HONEST ABE'S
NLP BOOK REVIEWS

Written and Produced
by Andy Bradbury (author of "Develop Your NLP Skills", etc.)


Reviews: Part 19





All pages on this site were prepared using WinHTML

The Title
Name(s) of the Author(s)
Publisher and ISBN Number [this will be for the paperback version except where the number ends with (Hb)]

When What You've Got Is Not What You Want
Sandre Cain & Michelle Maxwell
Pathways   1085703-501-1
Subtitled "Use NLP to create the life you want and live it to the full", this book seems to have started off as an excellent idea - and then almost immediately, totally lost its way.  Shame.

Despite the authors' excellent credentials, this book is regularly dotted with factual errors of the most basic kind:

"Building on the work of Bandler and Grinder and the rest of the Palo Alto Communications Research group, ..."
page xiii.

Many authors have claimed that NLP is based on Gregory Bateson's work, but this is the first time I've seen anyone claim that Barteson was actually part of the group that developed NLP.  At least, I assume that's what the authors had in mind since the only group I can trace with anything like this title was the "Non-verbal Communication Research group" at Palo Alto which included Gregory Bateson, Jay Haley, et al.

"NLP was developed from the study of people of influence, successful therapists such as Milton Erikson, Franz Pearls and Virginia Satire."
page xiv.

For readers not familiar with the roots of NLP, that should have been Milton Erickson, Fritz Perls, and Virginia Satir!
No doubt some readers will regard this as "nit-picking" (or "never let facts get in the way of a good story").  It isn't.  If writers can't get such basic facts straight - if their research was this poor - why should we trust them when they move on to the more complex discussion?  There's no reason I can think of.  And here comes the confirmation:

"Many of your beliefs are based on your values."
page 40.

Which may come as a bit of a surprise to all those who, rightly, thought that we derived our values from our beliefs.

"The only way you know if something is real or not is how you code it in your sub-modalities."
page 121.

How useful, if it were true - and if there were some discussion of how this works.  We could have avoided the whole "false memory syndrome" disaster entirely just by checking how people had coded things in their sub-modalities (whatever that the authors meant by that phrase).  In the real world, however, various studies have shown how easily, under the right circumstances, we can take on board "memories" of events which either didn't happen to us, or even didn't happen at all.

It seems to me, and this is just my guess, that this book owes much of its mediocrity to poor planning.
For example, in the early part of the book, up to page 64, the text is well populated with "case studies" designed to illustrate whatever point is being made.  In the subsequent one hundred plus pages, however, there is just one case study.  Did the authors decide they didn't like case studies any more, or run out of anecdotes, or what?
By the same token, the whole focus of the book radically alters around the beginning of Chapter 6 (page 91).  Up to that point the authors seem to have tried to use NLP to teach NLP, with a distinctly non-technical, touchy-feely approach.  Then we hit Chapter 6 - or it hits us - and suddenly we're being swamped with NLP jargon by the bucket load: "resourceful states", "sub-modalities", "anchoring".  The lot!

Yet despite all that I might still have liked the book enough to give it some kind of recommendation if only it weren't for the drip, drip, drip of negativism that seems to me to run through most or all of the book.  Take this passage from the start of Chapter 3:

"This chapter is designed to help you to discover what is important to you and what you really want and need in your life to be happy.  For most of us there has been a time when we planned, worked hard and achieved exactly what we were after, only to find that what we were after didn't actually bring the benefits or happiness we expected.  Other times we are so unsure about making a decision that we never actually got round to making it.  Sometimes we bumble along, never really knowing where we are going or when we have arrived,"
page 38.

So how "happy" do you feel right now?
To be sure the next few sentences take on a far more positive tone, but why was it necessary to drag the mood down at all, especially in a chapter about being happy?

Bottom line, this book looks like an interesting experiment that didn't work out.  Whatever audience it was aimed at, I can't imagine who would actually benefit from reading this book.
Not recommended.

Return to:    

Tales for Coaching
Margaret Parkin
Kogan Page   0-7494-3521-6
Given that this author has already produced a book of Tales for Trainers, I was interested to see what kind of distinction(s) she would draw between "trainers" and "coaches" in this later book.  If you're wondering, too, let me save you the bother, what distinctions there are turn out to be trivial in the extreme.

The introductory section of the book (pages 1-63) does little to build on the same section of the earlier book, and the feeling I got was that much of it had been written to a deadline and had never been properly checked..  Thus there are errors of fact:

"Researchers such as Ornstein, Sperry and Lakoff have proved, through repeated studies into the workings of the brain ..."
page 16.

That's Robert Ornstein, psychologist; Roger Sperry, psychobiologist, both famed for their work in "split-brained" research.  But George Lakoff - professor of linguistics?  Not quite in the "studies of the workings of the brain" category such as to be directly tied in with Ornstein and Sperry.

"Most people have heard of the fables of Aesop and La Fontaine and, although they were written thousands of years ago..."
page 39.

Thousands of years ago?  Aesop - believed to have lived in the 6th century B.C. fits the description, but Jean de La Fontaine's dates are 1621-1695.

Milton Erickson was a very successful therapist operating in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s."
page139.

I wonder when Ms Parkin thinks Erickson was born, and what she thinks he was doing prior to the 1960s?
In fact Erickson worked his way up to became Director of Psychiatric Research and Training at Wayne County General Hospital in Eloise, Michigan as early as 1934; so I think we may safely assume that he was pretty successful during the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s as well!

Perhaps the most intriguing feature of the book is the author's ongoing struggle with ... well, let's let her explain:

"Accompanying each of the stories [in this book] is a 'moral' containing the learning message of the tale ... I leave it up to you as to whether you feel it appropriate to 'declare' the moral or learning message of the tale.  Some storytelling purists would be horrified to think you would even consider divulging a moral.  Personally I think the choice is yours."
page 2.

Well, that seems to make the author's position quite clear, except that she actually knows exactly why stating a moral contradicts the whole point of telling a story in the first place:

"If coachees perceive that they are being told what to do or given advice, then there is always a danger that the protective barriers will come up.  Being offered possible solutions through the medium of a metaphor is more acceptable and non-threatening and there is less perceived pressure to accept the advice being offered."
pages 14-15.

That's part of it.  And so is this:

"The power of the story lies in the fact that, while our conscious minds are absorbed, the unconscious mind is free to take in the moral or message that the story contains."
page 19.

And this:

"In a coaching context, the coachee can be allowed to reflect on a story in their own way, and search for what the message means for them personally.
... storytelling, although it is thought of as being primarily a right brain hemisphere activity, can actually encourage the joint working of both left and right hemispheres together, meaning that there is more opportunity for whole brain and creative thinking.  This is why it can be inappropriate to give your one (and only) interpretation of the meaning of a story, because by doing so, you may be inadvertently activating the 'logical' left brain of the coachee, and forcing him or her to find a 'fit' with your interpretation.  Better to allow the coachee's right brain the time to seek out its own pattern and a meaning that is relevant to him or her."
page 31.   (Italics added for emphasis)

Though the coachee may need a little facilitation:

"... it is important, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, to work with the coachee to draw out the learning message or moral and to establish links with their own experience."
page 47.

So are we there now?  Not quite.  In drawing up guidelines for selecting suitable stories, Ms Parkin reminds us to ask ourselves:

"Is the learning message obvious or obscure.  Might there be more than one message?"
page 51.

Didn't we already decide that each listener should be allowed time to find their own message?:

"And when you've come to the end of the story - STOP!  Don't feel that you have to ramble on or explain what the story means.  As stories work at different levels for different people, it is very often better for you to let your listeners reach their own conclusions.
And most importantly, don't be afraid of the silence that very often follows a storytelling.  It's the most magical time!  It's the time when your listener(s) are taking it all in, reflecting and pondering and very often making links between the message of your story and the story of their own lives."
page 63.

"... 'the' message of your story"?  How did we get back to thinking that everyone will read the same message into a story?  I wonder if the author has any more thoughts on the subject?

"Although some storytellers would disagree, I think that you should decide whether you want to divulge the moral of the tale or leave it for your coachees to ponder on for themselves."
page 70.

Which looks pretty much like where we came in!
I'm just not clear why the author couldn't simply have said something like: "Some people think giving the moral is a good idea, some think it is a bad idea.  Here are the arguments for telling; here are the arguments against; and in the end it's down to the individual storyteller to find out what works best for them."

My other big question concerns the stories presented in the second part of the book.
According to the author: "One of the hardest things to do when compiling an anthology of just 50 tales is to limit yourself in choosing the stories to include and those to miss out."

Errr, yes, I guess that choosing which stories to include in a collection of stories would be a key issue, especially when the final selection turns out to be so "old hat".
We start with a version of the King Midas story that looks like it was written for not very old children, and the remaining 49 stories include many of "the usual suspects":

  • the boy throwing starfish back into the sea
  • the American business man and the Mexican fisherman
  • the obligatory "one and only" Mullah Nasrudin story (yes, the one about searching under the lamp post!)
  • a snippet from Winnie-the-Pooh
  • a snippet from Alice in Wonderland
  • The Emperor's New Clothes, dressed up (!) in modern garb and including a firm of consultants with a website at "www.cons@knc.co.uk/consulting"!
  • The Ugly Duckling told 'straight'
  • the unsuspected gold statue hidden under a coat of plaster
  • Roger Bannister's four minute mile
  • the 'same old sandwiches' joke
  • the 'caterpillers and butterfly' joke (wrongly attributed)
  • Edison's 1000 attempts at making a light bulb
  • and so on and so on, and so on.

Not a very inspiring collection, and certainly nothing like as engaging as can be found in the author's earlier book Tales for Trainers.  Nor do the stories take 2-10 minutes to tell (as claimed on page 67) - more like 15 seconds - 5 minutes, with most coming in at under a minute.
And after all that, you might think I'd want to include this as one of the books I'd "avoid like the plague", but it isn't.

Despite all its shortcomings, including the serious overpricing (IMO), I'm giving this book a cautious recommendation - for just one reason.
Asking the right questions is indeed an important feature of effective coaching, and each of these tales is followed by a section headed "REFLECTION" in which the author suggests half-a-dozen or more questions that can be used to encourage discussion of ideas that the story might prompt in the mind(s) of the listener(s).  If you're already an experienced coach this may come under the heading of teaching granny to suck eggs.  But for relative newcomers I can imagine that these prompts could be extremely useful.
Qualified recommendation   *  *  *  *  *

Return to:    

Coaching and Mentoring
Eric Parsloe & Monika Wray
Kogan Page   0-7494-3118-0
What happens when someone who has no practical idea of what they're talking about decides to write a book?
I imagine you'd get something like Coaching and Mentoring.

"Harsh words", you may think.  Or even, "how can he say that about a book co-authored by the Director of the Oxford School of Coaching and Mentoring, who was also responsible for setting up the Epic Group, 'still the largest multimedia bespoke learning production company in the UK', according to Mr Parsloe's biography on the OSCM website?"
Well, let me see.

Firstly there are the breath-taking, and wholly unsupportable, generalisations such as this item in the chapter on mentoring.  At the end of Example 3 we are told in no uncertain terms:

"So in the 'corporate' world, at least, 'coach-mentor' is the most appropriate model, but the quality of the relationships are the key."
page 99.

But how do the authors reach this conclusion?  Example 3 refers to just one department of a single organisation - Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, IT Division - which is, as its name makes plain, in the "public sector" and not part of the "corporate' world" at all.  Just for good measure, the project in question had been going for barely 18 months when the book was passed to the publisher in December 1999.
Hardly what could be called "a representative sample", and certainly no basis for making sweeping assertions about what is "most appropriate" in any sector.

It comes as no surprise, then, to find that most of Chapter 1 is used to argue that "there is no consensus yet on terminology in the field of coaching and mentoring" (page 75).
Fascinating.
"But why", you might reasonably ask, "does it take 15 pages for the authors to explain that they apparently have no idea what a genuine coach or mentor is?"  And even more intriguingly, if they don't know what a coach or mentor is, how do they plan to write a whole book on the subject of "coaching and mentoring"?

How?  By the use of large fonts, plenty of white space and lots of waffle.  That's how.
Here are a few examples.  Firstly, some "definitions":

"The Institute of Chartered Accountants (ICA) has used the concept of mentoring for many years as part of the process of qualifying candidates to full membership of the Institute.  They use the word 'counsellor' rather than mentor but the roles are very similar..."
page 87.

Excuse me?  If we don't have a firm definition of "mentor", how can we say that the role the ICA label as counsellor is "very similar"?  Very similar to what?

"Every authorized training organization ... has to appoint a 'counsellor' and a 'supervisor' (in ICA terms, the counsellor is the mentor and the supervisor, the line manager, is the coach in effect)."
page 87.

On what grounds can we justify these assertions?
In "ICA terms" a 'counsellor' is a 'counsellor', not a mentor.  Witness the fact that in the ICA's description of the roles and responsibilities of a counsellor (as quoted on pages 87-88), the term mentor is neither mentioned nor implied.
And how do we take seriously the unsupportable claim that, "the supervisor, the line manager, is the coach in effect"?
In what "effect"?  The ICA description of a supervisor (quoted on pages 88-89) very clearly does expect that the person filling this role will be "in the line management chain to whom the student reports", but there is no mention, explicit or implicit, of coaching.

This last point leads directly into another crucial topic which the authors fail to address - can a manager function effectively as a coach for their own subordinates?  Not to mention the wider point of whether managers can function effectively as coaches at all:

"European mentors [as distinct from US mentors] are almost always off-line, not least because it is difficult to be very open to someone who has the power to influence your pay, status and general well-being."
page 79.
"Mentors, in the workplace, are rarely a learner's direct line manager whereas a coach usually is."
page 83.

So if I've got that right, the book would have us believe that it would be "difficult" to open up to your direct line manager if s/he were wearing a mentor's hat, because they have so much power over your situation.  But it should be perfectly okay to be "very open" with that same manager when they are wearing their coaching hat, because ... because ... no, it makes damn all sense to me, either.

But maybe I've just got the wrong end of the stick?  And maybe not.  Just a few pages later we find this claim:

  • A key role for the mentor is to help learners to deal with mistakes and setbacks which in some line management relationships may result in blame, guilt and feelings of inadequacy.  The mentoring relationship should be non-judgemental and 'risk free'.  This allows the mentor to help the learner to treat mistakes and setbacks as real learning opportunities.  Properly handled, these situations are often rich learning experiences.
    page 86.

Fine - but why are these issues only referred to in relation to mentoring?  Exactly which of those factors DO NOT apply in a coaching situation?  The answer turns out to be a self-perpetuating assumption: Having decided that only managers can be coaches, there's no point in considering questions like suitability:

"In the corporate context, the question of matching a coach with a learner rarely arises as a serious issue.  The line manager is most often the general coach by virtue of their role and other specialists are usually easily identified when specific skills need to be developed.  When corporate mentoring schemes are established ... matching mentors with learners needs care.
page 165.

And just to cap it all off, at the very end of the book the authors themselves explain what a big a mistake it is to assume that managers will, in general, make effective coaches:

"In our experience only about 30 per cent of any management population will, in the short-term, be open to persuasion to try to implement this kind of change [taking on coaching/mentoring activities] in their routines."
page 183.

Moreover:

"Faced with the pressures of accountability for both positive financial and customer satisfaction short-term results, many managers tend to revert to more traditional command and control styles and techniques.  To expect otherwise is unrealistic and unsympathetic."
page 182.

And with that last comment I could not agree more.  But where does that leave us with the notion of "manager as coach"?
Where else but totally up the Swannee, and look - no paddle.  We start out with no more than 30 per cent of managers even willing to trial coaching and mentoring activities, and most of those are very likely to knock the experiment on the head as soon as they come under pressure - which is most of the time for a majority of managers.
So what motive could there be for promulgating such impracticalities?  The answer comes on the final page:

"One of the benefits most likely to be noticed first (but often resisted by professional trainers) is the real cost-effectiveness of coaching and mentoring compared to the results of simply sending people on courses away from the workplace."
page 183.

Aha!  Never mind the quality so long as we cut costs!
But hold hard, matey.  Just how, exactly, is this all going to come about?  Aren't the managers (i.e. junior managers) going to need some training in order to handle these new responsibilities?  And where are they going to get it, I wonder?  Possibly from the "professional trainers" at the Oxford School of Coaching and Mentoring and the like, perhaps?
Oooh, er - we certainly didn't spot that one coming as we fell out of our trees, did we folks!

And yet, like an unexpected sun trap on a winter's day, even this book has it's positive side, otherwise known as Chapter 8 Asking the Right Question.

The chapter does, admittedly, start on a "bum note" as the authors revive yet again the old, and now thoroughly discredited, claim that:

"Closed questions are appropriate: where a straight forward 'yes' or 'no' is enough", and "... open questions ... enable the questioner to: ... encorage uninhibited feedback"
(page 150).

With that out of the way, however, the rest of the chapter contains a great deal of useful information, tips and prompts.  Whether it is worth buying the whole book for this one chapter depends on what questioning skills the reader already has.

So, taking the book as a whole, I see it as a typical "ivory tower" type product.  It caters to the sort of senior manager who happily lumps more and more work onto the shoulders of his/her subordinates with a total lack of concern for the wellbeing of those people.  The results can be seen all around us in disintegrating families, the generally mediocre performance of businesses that operate in this fashion, the fact that in the UK at least, the government has actually had to pass a law curtailing the extent to which companies allow their employees to become stressed out, and so on and so on.
For all the hype and "brave new day" fantasies, many businesses - large, medium and small - remain mired in ill-informed autocracy.  Coaching and Mentoring is unlikely to do anything at all to help to improve that situation.

With the possible exception of Chapter 8, I don't see anything in this book worth a recommendation.

Return to:    

Andy Bradbury can be contacted at: bradburyac@hotmail.com