POSITIVE INTENTIONS

The next basic NLP concepts deal with human nature and are stated in the following forms: Every behavior is useful in some context. Every behavior has a positive intention.

These basic statements about actions and activities provide a new, different, and better way to look at and understand human behaviors. The first statement frame behaviors as attempts to do something that is useful for the person and that in some context are useful. The question would then be, “Where would that behavior be useful?” Where would raising your voice and yelling be useful? Maybe when a child is out of reach and stepping into the street where a car is speeding by. Where would taking a human life be useful? Perhaps when your and your family is being attacked.

In this reframing, context becomes the issue, rather than the behavior. The basic concept here is that every action, every behavior that one can do— as a skill or competency— probably has some use somewhere. The usefulness of the behavior depends on context. The right or wrong, good or evil, of the behavior depends on the criteria that you use in a given context. It is right or wrong to what standard? It is good or evil in view of what objective?

This framing facilitates slowing down the judgment (evaluation) process so that we don’t outrightly condemn an action until we know the context. Only then can we apply the standards and criteria to a behavior to determine whether it is effective or ineffective, whether it serves us or those we are with. This is even true of “good” behavior. In some contexts, even good behavior could be bad. It could be bad for the situation and the persons.

From this we can now conclude that behavior is just behavior. Behaviors are just actions (gestures, speech, interactions, etc.) and understandings their value which relate to a context, standards (values), criteria, etc. this also frames behaviors as effects and even symptoms of context and state. They do not define a person. They are expressions of a person.

The second statement is more controversial. It frames behavior coming from a positive intention. This does not say that every intention driving the behavior is positive for those receiving the behavior. Not at all. Obviously, that is not so. What it does assert is that people don’t do things for the purpose of being hurtful, stupid, hateful, etc. When they do hurtful, stupid, hateful, etc. behavior, they are trying to do something that’s of a positive intention for them. I say “trying” because often— in spite of the intention— it does not have that effect.

Consider this NLP concept that all behavior has a positive intention. Now intention here refers to what the person is attempting to do, his purpose, agenda, and reason for doing whatever he is doing. To say that his intention is positive is to say that in taking action, he is trying to make his life better. He is attempting to solve a problem he is confronting in order to meet his needs and feel that he is succeeding.

Now is that true? Can we apply that to a range of human behaviors and check it out? As we do this, we have to remember another basic NLP concept: People operate from their mental maps about things, not from reality. “The map is not the territory.” What they think is real (their mental map) can be, and often is, very distorted, messed up, and wrong. Then, being cognitively wrong about something— their understanding of what something is, how it works, what they should do, what would solve a problem, etc. can be very fallacious.

Putting intention together now with fallible mental maps gives us an explanation of how people’s “positive intentions” can be so wrong and do so much damage. They intend well, but suffering from so many cognitive distortions, cognitive biases, and errors in their thinking— no wonder they do so many stupid, ridiculous, and hurtful things to themselves and others! They are not “evil” in themselves, but they certainly do “evil” things.

When someone criticizes or undermines another person, the actions may be bad and ugly, but maybe that’s the best choice of behavior that person has in his mental understanding of what to do. He’s trying to get control back in his life and all he knows to do is hit back, get revenge, or slander the other person’s reputation. When someone cheats, lies, steals, or even kills, perhaps that is the best he can do given his level of learning and level of skills. And if the person is in a state of desperation, suffering loss of self-respect, suffering the loss of loved ones, suffering the insecurity of being unsafe and unprotected, or suffering the basics of survival (lack of food, shelter, warmth, etc.)— then we really have a problem.

Behind every behavior is a positive intention does not validate bad behavior. Bad behavior is bad behavior. If someone’s behavior is immoral, unethical, or damaging, then we should say so, identify the standards we are using to make that evaluation, and invite the person to correct the behavior. Doing this means we are separating person and behavior. It means we are recognizing two levels: the person and the behavior. They are not the same. You, like me, are more than your behavior!

Behind every behavior is a positive intention does not validate, accept, or condone behavior that is hurtful and ugly. What it does is enable us to approach the person and deal with the person without personalizing the behavior and seeing them as “just their behavior.” Paradoxically, by separating person and behavior, we enable the person to more easily change the behavior. We can challenge the person to step up and produce higher quality behavior that more honorably reflects his or her best.

Behind every behavior is a positive intention also enables us to coach people to invent and create higher level positive behaviors. This happens all the time in Meta-Coaching. Someone presents a behavior that they want to change. Rather than shaming them, embarrassing them, or judging them for that behavior, we embrace it. A paradox. “Tell me, about that behavior, what were you trying

to do that was of value to you?” Once we get the answer, and it could be a very low-level positive intention, “I was trying to get back at him for what he did to me.” So we ask for the positive intention in that. “That was important? Why?” “Because what he did was not fair, I was trying to make things fair.” “And fairness is important to you? Why?” “Well, because we are all equal, we are all human beings and...” In Meta-Coaching, we encourage asking the “why is that important?” five to ten times. And often, in the process, it enables the person to begin to create a hierarchy of values that endows life with more meaningfulness.

When you interact with people, seek to discover the positive intent behind the behaviors that you may not like. Assume that it exists (or that the person can create it), and then pursue it in your conversation. The wonder of this approach is that even if it did not exist previously, as you ask about it, you invite that person to begin to create it.

For years I worked with the Department of Corrections here in the State of Colorado. In working with men who were coming out of the Federal Penitentiary, those who had "a criminal mind," this approach even worked with them. It offered them hope so that they could separate their “evil” deeds (criminal actions) from themselves as persons. Seeking their positive intention provided them a chance to believe in themselves— that they were not “bad to the bone.” That they were not genetically flawed persons, but they also could think of themselves with dignity and respect. They are more than their behaviors and can learn to do better— much better. Now how is this an inspiring message for the New Year!