One of the metaprograms of NLP, the “Scope Metaprogram,” is about the tendency of individuals to prefer a “Global” or a “Specific” perspective. At least theoretically, those with a Global preference focus on the “Big Picture” or the “End Result,” while those with a Specific perspective are more concerned with the details, especially with the first step. Some tasks, such as completing a jigsaw puzzle, are best accomplished by using one approach, while others seem to require the Big Picture approach encapsulated with Covey’s “habit” of “Beginning with the End in Mind.”
I suspect that experienced jigsaw puzzlers could complete most puzzles without knowing what the final image would look like. They would locate the corners, complete the edges, sort the rest of the pieces for shapes and colors, and use trial-and-error to get the right pieces in the right places. On the other hand, imagine trying to assemble a bicycle from its pieces without knowing what the result was supposed to look like. It might prove a daunting task.
Two subjects, economics and logistics, led me to revisit this metaprogram because I seem to be at the opposite ends of the Scope Metaprogram on these subjects. I understand microeconomics pretty well. I pay my bills on time; I avoid charging more than I can afford to pay for; and I live within my means. I do not, however, have a good grasp of macroeconomics. A number of economists have commented about the Euro’s having been a bad idea that seems to be leading Europe into financial collapse. I have read the discussion but haven’t fully understood it. I am at least ahead of those who think that increasing the U.S. debt ceiling is authorizing the government to spend more money and further increase indebtedness, when it actually authorizes the government to pay the bills that have already been racked up. When “real economists” talk about financial machinations, however, my mind goes into “boggle” mode. When it comes to economics, I am fully at the “Specific” end of the Scope Metaprogram.
When it comes to logistics, however, I am at the global end of the Scope Metaprogram. I can see the “Big Picture.” The way the details connect, however, escapes my grasp. I can, of course, see the UPS double-trailer trucks on the highways and the FedEx and USPS trucks making the rounds through the neighborhoods. I understand that if I want to send a package from Kalamazoo, Michigan, to Somewhere, Montana, my package goes from a local collection point in Kalamazoo and then goes through a sorting process, where it is routed to another collection point (or points), before it ends up at a collection and distribution point in Somewhere, Montana. That’s the Big Picture.
How those responsible identify the specifics required to get my package from here to there know how to make that happen, however, is a mystery to me. The system usually works, even though something occasionally goes wrong in the process. A year or two ago, I ordered a vest for delivery and watched it on the shipping company’s tracking system go from the place of origin to locations farther and farther from Kalamazoo before it simply disappeared. The company from which I ordered sent a replacement, which arrived on time. Most of the time, packages arrive at their intended destination without a problem. I find that surprising, given the complexity of the task of identifying routes, modes of transportation, and the timing of connections.
The ends of the Scope Metaprogram often presuppose a current state (a starting point) and a desired state (an ending point) with some kind of process—a strategy—separating the two. It is less clear (at least to me) whether this metaprogram also applies to a static state, such as viewing a single flower or a painting. Do you see the entire flower as a gestalt, or do you see the various parts and then form a gestalt (the mental equivalent of assembling a jigsaw puzzle very quickly)? A nineteenth-century artist, Georges Surat, developed the pointillist style of painting based on his belief that the whole is created by and depends on the individual parts. We can see the forest (or what a Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte looked like) only when we get far enough away to see the way the whole is comprised of numerous parts. As how much of what we see is based on distance (which is the reason we developed both microscopes and telescopes), this concept seems to be more closely related to framing and “chunk size” than to the Scope Metaprogram.
The metaprograms of NLP are essentially strategies that describe behavioral approaches to solving common problems. The metaprograms are typically presented as polar opposites, with individuals choosing between. The Direction Metaprogram, for example, governs whether individuals move away from things they don’t like or toward things they desire. While all the metaprograms, including the Scope Metaprogram, have extremes, what’s often overlooked is that, in most cases, people cycle back and forth between the extremes. In working with a jigsaw puzzle, for example, most people start by looking for edges and corners with reference to the “big picture” of the finished puzzle. If you’ve ever done a large jigsaw puzzle, you know from experience that locating the corners and edges is a good place to start, but it is also helpful to know where on the puzzle different colors occur.
The polarities of the Action Metaprogram are a preference for Initiating or Responding. You are probably already aware that whether you initiate action or respond to someone else’s action depends on context. You might be a “take charge” type at work but prefer to be a responder at home. You may be quick to introduce yourself to others in face-to-face situations but prefer to have them call you than your doing the calling. The same is true for the other metaprograms as well as for other strategies. From time to time, recognize that your behavior is a choice and that you can choose to be aware of the options. Remember the best strategy is your having the flexibility to choose the most appropriate alternative from among the options. Whether you prefer to start with a global perspective or with the specific details, by the time you have finished, you will have needed to attend to both aspects of the metaprogram.
You may find that this is the case with all the metaprograms. When it comes to “Conduct,” for example, you may find that you happily break some rules while consistently following others. Whether you focus primarily on similarities (“Matching”) or on differences (“Mismatching”) you are aware of both—and recognize the validity of both—even if one may be more salient than the other. Once you become aware that such preferences are learned behaviors, you will recognize that you are already using both Global and Specific strategies and can choose which to use when.
