Corboy, these would be useful suggestions if those who were asked to attend such programs had any idea that these sorts of things existed. The trouble is that, as happened with me when I took part in an LGAT, I wouldn't have dreamed that the "training" was going to involve what it did.

You assume that your employer is not involved with something like this and you assume that the training will not involve abuse of any kind. Imagine working for a "normal" organisation that wanted you to go on a "normal" training. It would seem strange to anyone other than a person who had been through an LGAT to ask, "They're not going to scream at me, are they? They won't ask me to talk about the time my uncle molested me, will they?" A "normal" employer would think that these sorts of questions were crazy. It's only after being exposed to one of these trainings that anyone could have the foresight to be vigilant going forward.

kdag wrote

If an employer sees a need, a simple "Comportment" seminar would do just fine, I think. Once again, there would be no need for anything that remotely resembles "psychological," work - NO boundary violations, sleep deprivation, "sharing," etc, but more of a "Finishing School" type workshop, if you will. That should be the maximum requirement of such a nature for work.

I, and a few other OD practitioners in Asia have been discussing WHY so much OD training, (coach training could be included), and corporate OD programs is/are not actually focused on improving business results.

For instance, a typical business (people/team development) issue might relate to poor cross-functional communication, e.g. MKT is not communicating with Sales, or teams are not collaborating across a region. Addressing these issues usually entails helping leaders and their teams become more aware of disconnects, and also the benefits of collaboration. In some cases, design of simple cross-functional team projects (BUSINESS-RELATED) is enough to create behavioral change. Rewarding employees for cross-functional collaboration is, also, an obvious remedy.

A 'thought reform' approach would entail the assumption that teams are not collaborating owing to barriers between individual workers, wrong MINDSET, and that these barriers must be broken down via psychological interventions that may entail 'sharing', 'confessions', re-conceptualizing of team(s) as 'ONE', a 'collective'.

Many of these 'thought reform' programs are rolled out at global level, and will be masked under agendas such as "Diversity", "Inclusion".

If a program is not targeting a specific business concern, good chance you are in 'thought reform' land.

Landmark-type 'milieu' control, sleep deprivation is not really required to achieve these changes, so much as the engineering of concepts of 'right thinking'...peer group pressure does the rest.

I can tell you that when organizations tout the 'diversity' thing'y, 'one' study, conducted in 'one' Florida university is cited. That study indicated that 'diverse' teams make better decisions.

I BIG TIP OFF TO 'THOUGHT REFORM' programming is that it is premised on minimal research.

If, for instance, the organization announces that it wants to build a "coaching culture", WATCH OUT. There is really no consensus as to what is a "coaching culture", and there is little to no applied research related to the effectiveness of "coaching cultures".

///

What I am suggesting is that you cannot always identify a Landmark-style 'thought reform' agenda based on the style of the training. You have to look at the objectives.

I think it is also useful to look at the trainer, or coach's background.


I clipped this speaker bio off an event announcement from an Asia-based coaching network.

'X' is an Organizational Development and Leadership professional with 25 years of working experience, out of which 12 years in Asia. He is an entrepreneur and active as an international consultant, executive coach, facilitator, speaker, therapist, hypnotist and NLP-coach.

He founded his company and Learning and Development methodology "X", which is scientifically based on psychology, neuroscience, quantum-physics and epigenetics.

As a psychologist he is an HR expert in talent and leadership assessment and development programs, business development and general management of HR consulting services.

In my experience, HR specialists are HR specialists, therapists are therapists; neuroscience experts focus on neuroscience, coaches focus on coaching, which does not entail hypnotic techniques.

When I see a bio like that, I think Landmark.

EG,

ABSOLUTELY, YOU GOT IT. A normal employee would assume that his normal employer would not see any value in inflicting such a program on his/her employees. Also, not all LGATs look like Landmark, but may contain the same 'technologies'.

It is possible that the project 'sponsor' (at any level of the corporation) could have been sold LGAT, without understanding the implications, or,

as 'not moses' indicated in an earlier post, the organization, itself, may have been infiltrated.

As one point in my journey of figuring out what dangerous b.s. this stuff is, I worked for a Japan-based OD company. This organization had a training center 'on' the Great Wall of China. Leaders, including Bill Gates, flew in to this facility for DAYS of group work. I, naively thought that it was useful for leaders and their teams to get away from the office environment; that this change of scenery promoted fresh thinking. Now, I think this was 'milieu control'...and, facilitated 'thought reform'.

It can be very subtle, and, it is often premised on some 'study' that is frequently cited but nobody really looks at, or discusses.

I think the James Damore case at Google is a perfect example of this, and one we can valuably discuss in this forum. It provides a clear example of an organization that has replaced its business agenda with a social engineering, 'thought reform' agenda.

Its SUBTLE.

kdag wrote,

In fact, maybe the (proposed) law could simply state that NO employer may require of their workers to attend ANY class, seminar, or workshop for any reason other than those directly related to the nuts and bolts performance of their job.

///

Maybe we could frame this as, no employer may require that workers attend any class, seminar, workshop that is not focused on skill-development related to business needs, and substantiated by evidence of those business needs.

Some of this touches on the so-called Corporate Social Responsibility agenda. In truth,and under U.S. law, corporations have no social responsibility other than to abide by the statutes and relationships in place in their jurisdiction.

I think it is important to look at social engineering agendas (whether we agree with their ends, or not) and consider 'do corporations have this right, or responsibility?

I guarantee, they will always abuse it.

Further to the above post, I would like to develop a protocol for performing background checks on trainers, and training organizations.

If your employer isn't conscientious enough to do this, YOU CAN.

Regardless of the stated training agenda (if it is stated), I think it would be reasonable to avoid any program administered by a trainer with affiliations to Landmark, and related entities.

As a case study, I will background check the individual whose profile appears above and let you know what I learn. Note, X has no letters behind his name, and, no legitimate psychology program is listed in his bio.

Mr. 'X''s Linked-in profile indicates a "Masters in Psychology" from something called "Free University"...

M.A.'s in Psychology do not refer to themselves as "psychologists".

bakkagirl wrote:

"'X' is an Organizational Development and Leadership professional with 25 years of working experience, out of which 12 years in Asia. He is an entrepreneur and active as an international consultant, executive coach, facilitator, speaker, therapist, hypnotist and NLP-coach.

He founded his company and Learning and Development methodology "X", which is scientifically based on psychology, neuroscience, quantum-physics and epigenetics."

Wow. So ALL of these worry me: "facilitator, therapist, hypnotist and NLP-coach. ...methodology "X", which is scientifically based on psychology, neuroscience, quantum-physics and epigenetics."

"Facilitator," would not have worried me before, but i have seen it used so much in the context of these groups. Neuroscience would have NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in any business training workshop, I would think.
Epigenetics?!?!?

These people are messing around where they have no business.

kdag,

This guy's bio features more red flags than a Chinese Communist parade.

That said, I see the same constellation of pseudosciences, or inappropriately applied sciences on MANY profiles.

As one who is regularly vetted by U.S.-based coaching brokers I am aware of what they are looking for...and, I cannot figure out why coaches should be expected to have a background in neuroscience -- NOT FEASIBLE, not necessary.

Also, I never know what they mean by "facilitator". There are facilitation skills, facilitation training courses and certificates attached to these. They seem authentic. But, what they are asking for is somehow 'different'.

Although we cannot seem to lay hands on Landmark 'train the trainer' materials, I would imagine that the skill sets acquired, and shallow knowledge bases developed in Landmark trainers, would resemble this guy's profile. Just guessing ;-).

Executive Success Programs, NXIVM

Here is a feature length article describing how someone's brother was recruited into Keith Raniere's NXIVM.

Raniere set it up to target high powered people.

"At This Point We Are In Despair": One Woman's Quest To Bring Her Brother Home From NXIVM

AMELIA HARNISH

JUNE 29, 2018, 11:55 AM

[www.refinery29.com]


A few extracts from this very informative article.

Multiple franchies

Quote

as many as 18,000 people have taken self-improvement courses through NXIVM, either in Albany or at one of their centers in New York City, Los Angeles, Vancouver, as well as various cities in Mexico, since the late 1990s. These courses, sold as Executive Success Program seminars, are supposed to help people overcome emotional blockages rooted in childhood experiences and be “more successful, more joyful,” as one ex-member explained to Refinery29.

Sources:

“What I came to understand is that Raniere is not an original thinker. He is really a copyist, which is typical of LGATS,” Ross says referring to Large Group Awareness Trainings. (Another example of an LGAT is Landmark Forum.) “All Raniere did was combine elements of Scientology, the Landmark education seminar structure, Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism, plus a multi-level marketing aspect that’s reminiscent of Amway or Herbalife.”
This was back when the Executive Success Program was still the only program under the NXIVM umbrella. But now, Raniere has proved himself as a “master manipulator,” Ross says.

Quote

When Alex first started attending NXIVM seminars (which can cost up to $10,000 each) in New York City, termed Executive Success Programs or ESP, Diana says that “he seemed more social. He was making new friends. I thought this was great.” But then, in the spring of last year, Alex announced to his family that he was giving up his apartment in Brooklyn, leaving his sales job, and moving to Albany to attend The University of Higher Education — at the time, Raniere’s latest project to educate the masses and change the world.

This sent Diana’s tight-knit family into a crisis. “[Alex] told us he was joining the university at NXIVM, and we were like ‘What the fuck is that?’” Diana says. “That’s when I realized this was incredibly dangerous.” The unaccredited program costs $5,000 a month. By the time Alex let his plans be known to his family, he had already signed the paperwork for a one-year commitment, and a series of non-disclosure agreements. “He’s an indentured servant basically. He’s indebted to them,” Diana says.

"It seemed as though his deflections were rehearsed...as though his deflections were rehearsed".

Quote

Her brother wouldn’t answer direct questions about the group, except to say how happy he was, and how great an education he was getting. She couldn’t quite put her finger on why, but it seemed as though his deflections were rehearsed.

She was forced to do her own research during this time, which, surprisingly, wasn’t hard given all that has been written about Raniere over the years. “I learned about ‘Vanguard,’ which is what they call him. I learned all about the sashes and the uniforms and the bowing and the subjugation,” Diana says. “At that point, I freaked out. I went crazy. I was very concerned for his safety.” But even then, all Alex would say is that nothing that had been printed about Raniere lined up with his experience.

Diana confronted Alex about all that she learned multiple times, always in tears, begging him to see what she saw.

His response was almost as though he had been trained in how to deflect it.

“He would just deftly regurgitate my feelings. He would say he understands that I’m worried, but he was unwavering,” Diana says. “[Alex] truly believes he’s being elevated as a human being. That he is in this program of cutting edge education that will change the world.”

Quote

Most recently, NXIVM (which is kind of like a parent company to all these separate entities) offered multiple tracks to self-awareness: ESP remains the largest and is often the entrypoint for most people. But there’s also Jness, for women; Society of Protectors or SOP for men, both for teaching Raniere’s regressive ideas about gender. There’s The Source for actors, The Knife Media, Rainbow Cultural Garden for children, the University program, and of course, there's DOS. All of these various curricula have their roots in Raniere’s method known as Rational Inquiry. The teachings are quite confusing, filled with self-serving jargon and psychobabble, but the basic gist of the philosophy is that the only way to be “ethical” is to focus on your own self-interest and growth. To do that, people have to get out of their own ways, which is where exploration of meaning or “EM” comes in. These are essentially therapy sessions, somewhat reminiscent of Scientology’s controversial auditing methods, that supposes that childhood memories and past traumas create deep-seated illogical beliefs, behaviors, and “stimulus-response patterns.” The idea is that once you understand these barriers, you can reject them and live a fuller life, free of your chains.

This is not unlike many other self-improvement modalities — on the surface, this sounds a lot like run-of-the-mill group therapy. But what makes it sinister is that it’s delivered under false pretenses in a setting ripe for manipulation

. “You are told this is about self-improvement, but really it’s all about serving Raniere,” an ex-member says.

Protecting Intellectual Property -- Isolating Yourself

ESP seminars, for starters, are designed as intensives: 5, 10 or even 16 10-hour long days, with the content designed to make you emotionally vulnerable by encouraging you to share your fears and weaknesses with the group. You are sworn to secrecy beforehand, and each day, the group repeats a 12-point oath that includes a promise of not divulging the secrets of the program.

You are told this is to protect Raniere’s intellectual property, but this also serves to keep you from talking to anyone who might point out how deeply creepy this is.

Part of the evil genius is that most people are recruited into the seminars by trusted, often high-achieving friends or loved ones

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2018 09:59PM by corboy.

corboy,

Phew!!!

What struck me in reading all of this (and, I will read the full article) is the role 'technologies' play in soul capture.

I had read a lot about W.E. before I watched videos of his presentations, interviews. Bright, accomplished people ooozed about Erhard's genius. And, then you listen to him, his actual words...whoa.

Don't know if you have seen any vids of Raniere, same quality, or lack thereof. Doesn't even come off like a good con artist like Tony Robbins; just comes off as not too bright.

In truth, there is no real IP to protect.

You copied in this:

Diana says. “[Alex] truly believes he’s being elevated as a human being. That he is in this program of cutting edge education that will change the world.”

I think this kind of emotional response is the real HOOK of these programs.

What you shared of this NXIVM case study reminded me of two people who asked me to mentor them through coaching programs. These were six month-long programs conducted in group intensives, and on-line work. Different providers, same format.

I regularly asked each party, "So what are you learning?" I would get vague or no answers. It was as though they could not remember, or could not articulate their experience. I heard no critical thinking questions from either mentee.

At the conclusion of their programs they might well have described themselves as Alex is said to, above. And, they were incredibly FULL of themselves.

I have been coaching executives for a dozen plus years, and am still full of questions, and learning gaps. Not so for my mentees, they were on a whole other plane...

I'm a reader, and a collector of information, have mountains of books on coaching, management science, file cabinets full of clippings, and many computer files.

I suspect my mentees would never see the need for this kind of information, or learning. They have picked up the tricks of the guru's trade.

corboy, I think these programs need to be FULLY OUTED. Beyond the money and time involved, they produce appalling human beings.

b