Abstract: The purpose of the present study was to assess the differential effects of initial counseling sessions that used basic components of the NLP meta-model as compared to initial sessions which used interventions central to the general systems approach. Subjects consisted of 44 undergraduate students who were randomly selected from a pool of volunteers who had previously expressed an interest in participating in counseling research. The subjects were randomly assigned to a session in which interventions from the meta-model were employed or to a session in which techniques from the general systems approach were used. A posttest-only control group design was employed and the resultant data subjected to a one-way analysis of variance. No differences were found between the meta- model and the general systems group. Each experimental cell was evaluated from three vantage points: from the perspective of the counselee; the counselor; and external raters. The dependent measures were the Counseling Evaluation Inventory (CEI), the Counselor Rating Form (CRF), the Depth of Self- Exploration Scale (DS-ES), and a shortened form of the CEI. Both approaches received favorable scores from the three vectors of evaluation. However, the results failed to provide evidence that there are measurable differences between counseling sessions which use interventions from the NLP meta-model and counseling sessions which employ verbal interactions from the general systems approach. These findings suggest that the interventions from the NLP meta-model are neither better nor worse than those techniques currently presented in psychological training programs. Thus, further research is encouraged to understand the appropriate use of the NLP meta-model in counseling and psychotherapy.