NLPease Talks:
ON 3RD JUNE 1999 Martti Ahtisaari, the president of Finland, went to Belgrade to seek agreement with the Serbian president Slobodan Milosevich about a UN peace-keeping force in Kosovo. A series of Russian, American, British and French diplomats had already tried this in vain. However, to everyone's surprise, Ahtisaari made it work. The core quOestion for an NLPer is, of course, how did he succeed where so many others had failed? Is he an example of an excellent negotiator?
Milosovich
There is an anecdote that sheds some light on how Ahtisaari might have completed his extremely difficult
mission. The story goes that after a long day of hard talks, the stubborn Milosevich invited Ahtisaari for
a banquet. But Ahtisaari immediately dismissed the
offer, saying: "You have no time for a dinner party. You must do homework.
You have to sign this treaty tonight." And Ahtisaari
set off for his hotel. The next day, the Kosovo
war had ended - at least on paper.
After presenting a training on trauma treatment in BosniaHerzegovina in 1998, Richard Bolstad
and Margot Hamblett wrote a moving article about how
NLP could contribute to peace at large (Bolstad
1998). Their inspiring reflections gave rise to the idea that NLP can help in three
ways:
1 by promoting peaceful attitudes in people through
education and the media;
2 by treating people that suffer from war trauma, thus
preventing resentment and revenge from developing, and
3 as an aid to politicians and diplomats whose job it
is to negotiate peace deals.
This article makes my contribution to the third of
these.
Rumours of
peace
According to 'well informed circles' it is quite
certain that NLP has found its way to the highest levels of politics. Yet
people like Tony Robbins, who seems to have been publicly named as a
president's (wife's) adviser, a_e rare among those
who do this work. The reason for this is perhaps that, in Europe at any rate,
there's hardly a politician who would care to admit having been coached by
anybody lower than the Pope himself. What's more, most of the NLPers who do this coaching are unlikely to reveal to their
prestigious clients the three-lettered abbreviation for the approach they use,
with its questionable reputation. So when it does occur, as it often does
(believe me), we will only hear rumors of such
coaching.
Bandler
and Grinder's (1982) negotiation pattern, which centers
around the search for common goals and values between
the parties involved, was a major breakthrough in negotiation technology. It
provides us with a reliable step-by-step process to arrive at win-win solutions.
When they chunk up to more abstract and general criteria, most parties will
reach a point where they recognize that there are at least significant
similarities in what they are struggling for. Lasting peace, respected
sovereignty, prosperity and safety are among the criteria shared by Israel and
the Palestinians, and may be considered as the basis for their peace process.
On such abstract and general foundations, more specific agreements can be
arranged. And in the case of the Middle East, we may hear the parties involved
mention these shared criteria over and over again. That is the sound of peace
to come. For instance, Arafat's speech in Paris on 8th
November 1999.
Bandler and Grinder themselves have been quarrelling over the
rights to NLP for several years now, thereby harming its image.
Numerous other pairs of NLP-ers have demonstrated
their inability to use NLP to heal their splits. All this makes the critics
yell, 'If even the founders can't cope with their issues, what's the value of
NLP?'
I wonder what would happen if Bandler
and Grinder were to apply their own negotiation pattern on themselves; they
might find some common ground. After chunking up from their personal stakes,
they might for instance agree that global appreciation and recognition of their
creative contributions to the field of psychology is far more important
(useful, valuable and profitable) than that one of them should be left in sole
possession of the remains of NLP.
It would be still more powerful if in mutual hypnosis
they were to reencounter the spirits of Satir, Perls and Erickson and hear the latter tell them in a
trembling and echoing voice: 'The noise of two coyotes fighting over a carcass
will only invite vultures to snatch away the best pieces.' And after that all
the NLPers of the world would want to meet at Bandler and Grinder's next joint seminar!
This article invites you to explore the usefulness of
a new NLP tool for peace talk: the negotiation panorama. In the process it will
shift your attention from 'what is negotiated about' to 'who are negotiating'.
This tool arises from my 'Social Panorama' project (Derks
1995, 1996), in which social psychological topics are brought into the scope of
NLP by means of modelling the social experience at large.
In mainstream psychology the 'social cognition
approach' is the current state-of-the-art (Martin, 1990; Fiske,
1991; Kunda, 1999). As soon as we explore the same
subject matter from the point of view of NLP, the doors open all at once to the
unconscious domain of the syntax of social life. Social concepts turn from
'difficult to grasp' into 'describable at different levels of abstraction in
the sensory system and its submodalities'.
The social panorama model (Derks,
1995) builds on Bandler's (1985) and Andreas and
Andreas's (1989) work, as most of the modelling is done on the level of submodalities. Inspiration came also from Lewin's (1952) notion of social fields, Dilts's
psycho-geography and Hellinger's (1995) family
constellation.
On the following pages, we will explore the structure
of the social imagery that necessarily makes up any negotiation situation when
the stakes are high.
Peace
talking personifications
When two representatives of political parties, armies,
nations or any kind of organizations that are in conflict, are about to me,et, their mental models of this meeting must contain a
number of personifications. By personifications I mean mental constructions
that represent people (Derks, 1997). Personifications
are 'parts' in the classic NLP meaning of the word, parts in a person's social
panorama and they are imagined as being capable of social interaction. The
generally accepted division between social and non-social experience comes from
the social experience being entirely structured around personifications of all
sorts, while the non-social experience contains the rest of the represented
universe (Derks 1998).
Personifications are cognitive structures that consist
of a number of basic attributions of persons in general: (1) feelings and
emotions; (2) voices that can express beliefs and motives; (3) a form of self
awareness, and (4) a personal perspective on the world. Personifications are
considered to have a similar structure to the self. Within the frame of
developmental psychology, we may assume that a child first learns that points
(1)-(4) are part of its own self experience, then it may discover that they are
also present in others' experiences (Schaffer,1996).
The belief that others are in this respect similar to oneself - 'We are the same' - forms the basis of the ability to
construct personifications and to master basic social skills.
When Ahtisaari and Milosevich knew they were going to meet, they necessarily
held, however vaguely and unconsciously, some kind of mental schemes of this
situation (Augoustinos, 1990). In these ideas huge
personifications could have a place; probably personifications that represented
all those categories of people that were involved in this war. Some people of
course, were represented as unique individuals (Jamie Shea);
others as small groups (NATO generals) and again others as sheer abstract
masses (Kosovo-Albanians). However unique or generalized,
we regard all distinct mental units in the social panorama model as single
personifications. So there can be personifications that represent individuals
and personifications that represent groups, tribes, market segments, genders,
races, nations or mankind at large; it just depends on the (cognitive and
linguistic) social distinctions that a person makes. A person who expresses the
sentence: 'The Serbs consider keeping Kosovo an
obligation to their ancestors,' demonstrates a personification of 'Serbs' and a
personification of 'Serbian ancestors' in his social panorama.
The term 'social panorama' is reserved for a person's
entire collection of social images that surround the self (Derks
1995). Social experience is made up of the self in the center
and all other personifications around it. How a person experiences him- or
herself in the social world can be analyzed by
finding the locations of all personifications that make up his or her social
panorama.
Thus Ahtisaari and Milosevich each had their own social panorama, in which a number of personifications stood out, shaping their anticipation of hese upcoming talks.
t
How to use
the negotiation panorama
The negotiation panorama is designed as a tool for
NLP-ers to coach representatives to cope with
confrontation. It enables us to monitor and change the negotiator's experience
before, during, and after the talks. And besides politics, the same principles
can be applied to sales, scientific discussions, and courtroom debates as well.
Here are the steps that the negotiation panorama
suggests you follow.
1 Check the
self image
The first thing a negotiator needs before she or he
faces the opposition is a solid image of him- or herself.
The popular psychological term 'self image' suggests a
single visual representation that tells a person who he or she is - a vital
part of one's identity. After years of experimentation I have found rules that
the self image obeys. It is an often-entirely-unconscious picture standing somewhere
in front of the person, that is connected by means of
an imaginary and also unconscious link to a primarily unconscious feeling of
self in the body. This complex of a feeling connected to a picture constitutes
the core of the self experience. Its unconscious nature has kept this structure
hidden from mainstream social psychologists.
The visual part, the self image itself, is very
flexible; most of it is made up by the person's fantasy. Precisely because
people cannot see themselves directly, they have to create their self images
out of their imaginations. And although the self-image has almost no factual
basis, it still influences people to an enormous extent. Nowhere in life is
one's fantasy so overwhelmingly influential as in the
functioning of one's self image!
In social panorama workshops I have been experimenting
with encounters between people with varying levels of self awareness. Self
awareness was manipulated by having people shift the submodalities
of their self image from big and close to small and far away. The quality of
someone's self image clearly translates into a nonverbal impression, varying
from power to weakness, that is communicated before
anything else. The balance between the power of one's self image and the image
one has formed of the opponent is decisive during a confrontation. Domination
or submission are settled instantly on the basis of subtle nonverbal cues that
result from social programming (K)llma,
1991; Hall, 1966). In other words, knowing a person to be an authority makes
her or him an authority. This is dramatized in a funny manner in the movie Star
Wars. The queen comes to negotiate peace with the federation council, and she
makes use of her 'natural authority'. Later we find out that the real queen was
passing herself off as a servant of a decoy queen. So it was the decoy queen
who conducted the negotiations, causing everybody to admire her and to submit
to her. This illustrates how people tend to attribute authority to the
authority-figure; it is only the way they represent a person internally, in
their own minds, that creates social power.
A person who follows Robert Greene's (1998) 48 laws of
power will create powerful mental images in their own, and everybody else's,
social panoramas.
2 Check
locations, since Relation = location
The social panorama model emphasizes location as the
critical submodality in social life. Everything centers around the question: Where
is a certain personification located? The experience of self, however, is a
special case. The so-called 'self personification' is often located at two (or
more) distinct sites. The kinesthetic part (kinesthetic self) is often within the body, while the
visual part (the self image) is most often straight in front, outside the
person. The precise location of the self image is quite critical for the
quality of the self experience. So the direction and distance from the kinesthetic self to the self image are the first things to
find out about it. After clarifying the location, one may explore its size and color. Power in negotiation comes largely from a self image
that is straight in front, strongly connected to the kinesthetic
self in the body, large in size and bright in color.
Unity in this image reflects congruity. A strong self image informs the
negotiator continuously about her or his position and about the role to take.
But this comes at a price.
Flexibility
of role
Besides making a strong impression, awareness of who one is is of great strategic
value in negotiating. How one defines oneself determines the role one will take
during the debate. An inappropriate role will undermine one's position. For
instance, had Ahtisaari chosen the role of a personal
friend of Milosevich, they would certainly have had
dinner together.
The information that tells a person what role to take
in a certain situation comes primarily from what I call the 'contextual self
image' (Derks 1998). This image varies in content
along with the situation comes primarily from what I call the 'contextual self
image' (Derks 1998). This image varies in content
along with the situation (Gergen, 1991), in contrast
to an all-over 'global self' (Kunda, 1999) or to a
constant 'trans-temporal self' (Derks, 1998). The
exploration of such context-bound, often very vague and unconscious pictures, requires a skilled and self-assured NLP-er.
No such NLP-er was available
to check on Ahtisaari's contextual self image in
Belgrade. But if we believe the anecdote, he might have seen himself as
something like Milosevich's teacher, ordering him to
do his homework.
A clear self image provides one with eminence, but it
may on the other hand also limit a negotiator in his or her flexibility to
change role or to respond with a role complementary to that of the opponent.
What is won on the proactive side of the game may often be lost on the reactive
side of it.
Had Ahtisaari seen himself
only as a teacher, he might have focused too much on teaching Milosevich something (for instance, to be nice to his
people). But to close this peace deal, he needed another role - to act like a
salesmen who wants his customer to sign a contract.
Flexibility in negotiations often means the ability to
shift from one position to the other, to match or purposely mismatch the role
of the opponent. Social roles are only available if they are stored somewhere;
one needs to
have memorized these roles as inner social models that can be transformed into
operational self images at the right moment in time. Critical for effecting such potential self images is their link to the kinesthetic self. Without such links to the feeling of self
in the body, the roles cannot be 'embodied' and thus remain dissociated. If Ahtisaari knew only that he had to take on the role of a
salesman, but could not find a way to 'own' it, to associate with it, he would
not have been so flexible.
For sure, another aspect of flexibility in negotiations
comes from being able to shift perceptual position. But the ability to take
second position is not only a virtue and a sign of socia-emotional
intelligence.
It also happens automatically when a person becomes
dominated by another (Derks 1998). Acting
autonomously means staying in first perceptual position most of the time. The
ability to do this depends largely on how prominently the other party is
represented.
3 The image
of the other party
The next thing to explore when preparing a negotiator
is the representation of the other party. What is the distance and size of the
image of the opponent? Does the negotiator have to look up to meet their eyes? Ahtisaari might have visualized Milosevich
straight in front of him, on a equal level or, in
contrast, down below him, which would have made a huge experiential difference.
The height of the other will indicate status. The angle of approach will
signify the difference between confrontation and cooperation. That is why some
experienced negotiators tend to always imagine the other party beside them. And
they also try to be seated in that way in reality. The story goes that Begin
and Sadat were placed side by side in their
successful peace talks at Camp David; in front of them was a white board on
which the treaty was to be formulated.
A major point to examine is the location and size of
the other party in relation to the location and size of the self image, because
as soon as the other party is visualized as higher and bigger and closer than
the self image, the other will dominate the experience. A 'law of the dominant
personification' (Derks 1998) predicts that a person
goes into second position with any personification that is represented as more
prominent than him- or herself. So if Ahtisaari had
represented Milosevich as bigger, higher up, or closer to himself than his self image, this would
have resulted in Ahtisaari being overpowered and
dominated. The resulting submissive attitude would have made Ahtisaari focus on the needs and wishes of Milosevich, and at the same time lose sight of his own
stakes.
It seems to be very hard for politicians not to be
intimidated by violent tyrants. Knowing that someone is a rough and brutal
ruler who kills and tortures his people seems to impress most of us on a very
basic level- is it fear? This resembles the difficulty most of us have in 'looking
down' on rich people when we meet them; is this jealousy or greed?
Maybe Ahtisaari studied Milosevich's personal history to free himself from his
violent charisma. Maybe he learned to see him as a man both of whose parents
had committed suicide when he was still a boy. Maybe he saw a lonely kid? In
all probability he approached him in a more business-like way, for Ahtisaari was sent by the European Union to make a treaty
with this other state leader. So maybe he saw him at equal size and elevation.
Who can tell?
4 Check out
the support
The fourth thing to explore is the experienced
back-up, which most often consists of one or more group personifications.
Negotiators tend not to experience themselves as standing alone in their task.
They are chosen, elected, appointed or inducted by others. Probably somewhere
behind and around them they will have images of the groups and institutions
that they are working for. How they experience their support will be quite
decisive for how solidly they are able to operate. Ahtisaari,
being the democratically-chosen president of Finland, had at least his own
electorate behind him. On this occasion, the support of the other EU member
countries and their leaders was probably even stronger. Maybe he realized
himself that the bulk of mankind was supporting him in his effort to end the Kosovo crisis. This might as well have given him wings. He
probably felt this huge backup pushing him forward in a very massive way, even
more so when his supporters were among the most powerful people on earth.
Looking back at his self image, he could probably also see how this was backed
up by all his supporters. This will have given him constant information that
his mis
sion
was morally justified and for the good of mankind at large.
So what he felt behind him was pushing him, but maybe
he was also aware that he was working towards a future in which global thinking
would end all tribal and ethnic stupidity. This might have pulled him like a
magnet in the same direction.
Negotiators that fail to experience a backup at all,
and these are very common in business, may have to create their backup for
themselves. Often it suffices to suggest that they imagine all their friends
and family behind them. Even when these people have nothing to do with the
issue of the negotiations, they can do a great deal of good for the negotiator.
5 Test the
quality of the connection to the back up
The fifth necessary component of a negotiator's social
panorama lies in the connection the negotiator feels between her supporters and
herself. For Ahtisaari this must have been something
very solid indeed. He probably felt warm inter-personal connections from behind
and beside him. The day before, he had been in Belgrade in the company of the
Russian envoy Viktor Chernomyrdin; neither Finland
nor Russia are members of NATO, so both were at peace
with Serbia. The fact that a Finn and a Russian together came to talk peace is
in itself significant: both neutral, but historic enemies. (fhe Finns fought Russia alongside Hitler; Russian
occupied parts of Finland after the war.) This may have helped Milosevich to shift the historic justification of the Kosovo war into the background.
On the other hand, Milosevich
was rapidly losing his international support at that time. When he looked over
his shoulder, there were no more Russians standing behind him; Chernomyrdin stood beside Ahtisaari.
Nobody apart from a totally indoctrinated and potentially divided Serbia was
there to be seen. Of course he had probably the most positive image of that,
one that gave his course a heroic hue. But maybe he felt cut loose from this
backup at this point in history; and that may have brought him to the point
where he gave in.
6 The second
position self image
The sixth aspect to review before we send someone off
to the verbal battlefront is the second position self image: How does the
negotiator believe the other party sees him- or herself?
To Milosevich, Ahtisaari was probably a stranger; he had not much of an
image of him, nor could he make up an accurate second position self image. He
might have had no idea of how Ahtisaari placed
himself within this special context. Ahtisaari may
have behaved a little humble at first, just like many Finns, not giving himself
much importance, but he probably acted at the same time as self confident and
very taskoriented. When Milosevich
met Ahtisaari for the first time, he saw a man who
was a little overweight and needed the help of a walking stick. This of course
would not immediately impress Milosevich, but maybe
it reminded him of the former US Secretary of State and Middle East peace
talker Eagleburger, who kept Israel from firing back
on Iraq during the Gulf war. Who knows?
Ahtisaari
on the other hand had easy access to information about Milosevich.
Many diplomats could have told him about Milosevich's
character and idiosyncrasies. He was probably aware'that
Serbia's leader still saw himself pretty big: Extra Kingsize.
As far as we can speculate, mismatching Milosevich's
self image was the main point in Ahtisaari's inner
strategy. He did not mirror back anything that supported Milosevich's
megalomania, but he probably saw him quite realistically: a medium size
politician, with a worn international backup.
Of course most of this article consists of reasonable
guesses. Nevertheless, one single historic fact stands out: Ahtisaari
managed to take an irresistible role in these negotiations: he sure had the
right pictures in mind.
Changing
personifications
NLP-ers will easily
understand that when personifications are regarded as parts of the person, the
ways to improve a negotiation panorama depends on the rules by which
personifications can be changed (see Derks, 1998 for
technical details).
1 Personifications can be moved to better locations.
2 Personifications can be enriched with resources.
3 Personifications can be mixed and merged with other
personifications.
4 Individual personifications can be separated from
group personifications.
5 Sub personifications can be separated from
individual personifications.
An example
with big practical consequences
Adrian worked for the tax department. His task was to
negotiate with companies who could not fulfil their obligations. Adrian said that
this work was most difficult when the companies and their managers were really
weak. Sometimes he had to take payment measures that could force them to the
brink of bankruptcy or beyond. 'However cruel, that's my job,' he said. 'Nobody
likes to pay. But everyone must! On the other hand, the rules are not always
totally honest. Some people fall prey to the system.'
I asked Adrian to pick out an example. He recalled
being actively involved in talks with the owner of a firm that had failed to
follow the correct procedures for getting its debt reevaluated.
So there was no legal reason left for granting a further respite. We explored
Adrian's negotiation panorama in this case.
Adrian had very mixed feelings about these talks. He
saw the other party, the business owner, as small and low down at four 'mental
metres' distance. Behind him he could visualize some other staff members and
the workers who would probably lose their jobs if the debt had to be paid.
Adrian had a confusing self image; it was double. It was located in two sites:
one big and close by with only his head and shoulders. The other self image
was smaller and further away but had a complete body to it. Looking over his
shoulder revealed something unexpected: the tax department looked a mess. Although
it was big in size, it wasn't a whole. It was in conflict. Some parts were
pushing Adrian to collect the tax money at any price,
other parts observed ideologies of their own and adhered to more modest
attitudes.
The second position self image of the business owner
consisted of a small and powerless victim of bureaucracy. That was how this man
saw himself, according to Adrian's inner exploration. Looking at it from second
position made Adrian dislike himself, his job, the tax department and the Dutch
kingdom as a whole!
'If I go into this talk like this,' Adrian said, 'I
will be a little too friendly and my hesitation will suggest to that man that
there is still hope for him. But later I will send him the tax department's
decision; a death sentence. So what should I do?'
I told Adrian: 'Your image of the situation will
decide ninety-nine percent of how the talks proceed. Representation dominates
interaction. How you envision the other and yourself will decide the position
you will take and the position you force the other party to take. So if you
want to have a different interaction you need to have a different picture.
Although at the start interaction may influence social imagery, as soon as the
images are formed they will shape the interaction to a far greater extent than
the content of communication does. Just as your parents still treat you as a
child, regardless of how you talk, what you say and who you believe you are.
The image they have of you dominates the interaction.' Adrian seemed to see the
point.
So I asked him: 'What do you consider the weakest
element in your negotiation panorama?'
'The tax department!' he answered without any
hesitation. 'Okay,' I said, 'what kind of abilities do they lack? What's
missing? What should they be able to do or to feel or to understand?' Adrian
took quite a while to think about this. Then he said: 'They should know their
place in society".
'Are you sure?' I asked him. 'Yes!'
Next we went in search of a moment in his own life
when he knew his place in society. When he had identified such an occasion, he
was asked to fully associate into it. When he nodded that he felt in the middle
of it, I asked him to exaggerate the experience and find a symbolic color for it. He thought that 'light yellow' was alright. Then
I asked him to imagine being surrounded by a cloud of this light yellow while
still strongly experiencing 'knowing his place in society'.
Then I asked him to go back into the negotiation with
the business owner, taking the light yellow along. As soon as he signalled that
he had done this, I asked him to send the light yellow towards the tax department
behind him: 'Give them a full shot of light yellow, until you see they know
their place in society sufficiently.'
After a while Adrian smiled and said: 'They all turned
yellow. . . and they have become more united now.
But the most interesting thing happened next. As soon
as Adrian started to look forward to the business owner, he saw to his astonishment
that the man had grown considerably. Not only had he become of Adrian's size,
his backup also looked much more solid. Immediately Adrian changed his mind
completely about this negotiations: 'I will tell
him straight
away, that if he needs money, he should borrow it from a bank, not from the
taxes; we are way too expensive.'
How was such a change possible?
Examples like this show how complex is the working of
unconscious mind. Adrian's unconscious 'social operating system' understood the
implications of the tax department becoming more aware of their place in
society, and what this meant for Adrian's position in this negotiation and how
that was going to affect the other party in the talks. His unconscious social
knowledge was sufficient to exactly 'calculate' the effects of a change in one
personification on the others involved in this talk.
In this way we could shed some light on the
unconscious faculties that gave rise to the concept of 'social systems.'
Experience like the one with Adrian reveal that we
should think of social systems as primarily composed not of people in
interaction, but of complexes of social representations, of social panoramas
influencing each other. The latter view offers the superior technology for
change. When representation dominates interaction, we should change the
representations instead of laboriously trying to change the interaction
patterns in NLPeace.
Lucas A C Derks 2000
References Andreas, S. &Andreas,
C. (1989) Heart of the Mind. Real People Press, Moab,
Utah.
Augoustinos, M. & Innes, J.
M. (1990) 'Towards an integration of social rep
resentations and social schema
theory' in: British Journal of Social Psy
chology,
29, 213-31. Bandler, R. & Grinder, J. (1982)
Reframing. Real People Press, Moab, Utah. Bandler, R. (1985) Using Your Brain for a Change. Moab,
Utah, Real people
Press. Bolstad, R.
& Hamblett M. (1998) 'Sarajevo.' Anchor
Point, August 1998. Derks, L. A. C. (1995) 'Exploring
the Social Panorama' in NLP World, Vol. 2,
No.3,
November 1995.
Derks, L. (1997)
'Personifikaatio ihmisten keskeisessa kanssakaymisessa' in
NLP Mielilehti N:O 2/97. Derks, L. &
Hollander, J. (1996) Essenties van NLP. Utrecht, Servire. Derks, L. &
Hollander, J. (1996) 'Exploring the Spiritual Panorama' in: NLP
World,
Vol. 3, No.2, July 1996.
Derks, L. (1997)
'Family Systems in the Social Panorama' in: NLP World, Vol.
4,
No.1, March 1997.
Derks, L. (1996)
'Teambuilding met het Sociaal
Panorama' in: NVNLP infor
matiebullitin November 1996.
Derks, L. (1998) The Social Panorama Model: Social
Psychology meets NLP.
SON
repro Service, De Waghemakerstraat Ib- 5622 JE Eindhoven, The
Netherlands. Email: repro@son-repro.nl Fiske, S. T. Taylor, S. E. (1991) Social Cognition. New York, McGraw Hill. Gergen, KJ.
(1991) The Saturated Self dilemmas of identity in
contemporary
life. Basic Books, Harper Collins, USA.
Greene, R. (1998) The 48 Laws
of Power. Meulenhoff, Amsterdam.
Hall, E. T. (1966) The Hidden
Dimension. New York, Doubleday.
Hellinger, B. (1995) Ordnungen der Liebe; Ein
Kurs-Buch von Bert Hellinger.
Carl Auer Verlag, Heidelberg.
Kalma, A. (1991)
'Hierarchisation and dominance assessment at first
glance' in: European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 21,
2, 1991.
Kunda, Z. (1999) Social cognition, making sense of people.
The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England.
Martin, L. L. Clark, L. F. (1990) 'Social cognition:
exploring the mental processes involved in human social interaction' in: M. W. Eysenck (ed.), Cognitive Psychology: An International
Review (Vol. 1, pp.266-31O) Sussex: Wiley.
Moscovici,
S. (1983) 'The phenomenon of social representations' in: R. M. Farr & S. Moscovici (eds.), Social Representation (pp. 3-69)
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raven, B. H. (1965) 'Social influence and power' in:
I. D. Steiner and M. Fishbein (eds.) Current Studies
in Social Psychology (pp.371-82) New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Schaffer, H.R. (1996) Social Development. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.
Lucas A.C. Derks is a social
psychologist who fell in love with Bandler and
Grinder's work on 23 March 1977. He developed the Social Panorama Model over a
ten-year period and it has found its way into master practitioner courses all
over the world. Lucas can be reached at: Van den Boenhoffstraat
27, 6525 BZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands.