For several decades, a dominant narrative has structured our understanding of the evolution of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP): the “three generations” model, notably popularized by Robert Dilts. This linear conception of NLP’s development has progressively established itself as a privileged explanatory framework, profoundly influencing how trainings are structured and how practitioners position themselves. However, this vision deserves to be questioned, both in its foundations and implications. This article proposes to critically examine the generations model before suggesting an alternative conception of NLP’s evolution.
The Generations Model: Description and Limitations
The Linear Vision of Three Generations
The three generations model, developed by Robert Dilts, presents NLP as first evolving around behaviors and techniques (1st generation), then integrating beliefs and values (2nd generation), to finally encompass identity, spirituality, and notably “fields” (3rd generation). It is primarily his personal vision of NLP’s evolution, although it is often presented as an established truth.
According to this conception, the first generation, developed in the 1970s by Bandler and Grinder, focused mainly on behavioral and linguistic patterns, with tools like the meta-model, representation systems, and anchoring. The second generation, which emerged in the 1980s, allegedly broadened the scope to include work on beliefs and values, with techniques like timeline or belief reframing. Finally, the third generation, appearing after the 1990s, would be characterized by a more systemic and spiritual orientation, with an emphasis on identity, relational fields, and self-organization.
The Link with Logical Levels
What is rarely emphasized is that this classification into three generations subtly validates another model created by Robert Dilts: that of logical levels. The correspondence is striking:
- First generation = environment, behavior, and capabilities levels
- Second generation = beliefs and values level
- Third generation = identity and spirituality levels
This superposition is not coincidental. It suggests that the “natural” evolution of NLP would confirm the hierarchy of logical levels, while this model is very little contested in the field of “Diltsian” NLP, even though it has been criticized by many NLP authors (Christian Vanhenten has proposed the experience matrix model as an alternative to this established model).
Limitations and Blind Spots of the Generational Model
This vision, although appealing in its simplicity, has several significant limitations:
- It implicitly suggests that more recent approaches are more advanced or complete than previous ones, creating an artificial hierarchy where the “third generation” would be superior to the previous ones.
- It imposes a unique chronology on developments that were often simultaneous. Many innovations attributed to the “second” or “third” generation were already germinating in the initial works.
- It neglects the persistence and continuous evolution of so-called “first generation” approaches. Behavioral techniques have not been supplanted but have continued to be refined in parallel with other developments.
- It artificially creates distinct categories where continuities and overlaps often exist. The actual practice of NLP generally integrates elements from all three “generations” without rigid distinction.
- It contains a subtle commercial dimension by allowing the “refreshing” of training offerings and presenting certain approaches as being “up-to-date” or “cutting-edge,” when they are often a reorganization of existing concepts.
In reality, an effective practitioner works simultaneously on all these dimensions (techniques, beliefs, identity, fields) according to the needs of the context, without hierarchizing them. The emphasis on “fields” in the so-called third generation is not a chronological advancement but rather a complementary perspective that already existed in filigree from the beginnings of NLP, notably through Bateson’s influence on the initial development of the discipline.
As Gregory Bateson himself, one of the major inspirers of NLP, emphasized, “the map is not the territory.” The generations model is one map among other possible ones, and not the complex territory of NLP’s actual evolution.
NLP as a Dynamic Ecosystem
Parallel Rather Than Successive Currents
Rather than thinking of NLP in terms of successive generations, we can envision it as an ecosystem where different currents coexist and mutually enrich each other:
The pragmatic-technical current continues to develop around the effectiveness of interventions and methodological precision. It has not been “surpassed” by more recent approaches but has been enriched and refined over time. Richard Bandler himself, co-founder of NLP, never abandoned this orientation and developed it with Design Human Engineering and Neuro-Hypnotic Repatterning.
The systemic-relational current developed in parallel, adapting NLP principles to interaction contexts. Work on perceptual positions, logical levels applied to teams, or the use of the meta-model in mediation testify to this orientation.
The exploratory-integrative current emerged from the encounter between NLP and other disciplines. It is not so much an evolution as a creative hybridization. The integration of contributions from neuroscience, complex systems theory, or contemplative practices illustrates this dynamic.
The current of derived but distinct approaches has seen several practitioners develop methodologies that, while inspired by NLP, constitute original paths with their own internal coherence. Michael Hall’s Neuro-Semantics, which explores the reflexivity of thought and meta-levels of meaning, is a remarkable example. Rather than an “evolution” of NLP, it represents an in-depth exploration of specific dimensions already present in embryonic form in classical NLP. Similarly, Tad James’ Timeline Therapy or Connirae Andreas’ Core Transformation are not “advanced generations” but innovative explorations of particular territories – respectively the temporal structure of subjective experience and profound identity transformations – that coexist with other approaches rather than replacing them.
These currents do not represent chronological stages but orientations that have developed in parallel, sometimes carried by the same practitioners depending on the application contexts.
Multidirectional Movements
NLP’s evolution could be better understood as a multidirectional deployment:
Horizontal expansion concerns the application of fundamental NLP principles to various domains: therapy, education, management, sports, negotiation, creativity… This expansion does not follow a vertical progression towards “higher” levels but explores the relevance of the same principles in different contexts.
Vertical deepening represents the more in-depth investigation of mechanisms underlying already identified processes. For example, the understanding of submodalities has deepened thanks to a better knowledge of perceptual processes, without necessarily changing logical levels.
Contextual metamorphosis recognizes that NLP transforms according to the cultural and social contexts where it is implemented. NLP practiced in Japan, Brazil, or France develops distinctive characteristics that reflect local cultures, without one form being intrinsically “more advanced” than another.
This vision is much richer than a simple straight line that would follow the hierarchy of logical levels proposed by Dilts.
Non-linear Innovation Cycles
Innovation in NLP seems to follow cycles that do not fit into a linear progression:
The observation-modeling cycle periodically brings NLP back to its roots: the direct observation of excellence. After periods of theoretical elaboration, we often see a return to the field and the modeling of new forms of excellence, as Bandler and Grinder initially did.
The simplification-complexification cycle shows an alternation between periods where the development of sophisticated theoretical frameworks predominates and periods of return to operational simplicity. This dynamic reminds us that complexity and simplicity are complementary rather than opposed.
The integration-differentiation cycle reveals an oscillation between tendencies to incorporate contributions from other disciplines and movements of return to the fundamental specificities of NLP, to preserve its distinctive identity.
These cycles suggest an evolution that is not linear but spiral, periodically revisiting similar themes at different levels of understanding.
Non-hierarchical Development Axes
To better understand the diversity of approaches in NLP, we can identify several development axes that are not hierarchically ordered but represent different dimensions of exploration.
The Methodological Axis
This axis concerns how practitioners approach their practice:
The empirical approach is based on direct observation and experimentation. It favors what is observable and measurable in behavior.
The phenomenological approach centers on subjective experience and how it is structured. It explores the qualitative dimensions of experience.
The dialogical approach emphasizes the co-construction of meaning in interaction. It recognizes that change emerges in the relationship rather than being “applied” by the practitioner.
These approaches are not mutually exclusive nor hierarchically organized. An experienced practitioner can navigate between them according to the needs of the context.
The Epistemological Axis
The epistemological axis concerns the philosophical foundations that underlie practice:
Pragmatism evaluates ideas and techniques based on their practical utility. “What works is true” could be its motto, echoing William James.
Constructivism considers that reality is not discovered but constructed. It emphasizes the processes by which we elaborate our representations of the world.
Connectivism views knowledge as distributed in a network of connections. It is interested in relational patterns rather than isolated contents.
These epistemological positions coexist in the field of NLP and offer complementary rather than competing insights.
The Application Axis
The application axis distinguishes different orientations in the use of NLP:
Transformative applications aim for personal change. They include therapeutic work, problem-solving, and the development of specific capabilities.
Generative applications focus on creating new possibilities. They concern creativity, innovation, and exploration of unknown territories.
Participative applications are interested in collective processes. They encompass group facilitation, conflict resolution, and organizational development.
These orientations respond to different needs and contexts. None is intrinsically superior to the others; their relevance depends on the objectives pursued.
Towards a Rhizomatic NLP
To conceptualize this alternative vision, the metaphor of the rhizome, developed by philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, proves particularly relevant. Unlike the tree with its hierarchical roots, trunk, and branches (which strangely resembles Dilts’ logical levels model), the rhizome is an underground network of multiple connections, without a defined center, where each point can be connected to any other.
This conception strongly contrasts with the vision of successive generations which suggests that earlier approaches should be abandoned to adopt the most recent ones. In a rhizomatic perspective, the different dimensions of NLP – behavioral techniques, work on beliefs, exploration of identity, awareness of fields – coexist and intersect, all needing to be mobilized according to the specific needs of each situation. It’s not about being “up-to-date” by adopting the latest fashionable generation, but about having access to the complete richness of the NLP ecosystem.
A rhizomatic NLP would present the following characteristics:
- Principles of connection and heterogeneity: Any point of the rhizome can be connected to any other. In this perspective, the different approaches of NLP are interconnected without predefined hierarchy.
- Principle of multiplicity: There is no unity that would serve as a pivot in the rhizome. Rhizomatic NLP recognizes the coexistence of multiplicities irreducible to a fundamental unity.
- Principle of asignifying rupture: A rhizome can be broken at any place, it will resume along other lines. Thus, NLP can experience ruptures and discontinuities without compromising the entire system.
- Principle of cartography and decalcomania: The rhizome is not a model but an always-open map, connectable in all its dimensions. Rhizomatic NLP is constructed as a dynamic cartography rather than as a tracing of reality.
This rhizomatic vision offers several advantages:
- It values the diversity of approaches without implicit hierarchization
- It recognizes the simultaneity of developments in different directions
- It respects the plurality of contributions without imposing an evolutionist narrative
- It allows envisioning an open future where innovations can emerge from any point in the network
Practical Implications
This reconceptualization of NLP has concrete implications for practitioners, trainers, and the community as a whole.
For Practitioners
- Liberation from normative pressure: Free oneself from the idea that one must practice a “latest generation” NLP to be up-to-date
- Reflective eclecticism: Draw from different approaches according to specific needs rather than by adherence to a particular school
- Distributed innovation: Feel legitimate to innovate from one’s own practice, regardless of one’s position in the field
- Personalized integration: Freely draw inspiration from approaches such as Hall’s Neuro-Semantics, James’ Timeline Therapy, or Andreas’ Core Transformation not as “mandatory evolutions” but as complementary resources to integrate according to one’s sensitivity and the needs of the context
For Trainers
- Non-hierarchical presentation: Present the different NLP approaches as complementary options rather than as evolutionary stages
- Historical contextualization: Situate developments in their historical context without imposing a teleological narrative
- Encouragement of critical thinking: Invite learners to develop their own understanding of NLP rather than adopting a predefined framework
- Mapping connections: Show the links between classical approaches and developments such as Neuro-Semantics or Core Transformation, highlighting their specific contributions without hierarchizing them
For the Community
- Distributed governance: Develop organizational models that reflect this rhizomatic rather than hierarchical vision
- Transdisciplinary dialogue: Foster dialogue between practitioners of different orientations without prejudging their relative value
- Collaborative documentation: Collectively build a dynamic mapping of the field that reflects its complexity
Back to Fundamentals: Modeling as Essence
Beyond debates on generations or orientations of NLP, it seems essential to return to what constitutes its true heart: the modeling of the structure of subjective experience. This founding dimension, sometimes eclipsed by the proliferation of techniques and theories, deserves to be put back at the center of our understanding.
Modeling as a Transversal Essence
NLP was born from a modeling approach: Bandler and Grinder observed exceptional therapists to describe the underlying structures of their effectiveness. This approach was not one technique among others but the very essence of their project. As John Grinder emphasized: “NLP is the study of the structure of subjective experience, nothing more, nothing less.”
This fundamental definition transcends classifications into generations or currents. Whether exploring behavioral patterns, belief structures, identity dynamics, or relational fields, the approach remains the same: observe, describe, model the patterns that organize experience.
A Methodology Rather Than Content
Viewed from this angle, NLP appears less as a set of techniques or theories than as an exploration methodology. Techniques are merely products of this methodology, not its essence. What fundamentally distinguishes NLP from other approaches is not so much its content as its epistemological approach.
This perspective considerably relativizes the importance of “generations”: the different expressions of NLP do not represent successive evolutions so much as diverse applications of the same fundamental methodology to different levels of organization of experience.
Modeling in a Rhizomatic Perspective
In a rhizomatic conception, modeling remains the central process, but it applies simultaneously to different dimensions of experience, without pre-established hierarchy:
- Modeling of sensory and behavioral patterns
- Modeling of cognitive structures and beliefs
- Modeling of identity dynamics
- Modeling of relational and systemic fields
- Modeling of emergence and self-organization processes
These different focalizations do not constitute hierarchical “levels” but complementary dimensions of experience, all simultaneously accessible via the same fundamental methodology.
Modeling as a Practice of Excellence
Returning to modeling as the essence of NLP also allows reconnecting this discipline with its vocation of excellence. Rather than focusing on the application of standardized techniques or following a pre-established model like that of logical levels, the practice of modeling invites fine and creative observation, a perpetual curiosity for the patterns that organize experience.
This posture of perpetual exploration perhaps represents NLP’s most valuable contribution: not a fixed set of techniques or theories, but a permanent invitation to observe, describe, and understand the structure of our experience of the world.
Conclusion: A Plural and Evolving NLP
The rhizomatic vision proposed here does not claim to completely replace Robert Dilts’ generations model but offers a complementary perspective, more adapted to the real complexity of NLP’s development. It invites recognition of the plurality of approaches, the simultaneity of developments, and the non-linearity of innovation processes.
This reconceptualization frees us from the illusion that there would exist a form of NLP “more advanced” than others. The notion of “fields” highlighted in the supposed third generation, for example, is not intrinsically superior to behavioral or cognitive approaches; it represents a complementary dimension that a competent practitioner must know how to mobilize along with others. Excellence in NLP resides precisely in the ability to work simultaneously on all these dimensions, according to the specific needs of each context.
This vision is particularly relevant in the contemporary context, characterized by complexity, interconnection, and emergence. It resonates with the initial spirit of NLP which, as Bandler and Grinder reminded, was not conceived as a dogmatic corpus but as an invitation to explore the structure of subjective experience.
A rhizomatic NLP would thus be faithful to the founding intuition of its creators while opening up to the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. It would allow preserving what makes NLP strong – its pragmatism, its methodological precision, its openness to innovation – while enriching it with a more nuanced understanding of its own development. It would also free us from the commercial cycles of “renewal” that regularly present “new generations” to stimulate the training market, in favor of an organic and distributed evolution.
Ultimately, it is not about rejecting the generations model but situating it as one perspective among other possible ones, a map useful in certain contexts but insufficient to account for the richness and complexity of the territory. In the very spirit of NLP, multiplying maps allows us to enrich our understanding of the territory and expand our ability to navigate it with flexibility and creativity.
About the Author
Christian Vanhenten has been an NLP master practitioner since 1997 and is particularly passionate about modeling, a field in which he continuously develops his expertise. Founder of the Atelier PNL, he leads an open community aimed at fostering personal and professional development through exchanges and sharing. His vision is inspired by the collaborative logic found in the development of free software, where collective intelligence and everyone’s contribution enrich common knowledge.
This article is part of an ongoing reflection on the evolution of practices in NLP and invites the community to continue this dialogue. The author welcomes comments, criticisms, and suggestions that would enrich this alternative vision.