January is even finished. Maybe next year…

So, are New Year’s resolutions worth making, or not? With such a high failure rate, is there really a point to them? I think it all depends on a person’s perspective and the way that they view the goal they are setting themselves. Understanding which meta programmes could be contributing to a person’s failure to achieve their resolutions could enable the switch in thinking patterns needed to bring about success. Here are some examples I’ve come across:

Procedure and Specific metaprogrammes
One problem with New Year’s resolutions is that for some people they are often just that — something for the new year. With this perspective, the resolutions are approached as if they have to be started on 1st January and executed perfectly until successfully achieved. As soon as the person falters, they view that as a failure, decide they can’t do it and give up.

My initial take on this is that perhaps these people are running strong Procedure and Specific metaprogrammes, possibly with a strong Blue (Order) Graves Drive. In such cases the problems lie with the belief that to achieve a goal you need to go from start to finish in a straight line, in a certain way with no hiccoughs, pauses or detours. Anything else is seen as disheartening and a personal failure. This means that those with such a perspective are bound to fail as the vast majority of things worth achieving take time, effort and involve learning about what works and what doesn’t along the way.

Strengthening the Options and General metaprogrammes might enable this person to see the broader picture and find more ways than one to achieve their goals.

Change and Present metaprogrammes
Another thing that some to abandon their resolutions is that some people become disheartened when they perceive that their progress is slow and gradual. Perhaps this is due to a strong desire for noticeable results to happen quickly – a high Change metaprogramme, especially if coupled with a Present perspective.

In this case, strengthening Development and Future metaprogrammes may enable the acceptance of gradual progress to future success.

External Locus of Control
Thirdly, many abandon their resolutions because they feel that events around them get in the way. Often this is due to a high External Locus of Control and the resulting discounting of their own ability to take control of their behaviours and decisions.

For these clients strengthening Internal Locus of Control can enable them to make the decisions and changes they need to in order to achieve their goals, whatever is going on around them.

These are just a few of the ways that understanding thinking styles can enable us to achieve our (and our clients’) new year goals. Other metaprogrammes can also be at play in this situation of course, and the analysis provided by a MindSonar profile in this context can help us determine these.
Do let me know your thoughts and experiences on this – I’d be interested in what thinking styles you find are a help or a hindrance with your new year resolutions.

How are you most productive?

How is that the environment we work in can either enhance our productivity or inhibit it? This Thinking Style pattern plays a huge roll in how beneficial a working environment can be for motivating and supporting those in it. Many people will also discover that they have more than one pattern in any given setting, a dominant and a secondary style.

Continue reading

MindSonar for the self-employed

Here in the UK, the number of new businesses starting up each year is rising significantly, with 660,000 being set up in 2016. However, statistics suggest that as many as 40% of start-ups don’t make it to 5 years. I suspect the same is true for many other countries too.

It’s not surprising therefore that coaches are often approached by clients who are in the early years of their business . Many are wondering why they are struggling to keep the business afloat and are suffering from more stress and unhappiness than when they were employed. Many are already considering ending their business to go back to employment, where they felt more comfortable.

A MindSonar profile analysis for these clients can be incredibly powerful. It enables them to identify any Thinking Styles they are operating which are not helpful for a business owner, and which might be getting in the way of their success and happiness. Once problem areas are recognised, coaching can then enable the client to identify the Thinking Styles they want to develop in themselves and also ones which might be best strengthened in the business by outsourcing a service or employing someone else.

The Thinking Styles likely to be causing such problems vary depending on the individual and their circumstances. However, I often come across problems in such clients who have particularly high scores for one or more of the following four Thinking Styles.:

1. Options
These clients have lots of ideas about the directions in which they could take their business or the ways in which they could market their services, but do not have a planned strategy for implementing them. They talk of the all the possibilities and they usually have lots of unfinished plans and ideas. MindSonar provides a way for the client to identify this way of thinking and so enable them to determine how to address the problem. This could be choosing to develop a higher Procedure Thinking Style in themselves, or to outsource some elements of their business to someone who already has a well-developed procedural approach.

2. Reactive
These clients have often thought a lot about how to develop their business and have a lot of knowledge about what can be done, but they have taken few or no actions to implement their ideas. They can always think of another piece of research which is needed before action can be taken. Once this is recognised by the client, they can work with their coach to enable the client to develop a stronger Proactive Thinking Style.

3. Proactive
Strange as it sounds to some, there can also be problems for self-employed clients with a very high Proactive score. They generally have good ideas about what they could do in their business, but take a scattergun approach to implementation. Typically, they’ve tried out each of their ideas but without any level of consistency. They do not often spend time waiting to see what the outcome of each action is as they quickly move to the next. Once recognised, coaching can then be used to enable the client to develop a stronger reactive Thinking Style.

4. Internal reference
Although a good level of Internal reference is helpful for the self-employed, if it is very high it can lead to a reluctance to learn from others, and even a reluctance to research their market. This can lead to failed marketing and product development as customer needs are not being met. Consequently, coaching can to enable the client to develop a stronger reactive Thinking Style can prove useful.

Working with these clients to identify triggers and activation statements and to activate resources is a helpful start. Combining this with solution focussed work such as Intensive Goal Description can bring about quite dramatic changes in their experience of running a business.

As I mentioned earlier, there can be problems for the self-employed with other Thinking Styles, particularly if they are a sole trader. This is not surprisingly as many are trying to cover many roles from marketing and accounts to being the specialist in their own field. The strength of MindSonar is that it can be used to help them recognise, and further develop, flexibility in their thinking styles, thus helping them become more successful in their role and, hopefully, less stressed.

Improving door-to-door campaigns


Financial Commitments
Recently I’ve had a number of reps from charities knock on my door asking me to set up a regular donation to one of their campaigns. For the most part, they are well-known charities which support worthwhile causes, and ones that I contribute to when I see their collection boxes. However, I never make any financial commitments on my doorstep. When it comes to finances I operate a very strong ‘reactive’ Thinking Style – I like to have time to think and research before signing up to things. Therefore, I ask for information and a web address, so that I can look at the campaign in a little more detail, and set up a contribution if I decide to. However, all the reps can offer is instant sign-up on the door. They have no information leaflets and no way to enable people to set up a donation later on the basis of the door-to-door campaign. When chatting with the reps, they tell me that many of the people answering their doors have a similar mindset to me. They found the whole task disheartening.

Once the Door is Closed…
These door to door campaigns are therefore only able to get donations from those who operate a ‘proactive’ Thinking Style in that context. Yet recent scandals here in the UK about a number of charities’ fund-raising practices have made many people more cautious about signing up for anything without looking into it first.

I understand that the fear is that once the door is closed the person will not go to the website, and will not subscribe. However, if the reps could learn to (1) identify both what was important to the person and what their main meta programmes were in relation to the product on offer and then (2) to respond with the right approach – using the appropriate language, activating statements and non-verbal cues – then more subscriptions and sales could be achieved.

MindSonar in Charities
When selling your products or services that you want to get people to sign up for, do you have approaches for people operating a ‘reactive’ Thinking Style? Are you confident that you and your reps can recognise those people? If not, you are probably missing out on all of those who simply want time to think before saying yes.

Using MindSonar in the training of your reps will enable them to learn how to tailor their approach to potential customers. This can have a
significant, positive impact on results: improving not just the number of sales, but also improving customer satisfaction rates and helping team motivation as reps achieve more positive responses.

Also, maybe those of us who are certified MindSonar professionals should offer our services to the companies who approach us with a one-size-fits-all speech when we answer the door. They could be our next clients!

Recruitment and Teambuilding with Heleen van Elburg

Meet Heleen van Elburg, a Dutch trainer/coach who works primarily in team building and recruitment. In this video she describes how she uses MindSonar in recruitment  and to help teams become more efficient.

It is interesting to hear Heleen describe how, in recruitment, she looks at profiles in four different ways. She goes beyond recruiting and selecting the candidate. She also works on the fit within the organisation after the person has been selected.

  1. Does the candidate have the right thinking style, the right meta programs and values for the task?
  2. Does the candidate fit with the other team members in terms of their profiles?
  3. What is a good sequence for the team, given their profiles?
  4. What is the best way for a supervisor to motivate this candidate (once they have become a team member, of course)?

Building a New Team: Alignment or Diversity?

A colleague from the US asked me: when profiling for a new team, would I want to see great diversity? In my mind that would make sense, but in reality I might want to see it aligned in some areas. What is your opinion?

In my opinion, the desired meta programs depend on what the team needs to accomplish. A sales team is different from a policy team. So in terms of priorities I would say: first of all you want the team to have the required meta programs and values to be successful at their main tasks. Once that is accomplished, you want to have as much diversity as possible. It is a bit like the relationship between towards (achieving goals) and away form (solving problems) in coaching. You want away from in the frame of towards. With team you want diversity in the frame of alignment.

If you want to put it in a procedure (which I often like to do) it would be something like this:

1. Define what the team’s main task is

2. Define what the necessary meta programs and values are for that task.

3. Make sure some team members have all (or as many as possible) of those thinking style elements.

4. Find additional team members how have some task-critical meta programs but who also have some meta programs an/or Graves drives that are distinctly different.

5. Explain thoroughly to the team why you composed them like this, and what the benefits of thinking style diversity are.

6. Prepare the team for dealing comfortably with conflicts that may arise from this engineered meta program diversity.

Good luck!