I have been thinking about this a LOT, and have concluded that for me, and most folks working in executive and organisational development, coaching was a tool.

I saw coaching, delivered by managers, delivered by external coaches as a means of developing leadership and other skills.

I now think that for other people, coaching is an end goal. The medium is the message, if you will.

I say this because of the seemingly endless panoply of rules instituted with regard to the "coaching conversation"...how people talk to each other. And, I say this because of the pressure being brought to bear on coaches to use 'induction' technologies.

As I see it, there seems to be INTENT to replicate LGAT culture in the corporate environment. This may be witting, or un-witting. I would assume, though, that coaches who come out of Landmark and related organizations are so indoctrinated they no longer know what constitutes normal human exchange.

I hardly do, myself.

bakkagirl

"As I see it, there seems to be INTENT to replicate LGAT culture in the corporate environment."

I would expect this as having the potential to be very harmful. When I was involved in L.E., (beyond the long hours of the Forum for several days), I would be there for several hours a week. Maybe two hours for the seminar, and one three-hour assisting agreement. Plus may a couple of phone calls.
I thought of it as an abrasive, high-stress environment. I always felt that, in being there, I was desensitizing myself, and going home was always such a relief. It was like taking off an uncomfortable costume.

If you are going to make the work environment like Landmark, a 40-hour week of that would be WAY TOO MUCH exposure, in my humble opinion. I would seriously worry about the effect of that on people's health.
I don't think that this should be a condition of employment for anybody.

It resembles public education, which is no longer about learning but learning how to get along with others, IMHO.

I would think of Landmark as a control grid, with a sort of invisible hierarchy.

This is exactly what I 'see' in many so-called flat organizational structures.

I would also imagine that the so-called 'coaching culture' that many organizations now aspire to create is a Landmark structure.

Rather than having external systems of control, and conventional performance management, you can create internal systems of self-censorship, fake enthusiasm, and MOTIVATION.

I have always thought it is in a way GREAT that Japanese employees respond quite diffidently to employee satisfaction surveys (this strikes me as HONEST), whereas western counterparts frequently fall all over themselves to say how much they love their jobs, bosses, and organizations.

It's a mind-f#cK.