Landmark in Bangkok Post
Posted by:
grub
()
Date: November 18, 2008 10:46PM
From this article in Bangkok Post
There is a follow up letter from a Landmark drone which can be found here. Don't they get tired of spouting Doc Ray Fowler's comments? Maybe after all these years Fowler's KoolAid all they can come up with.
Business >> Thursday November 06, 2008
Train The TRAINER
The Landmark debate
AL LOCK
One evening, a friend of mine invited me to go to Landmark Education and attend an orientation on Landmark Forum. I had never heard of Landmark Forum. It sounded interesting, so I went.
One of the things I have discovered about the Landmark Education system is that it uses the final session of each programme to encourage participants to bring guests, who are potential participants in the next programme. The programme is inexpensive, and financially this approach seems to work.
The first 90 minutes of the programme were focused on explaining what Landmark Education and Landmark Forum are. This was obviously targeted at the 30% of us who were guests who had not attended a programme before.
In that hour and a half, we were told about adult learning theory and the difference between knowledge-based and experience-based learning (Landmark uses its own terminology, but the concepts are the same). We also heard testimonials from previous participants about how the Landmark experience had changed their lives. And finally we got a bit more overview, focused on tearing down who you are, giving you a blank slate to create a new you.
I'd heard all of this before, in various forms and from different sources. Although the Landmark people claimed that their "transformation" approach is unique, it is fairly evident that it is not. The concepts introduced regarding knowledge-based learning and "transformational" learning are a relabelling of Malcolm Knowles' theories regarding adult learning, the theoretical base of active-learning, and pretty much the norm in how any good training firm approaches training. (However, good active-learning practitioners get the participants involved in the first five minutes and don't keep them sitting in a chair being preached at for an hour and a half).
Three things bothered me about this presentation (I walked out as organisers were preparing to register guests).
First was the presentation "style". There was a lot of effort to be emotional, to put out a lot of energy, and some of the techniques used were clearly manipulative. There was no opportunity for questions to be asked.
Second were the testimonials. In each case, the description of behaviour prior to the programme and what life changes had been made afterwards sounded strikingly like someone who had gone through psychotherapy. As a matter of fact, the programme is considered "large group psychotherapy" in the various studies that have been done on it in professional literature. Yet, as far as I can determine, none of the trainers are trained psychologists, psychotherapists, or psychiatrists.
The third thing that bothered me was the part about the tearing down of who you are, giving you a blank slate to create a new you. I've heard this before too, in studying Communist re-education systems under Lenin, Stalin and Mao. This sounds suspiciously like the process used by the Soviets in preparing confessions for their show trials or the first stage of the brainwashing process.
It's a very powerful place to take someone, but also a very dangerous place to take someone. As a training professional, I think that the risk of taking participants to that place requires significant safeguards - safeguards that I do not believe are in place with this programme.
In France, Landmark Forum has been classified as a "possible cult". The Cult Awareness and Information Centre in Australia has listed the Landmark Forum among "psychotherapy cults". Given what I saw, I can understand exactly how that classification has been applied and why. Is it an accurate label? I don't know.
In the Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology [990; 58(1): 99-108], a study of participants compared with non-participating peers revealed that participants were significantly more distressed then peer and normative samples. There have been articles in the American Journal of Psychiatry (three articles), and in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica regarding the psychological effect of these seminars.
In the US, Landmark Education is required to screen participants for psychological issues prior to training. Maybe it does so here, but I didn't see any indications of that.
One of the claims made during the presentation was "change doesn't work". Change is the basis of life on this planet. We are constantly changing from the moment of conception until the moment in which we die. It doesn't work? Change can be scary, and many people don't want to change. Is this programme appealing to those who don't want to change, but need to and must be "reprogrammed" in order to?
A friend who is a psychologist told me that a significant reason programmes such as this are successful is because the participants create their social network out of the programme. Surrounded by others who say the programme is great, the natural reaction of a social creature (which man is) is to agree.
In doing some additional research, I discovered that it is very common for people to feel good or inspired at the end of a Landmark Forum session. The need for that feeling can become addictive, leading to more enrollments, involvement as an assistant, and eventual involvement as staff.
Would I recommend the programme? Based on what I saw, heard and have learned through research? No. I strongly recommend anyone considering this programme to do some of their own research. There are fairly detailed accounts on the internet from people who were very happy with the programme and accounts from those who weren't. Make up your own mind; don't let the sales pitch do it for you.Do you have a training question or issue that you would like to see addressed here? Please e-mail me and I'll see what we can do.
Al Lock is the Business Development and Marketing Consultant for t+b solutions ltd. (http://www.tandbsolutions.com) He can be contacted at al@tandbsolutions.com
--
grub (Gordon Grieder)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2008 10:51PM by grub.
There is a follow up letter from a Landmark drone which can be found here. Don't they get tired of spouting Doc Ray Fowler's comments? Maybe after all these years Fowler's KoolAid all they can come up with.
Business >> Thursday November 06, 2008
Train The TRAINER
The Landmark debate
AL LOCK
One evening, a friend of mine invited me to go to Landmark Education and attend an orientation on Landmark Forum. I had never heard of Landmark Forum. It sounded interesting, so I went.
One of the things I have discovered about the Landmark Education system is that it uses the final session of each programme to encourage participants to bring guests, who are potential participants in the next programme. The programme is inexpensive, and financially this approach seems to work.
The first 90 minutes of the programme were focused on explaining what Landmark Education and Landmark Forum are. This was obviously targeted at the 30% of us who were guests who had not attended a programme before.
In that hour and a half, we were told about adult learning theory and the difference between knowledge-based and experience-based learning (Landmark uses its own terminology, but the concepts are the same). We also heard testimonials from previous participants about how the Landmark experience had changed their lives. And finally we got a bit more overview, focused on tearing down who you are, giving you a blank slate to create a new you.
I'd heard all of this before, in various forms and from different sources. Although the Landmark people claimed that their "transformation" approach is unique, it is fairly evident that it is not. The concepts introduced regarding knowledge-based learning and "transformational" learning are a relabelling of Malcolm Knowles' theories regarding adult learning, the theoretical base of active-learning, and pretty much the norm in how any good training firm approaches training. (However, good active-learning practitioners get the participants involved in the first five minutes and don't keep them sitting in a chair being preached at for an hour and a half).
Three things bothered me about this presentation (I walked out as organisers were preparing to register guests).
First was the presentation "style". There was a lot of effort to be emotional, to put out a lot of energy, and some of the techniques used were clearly manipulative. There was no opportunity for questions to be asked.
Second were the testimonials. In each case, the description of behaviour prior to the programme and what life changes had been made afterwards sounded strikingly like someone who had gone through psychotherapy. As a matter of fact, the programme is considered "large group psychotherapy" in the various studies that have been done on it in professional literature. Yet, as far as I can determine, none of the trainers are trained psychologists, psychotherapists, or psychiatrists.
The third thing that bothered me was the part about the tearing down of who you are, giving you a blank slate to create a new you. I've heard this before too, in studying Communist re-education systems under Lenin, Stalin and Mao. This sounds suspiciously like the process used by the Soviets in preparing confessions for their show trials or the first stage of the brainwashing process.
It's a very powerful place to take someone, but also a very dangerous place to take someone. As a training professional, I think that the risk of taking participants to that place requires significant safeguards - safeguards that I do not believe are in place with this programme.
In France, Landmark Forum has been classified as a "possible cult". The Cult Awareness and Information Centre in Australia has listed the Landmark Forum among "psychotherapy cults". Given what I saw, I can understand exactly how that classification has been applied and why. Is it an accurate label? I don't know.
In the Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology [990; 58(1): 99-108], a study of participants compared with non-participating peers revealed that participants were significantly more distressed then peer and normative samples. There have been articles in the American Journal of Psychiatry (three articles), and in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica regarding the psychological effect of these seminars.
In the US, Landmark Education is required to screen participants for psychological issues prior to training. Maybe it does so here, but I didn't see any indications of that.
One of the claims made during the presentation was "change doesn't work". Change is the basis of life on this planet. We are constantly changing from the moment of conception until the moment in which we die. It doesn't work? Change can be scary, and many people don't want to change. Is this programme appealing to those who don't want to change, but need to and must be "reprogrammed" in order to?
A friend who is a psychologist told me that a significant reason programmes such as this are successful is because the participants create their social network out of the programme. Surrounded by others who say the programme is great, the natural reaction of a social creature (which man is) is to agree.
In doing some additional research, I discovered that it is very common for people to feel good or inspired at the end of a Landmark Forum session. The need for that feeling can become addictive, leading to more enrollments, involvement as an assistant, and eventual involvement as staff.
Would I recommend the programme? Based on what I saw, heard and have learned through research? No. I strongly recommend anyone considering this programme to do some of their own research. There are fairly detailed accounts on the internet from people who were very happy with the programme and accounts from those who weren't. Make up your own mind; don't let the sales pitch do it for you.Do you have a training question or issue that you would like to see addressed here? Please e-mail me and I'll see what we can do.
Al Lock is the Business Development and Marketing Consultant for t+b solutions ltd. (http://www.tandbsolutions.com) He can be contacted at al@tandbsolutions.com
--
grub (Gordon Grieder)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2008 10:51PM by grub.
Re: Landmark in Bangkok Post
Posted by:
ON2 LF
()
Date: November 19, 2008 07:12AM
I agree grub, these characters need to get a new defense or something...they're not even thoughtful in how they continue to lean on their long over quoted "94%" approval rate.
In the article from the Bangkok Post, McNamara states, "Unfortunately, Mr Lock neglected to mention that, while he had never participated in the programme, numerous health professionals and educators had participated and in an independent survey by Harris Interactive, 94% agreed that the programmes are professionally conducted and provide great value."
The interesting issue here is that he claims, in the article, that 40,000 health professionals have taken the forum, I quote, "To date, more than 40,000 health professionals and educators have participated", but he does not clarify just how many participated in this survey. Lets just assume that all 40,000 participated, as the reader is supposed to assume anyway. He does not mention what type of health professionals they were-- they could be cashiers at a health food store, or maybe they are receptionists at a doctor's clinic...anyway, that's beside the point. The point is, these 'health professionals', and supposedly all 40,000, were surveyed, and "94%" agree that the "'programmes' are professionally conducted and provide great value." What is left to the imagination of the reader here is about how the 'programme' is being 'professionally conducted', and what is meant by 'great value'. Who or what 'professional' is the presentation being compared to? What sort of 'value' is derived from this programme? If this programme has nothing to do with Psychology or Psychotherapy, in what context is the programme valuable? Quoting the article; "In addition, Dr Raymond Fowler, retired chief executive officer of the American Psychological Association said, in his opinion, not that of the Association, ''The Landmark Forum could in no sense be regarded as psychotherapy or as a part of the discipline of psychology.'' (All I can say about this over quoted retired Dr. is, probably a good thing he retired...)
Does the term 'value' refer merely to the monetary value spent on the programme? 'Value' implies a benefit of some sort, but if it isn't Psychological or Psychotherapeutic, then it must be something else, question is, what?? It can't be personal to the participant, if it isn't Psychological...
Back to the 'professional' presentation of this non-Psychological programme--is the 'professional' description Landmark's version of 'professional', which anyone knows is nothing more than a well rehearsed Werner's parrot, or does the 'professional' have specific professional qualifications, the kind that most of us know as being legitimate professional credentials? These questions always remain unanswered.
Also, not ever mentioned in the quoting of that infamous '94%', is the 6% that disagreed. If this supposed 94% is based on the 40,000 'health' professionals surveyed, then there were 2,400 people who did not agree that the 'programme' was professionally conducted, or that it provided 'great value'. Of course, this is assuming that ALL 40,000 'health professionals' that have supposedly taken the Landmark Forum, were surveyed. This is assuming that the entire body of 40,000 people out of "1,150,000" who have taken the Landmark Forum, were surveyed. Incidentally, 40,000 of 1,150,000 is a mere (.03%). Is .03% truly representative of such a large population? Hmmm...in my humble and non-professional opinion..NO, .03% doesn't even come close to justifying the claim that a sample number of 40,000, in a population of 1,150,000, approve by 94%, of a programme that is non-Psychological in nature, and is of some unspecified great value. Nope, not at all.
Also, worth mulling over---is just the actual number of 40,000 people who were supposedly surveyed, this is a HUGE number of people covered in one survey. I wonder how long it took to pull off this survey? How was the survey conducted, and how were the findings analyzed? I've always wondered these things about this gigantic survey.
Also quoting the article, "Landmark Education is an international training and development company which, according to Marketdata Enterprises, ''is recognised for having one of the best faculty bodies in the business''. Named one of the top programme providers in the world by HR.com/James McNeil, more than 1,150,000 people have participated in Landmark's programmes worldwide."
RANDALL T MCNAMARA
Director of Corporate Communications
Landmark Education
My last questions--what faculty, and what type of business is he talking about? He comes very close to implying that this 'programme' is a type of 'education sytem'. If it is a part of an education system, why are its students ultimately expected to surrender their whole lives over to the 'school' by working for free as 'teachers' or student recruiters? What kind of educational system does this? How does such an educational system succeed at persuading its students to sign their free will, time, personal relationships, and assets over for the cause of the school, without any use or involvement of Psychology? How does such a 'school' justify its method of operation, which dependents primarily on the volunteer labour of its alumni, while it rakes in millions of dollars a year in 'tuition' fees? Some school, some education...and that's not even touching on the 'training' aspect which involves a non-psychotherapeutic approach.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2008 07:30AM by ON2 LF.
In the article from the Bangkok Post, McNamara states, "Unfortunately, Mr Lock neglected to mention that, while he had never participated in the programme, numerous health professionals and educators had participated and in an independent survey by Harris Interactive, 94% agreed that the programmes are professionally conducted and provide great value."
The interesting issue here is that he claims, in the article, that 40,000 health professionals have taken the forum, I quote, "To date, more than 40,000 health professionals and educators have participated", but he does not clarify just how many participated in this survey. Lets just assume that all 40,000 participated, as the reader is supposed to assume anyway. He does not mention what type of health professionals they were-- they could be cashiers at a health food store, or maybe they are receptionists at a doctor's clinic...anyway, that's beside the point. The point is, these 'health professionals', and supposedly all 40,000, were surveyed, and "94%" agree that the "'programmes' are professionally conducted and provide great value." What is left to the imagination of the reader here is about how the 'programme' is being 'professionally conducted', and what is meant by 'great value'. Who or what 'professional' is the presentation being compared to? What sort of 'value' is derived from this programme? If this programme has nothing to do with Psychology or Psychotherapy, in what context is the programme valuable? Quoting the article; "In addition, Dr Raymond Fowler, retired chief executive officer of the American Psychological Association said, in his opinion, not that of the Association, ''The Landmark Forum could in no sense be regarded as psychotherapy or as a part of the discipline of psychology.'' (All I can say about this over quoted retired Dr. is, probably a good thing he retired...)
Does the term 'value' refer merely to the monetary value spent on the programme? 'Value' implies a benefit of some sort, but if it isn't Psychological or Psychotherapeutic, then it must be something else, question is, what?? It can't be personal to the participant, if it isn't Psychological...
Back to the 'professional' presentation of this non-Psychological programme--is the 'professional' description Landmark's version of 'professional', which anyone knows is nothing more than a well rehearsed Werner's parrot, or does the 'professional' have specific professional qualifications, the kind that most of us know as being legitimate professional credentials? These questions always remain unanswered.
Also, not ever mentioned in the quoting of that infamous '94%', is the 6% that disagreed. If this supposed 94% is based on the 40,000 'health' professionals surveyed, then there were 2,400 people who did not agree that the 'programme' was professionally conducted, or that it provided 'great value'. Of course, this is assuming that ALL 40,000 'health professionals' that have supposedly taken the Landmark Forum, were surveyed. This is assuming that the entire body of 40,000 people out of "1,150,000" who have taken the Landmark Forum, were surveyed. Incidentally, 40,000 of 1,150,000 is a mere (.03%). Is .03% truly representative of such a large population? Hmmm...in my humble and non-professional opinion..NO, .03% doesn't even come close to justifying the claim that a sample number of 40,000, in a population of 1,150,000, approve by 94%, of a programme that is non-Psychological in nature, and is of some unspecified great value. Nope, not at all.
Also, worth mulling over---is just the actual number of 40,000 people who were supposedly surveyed, this is a HUGE number of people covered in one survey. I wonder how long it took to pull off this survey? How was the survey conducted, and how were the findings analyzed? I've always wondered these things about this gigantic survey.
Also quoting the article, "Landmark Education is an international training and development company which, according to Marketdata Enterprises, ''is recognised for having one of the best faculty bodies in the business''. Named one of the top programme providers in the world by HR.com/James McNeil, more than 1,150,000 people have participated in Landmark's programmes worldwide."
RANDALL T MCNAMARA
Director of Corporate Communications
Landmark Education
My last questions--what faculty, and what type of business is he talking about? He comes very close to implying that this 'programme' is a type of 'education sytem'. If it is a part of an education system, why are its students ultimately expected to surrender their whole lives over to the 'school' by working for free as 'teachers' or student recruiters? What kind of educational system does this? How does such an educational system succeed at persuading its students to sign their free will, time, personal relationships, and assets over for the cause of the school, without any use or involvement of Psychology? How does such a 'school' justify its method of operation, which dependents primarily on the volunteer labour of its alumni, while it rakes in millions of dollars a year in 'tuition' fees? Some school, some education...and that's not even touching on the 'training' aspect which involves a non-psychotherapeutic approach.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2008 07:30AM by ON2 LF.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.