The diagram above represents how a facilitator-therapist-coach can use vectoring. Since it is a process which involves “circular chains of causation” (Bateson), and since circles do not have a ‘beginning’ or an ‘end’, you can arbitrarily start anywhere and follow the flow around the system.

For convenience, in the description below, we will start with the facilitator’s initial state, #2:

First Round

#2	The facilitator starts with a blank or empty model of the client’s model (map) of their world.
#3	That means starting with no idea of the client’s desired outcome or any predetermined ‘ideal’ state (note: this includes the goal of many types of facilitation such as “integrated”, “congruent”, “mature”, “in their body”, “aligned”, etc.).
#4	The facilitator chooses a desired process outcome, i.e. decides on a ‘vector’ (see below). Rather than a specific end point, the aim is for the client’s attention to 'go somehere' or 'head in a direction'. An example of a common starting vector is to aim: ‘for the client to identify a desired outcome (if they have one)'.
#5	The facilitator asks a question which has a high likelihood of meeting the aim in #4, e.g. they ask “And what would you like to have happen?”.
#6a	The client responds internally (based on their model of the world).
#6b	The client responds externally (verbally and nonverbally).

Second and Subsequent Rounds

#1	The facilitator notices some of the client’s verbal and nonverbal responses (#6b). Penny for example is "paying attention to what the client is paying attention to" from their perspective.
#2	The facilitator updates their model of the client’s model (map) of the world based on those responses.
#3	The facilitator notes the client’s desired outcome statement — or the lack of one — and makes it a reference point for all future decisions.
#4	The facilitator chooses a desired direction, a vector, for the next part of the process. If the facilitator is using the PRO Problem-Remedy-Outcome model as a guide then: If #6b does not include a desired outcome statement, the facilitator continues on the same vector as #4 in the first round. If #6b does include a desired outcome statement, the facilitator switches vector, e.g. ‘for the client to develop their desired outcome statement into an embodied (symbolic) perception’.
#5	The facilitator asks a question (or does some other behaviour) which has a high likelihood of meeting the chosen vector.
#6a	The client responds internally (based on their model of the world).
#6b	The client responds externally (verbally and nonverbally).

   
And so on. Now the process repeats iteratively, i.e. each round builds on the previous state of the system.

Over Time

Let’s look at how the process works over time:


Assumptions


Skills Required

To use vectoring, a facilitator needs to develop certain skills, such as the ability to:

#5	Know the function of each question they ask and be able to deliver it with the appropriate syntax, vocal qualities and nonverbals.
#6	Know what a client is likely to do internally to make sense of the question. In other words, when/where in the client’s perceptual landscape does the question likely direct their attention?
#1	Be able to distinguish a client desired-outcome statement from every other kind of information presented e.g. using our REPROCess model this might be: Resources, Explanations (including meta-comments and ‘facts’), Problems, Remedies, Changes.
#2	Separate their model of the client’s information from their personal model of the world (including their model of therapy).
#3	Hold the client’s current desired outcome(s) in mind throughout the session. And, be able to track the history and directionality of the client’s desired outcome statements throughout and across sessions.
#4	Have knowledge of, and the skill to apply a range of common vectors, and be able to devise a vector in-the-moment based on the logic in the client's information. (See below for a list of common vectors used in Symbolic Modelling.)

      
Distinctions

At any moment there are three kinds of outcome:

#6	The client's desired content outcome. [Note 1]
#3	The facilitator’s model of the client’s desired outcome — the facilitator’s dynamic reference point.
#4	The facilitator’s desired process outcome — which is in service of #6.

NOTE 1: This can be complicated if a client also has a process/means desired outcome, e.g. "I want to achieve X by means Y." Commonly a client will choose a means that either won’t get them to their desired outcome or reduces their options. This is when the Solution is a Problem (Paul Watzlawick).

The effectiveness of vectoring depends on:

• The isomorphism (structural similarity) of #3 and #6.
• The relevance of #4 to #3.

At times the process requires subtle modification, when:

• The client cannot state a desired outcome.
• The client is running a Self-Delusion, -Deception, -Denial pattern.
• The facilitator decides the client's desired outcome is seriously unecological.

There are a number of other distinctions that are vital to keep in mind when working in an outcome-orientated way:

• The difference between a desired Outcome and a proposed Remedy [PRO]
  
• The difference between a desired outcome and an actual outcome? [Timeframe]
• Who 'owns' the outcome and who is it for? [Perceptual Position]
• Is it a content or process outcome? [Level]

Let’s look more closely at the ownership and the content/process distinctions.

A desired content outcome will have an owner and be for someone. There are four options:

• Client's desired outcome for them self or someone else in their life (needed for outcome-based therapy/coaching.)

• Client's desired outcome for the facilitator (e.g. The client plays 'please the facilitator').

• Facilitator's desired content outcome for the client (needed for therapist/coaches that are 'well-intended'; and for administrative aspects, e.g. “I want the client to pay me”).

• Facilitator's desired content outcome for them self. (Needed in product/exemplar modelling or Clean Language Interviewing where there is no intention for change; or for exploitation where the intention is to benefit the facilitator at the expense of the client.)

A desired process outcome will be set by the facilitator (except where a sophisticated client wants to decide the process as well as the content - in which case the facilitator needs to work at a meta desired process outcome level). Different styles of facilitation will be based on the dominant timeframe of the desired process outcome:

• In the moment
• For the next several minutes (= a vector)
• For as long as it takes to do a technique (consisting of a number of vectors)
• The session
• Beyond the session

Expert facilitators are simultaneously aware of all these timeframes, although they may or may not use formal techniques (see our three-box model) .

Vectors
A vector is a facilitator’s desired process outcome for the client.  It involves heading in a direction (even if that is aiming to invite the client to maintain their  attention in one space/time). Vectors are usually general enough to allow for several means of moving along a vector.  While there are common, off-the-peg vectors which are used over and over, some vectors are 'bespoke' in that they are decided in the moment and are designed to fit a particular client's circumstances. As a rule of thumb, vectors are often about 3-10 questions in length.

The purpose of using the metaphor ‘vector’ is to emphasise that the process is going or heading in a direction. In a bottom-up modelling process the ‘end’ of a vector is rarely reached. More likely a new vector is chosen part-way through. There is a strong analogy with a sailing boat tacking (see diagram).

It is vital that the distinction between a client's desired content outcome and the facilitator's vector (desired process outcome) is clear to the facilitator. Should this be forgotten there is an increased likelihood that the facilitator’s desired content outcome becomes involved, and the process  becomes less and less clean.

A key concept is ‘nested or simultaneous vectors’. For example, in a recent demonstration, Penny's initial vector was "For the client to identify a desired outcome" (vector A). Since this wasn't immediately forthcoming, Penny kept this vector open while heading off on another vector which was "For the client to develop a perceptual landscape for their current state" (vector B). As Penny facilitated the client to locate a few symbols a current-state inner landscape began to take shape. When, at her tenth question, Penny again asked ”And what would you like to have happen?”, the client answered with a desired outcome statement. This ended vector A. Vector B was left open and temporarily set aside in pursuit of a new vector "For the client to develop their desired outcome perception" (vector C). This continued for half a dozen questions until a problem with the desired outcome became apparent, which set Penny off on a new vector D (attend to the problem) ...

TOTEs

There is a similarity between a vector and a TOTE. The T.O.T.E. (Test, Operate, Test, Exit) model is an iterative problem-solving strategy based on feedback loops, devsied by George A. Miller, Eugene Galanter, and Karl Pribram (Plans and the Structure of Behavior, 1960). If you are familiar with TOTEs and are able to apply them in the moment during a client session you probably won’t need the notion of a vector. However, if you’ve never quite been able to apply TOTEs, the vector metaphor might be more to your liking. One advantage of the vector metaphor is that it is more embodied than the TOTE — imagine sailing boats making progress by tacking rather than abstract computer algorithms.

We’ve always found it strange that although a Goal is part of the model it is not included in the acronym TOTE.  By contrast, a vector by definition includes a direction. Another distinction between the two is that a vector is about heading in a direction, whereas a TOTE is about achieving an end-state (from which you Exit). In the ever-changing process called therapy, if you are not using a technique, getting to the ‘end’ of a vector is an exception rather than the rule.
 
To conclude

At every moment vectoring requires the facilitator to hold in mind both a client-content and a facilitator-process desired outcome. Because the client’s desired content outcome can change over time, and because except in the simplest of cases the client can't go straight from where they are to their goal, the facilitator needs to regard the client’s desired outcomes as a series of dynamic reference points.

In a top-down, technique-based approach the facilitator has an idea of where the whole process is going and their job is to guide the client towards that.

In a bottom-up vectoring approach the end result is not known until the client gets there. Therefore the facilitator needs to continually be prepared to modify the process direction in light of each new piece of information. In setting a direction in the moment the process heads along a vector for a short time before heading off on the next vector. The overall direction of the session thus becomes the sum of all of the vectors and the length of time each vector is maintained.

Lastly, in the above we have focused on desired outcome orientation. Another important component is actual outcome orientation. As a rule, the focus of the orientation will over time alternate between desired and actual outcomes.

SOURCE MATERIAL of our exemplars:

Steve Andreas, a video of Steve using The Forgiveness Pattern (CD set).

Robert Dilts, the transcripts and videos of the Northern School of NLP workshop (2006) examples available in Modelling Robert Dilts Modelling.

Steve De Shazer, the transcripts in Words Were Originally Magic (1994).

David Grove, many many hours of observation and the all the transcripts, audio and video tapes listed in his Bibliography of Publications.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

With thanks to Phil Swallow for coming up with the term 'vector' and for numerous other contributions to this model including Marian Way, Matthew Dodwell, Wendy Sullivan and Judy Rees.

:

- Developing a Resource
- Sourcing a Resource
- Finding what’s problematic about the Problem
- Developing a Remedy

Remember, the following examples of common vectors are abstract generalities. They are for illustrative purposes. Vectors are what actually happen during actual client sessions (or other interactions). In this respect every vector is unique. A vector is the direction in which:

or

Although vectors are defined by their From-To(ward) structure, as a shorthand common vectors have acquired names. For consistency and to show that vectors are active processes, we think these names should (as a rule) be of the form:


e.g.   

We define the most common vector-verbs as:

VECTOR DEFINITIONS/METAPHORS

Stage*	Vector	Definition
1	Identify	Make known, put a name to, establish, make out, discern, distinguish
1	Elicit	Draw out, extract, bring out, bring into the foreground
2	Develop	Elaborate, give form to, bring forth
2	Select	Pick out from a number of, single out, opt for, decide on, settle on
3	Explore	Investigate, find out what’s there, look into, search
3	Test	Trial, assess, (re)examine, check out
4	Source	Find: origin, instigator or ‘from whence it came’, root, beginning, genesis
4	Encourage	Prompt, foster, cultivate
5	Mature	Evolve, develop, extend, follow effects, ripen, bring to fruition, grow up
5	Evaluate	Assess, compare/contrast, weigh up, rate, appraise

* The stage where this class of vector would typically be applied in The Five Stage Process (described in Metaphors in Mind).