Probably the most disturbing account of Landmark I've heard yet. Not so much what she says (I'm sure most of us have read worse descriptions) but the emotion that comes across in the video.

[www.youtube.com]

Chilling, yes!!!

Having been involved with the corporate training world for a very long time, I can say that what this woman describes deviates from everything 'normal'.

That these participants are asked to sign waivers, and NDA's is a big RED FLAG.

I always figure that what people do with their own time, well, it is caveat emptor, but when employees are compelled to participate in these so-called development programs, many legal Rubicons have been crossed.

And, this is never discussed, or rarely discussed in training circles.

ARGH!!!

Bakkagirl

Bakkagirl wrote:

"That these participants are asked to sign waivers, and NDA's is a big RED FLAG.

I always figure that what people do with their own time, well, it is caveat emptor, ..."

I definitely see your point here, but keep in mind that there's no small amount of arm-twisting going on in ordinary, non-work related recruiting, either.

Both in the forum, and in the weekly seminars, a significant amount of time is spent on pressuring participants to get guests to attend introductions, and in training those participants on how to mentally strong-arm people into coming. They role play, literally pass a box back and forth. The person playing the part of the "target" will give their reason for not coming, and the seminar leader will come up with a "solution." Really, it always felt to me as if they were trying to mentally "trap" people into coming.

Keep in mind, that most people are recruited by friends and family members, so their guard is down, and recruiters are relentless. I suspect that very few people ever say to themselves, "Gee, i really, really want to do the Landmark Forum." I almost backed out, even if it meant forfeiture of the deposit. Like most others, I went because my recruiter seemed so invested in my going. I suspect that most people go because they are trying to not let someone else down.

Since most people are known by their recruiters, the recruiter usually has some knowledge of their personal life. They zero in on your Achilles heel, and apply leverage accordingly.

Some examples might be:

"Well, i guess you really aren't very committed to saving your marriage. "

or

"I guess you don't really want that promotion as badly as you say you do."

In many cases, they target people who are struggling with something, or who have just taken some hard knock, and they will say, (as my recruiter did with me),

"Well I guess you don't really want to get over it. You'd rather just be a victim."

See how that works?

Yes, I do see how that works.

Seems like the worst elements of multi-level marketing scheming have been weaponized with pseudo-psychology.

In my world there is a slightly different dynamic, as in I am approached to participate in various training programs, to be 'trained'. If I ask about program contents, I never receive an answer. (What I have been able to figure out, though, is that these training programs are VERY MUCH like Landmark, or ARE Landmark being delivered under a different brand.)

What is communicated is that if I don't participate and join 'X' club/cult, I will not receive work.

One of my goals is to simply inform the corporate buyer of professional development services, what they are, in fact, buying.

Bakkagirl

Bakkagirl ,

I do appreciate what you are saying, - that it is held over your head that if you don't attend, you won't receive work. Also, that when you ask questions about the program itself, answers are vague to nonexistent. The course description is just as vague in the private sector. Nobody knows what they are buying.

To have that held over your head at work threatens your very survival, so in many ways, it is an extreme pressure.

I just wanted to point out that social pressure can be similar. We are social creatures. Pressure from a spouse/S.O., ("If you don't do this, I don't see how we can save our marriage/relationship."), can, in many cases, be just as bad.

In my case, I was in a social group that was focused on "New Age" type spirituality. Since "New Age" is not organized, inclusion in the group was important to me, and to many others. We couldn't just go find another as easily as one could change churches. The group was by invitation only, but we were an eclectic mix of various belief systems and practices - Wiccans, "Shamans" "New Age." Nobody pushed their beliefs onto anyone else.

The woman who had organized and conceived of the group later got into Landmark. It was after this that she started pressuring other members of the group to do the forum. At first, she was just trying to sell us on it, but the pressure increased with each passing month. Toward the end, she started saying that maybe only people who had done Landmark would be allowed in the group.

The group would do activities together, and support each other's lives, and you started to notice that only those who had done Landmark were invited to certain gatherings. The explanation was that those who had not done Landmark would not understand the flow of the conversation. Also, she started to increasingly set up group activities that were centered around Landmark teachings. I left that group at about the same time i left Landmark. It was just as well, because every person in the group had simultaneously started behaving as if I wasn't even in the room. It was very obviously contrived to be that way.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2019 06:36AM by kdag.

Kdag,

What you report is VERY interesting. It 'sounds' like Landmark, via the 'recruiter' had designated New Age groups as a fertile ground for recruitment, and that your recruiter was using group dynamics to coerce participation in Landmark.

May I just say that, that borers on EVIL.

I wonder if that strategy is operant, too, in professional groups?

As you know, I believe that X, Y, Z coach training entities, and coach networks are a DIRECT off-shoot of Landmark -- these groups have trumpeted this involvement in their own literature.

What I can say is that I joined one of these groups based on its ostensive mission to promote awareness of the field of coaching. I participated for approximately one year and did not observe real efforts to fulfill this mission. The group refrained from holding 'open to the public' events; insisted on meeting in an inaccessible location; rarely focused on coaching-related topics during its meetings -- and blackballed anyone who asked questions.

Seems like same strategy to me.

Bakkagirl

Bakkagirl,

Yes, you are right! I started seeing more and more "Landmark think" in the New Age community at large.

It probably also works its way into certain churches, and we already know that they recruit sometimes from 12-step groups.

"New Age" is especially susceptible, I think, because there are no authority figures and no hierarchy, so they don't really have to usurp anyone to install those things. I tend to notice these things, but people are so accustomed to authority figures in society that they seem to come in under the radar with a lot of people. As far as I'm concerned, anytime you see an authoritative "New Ager," or especially what appears to be a "New Age fundamentalist," you can assume that the teachings are bastardized in some way. That's not "New Age"!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2019 10:28AM by kdag.

kdag wrote:

"New Age" is especially susceptible, I think, because there are no authority figures and no hierarchy, so they don't really have to usurp anyone to install those things. I tend to notice these things, but people are so accustomed to authority figures in society that they seem to come in under the radar with a lot of people. As far as I'm concerned, anytime you see an authoritative "New Ager," or especially what appears to be a "New Age fundamentalist," you can assume that the teachings are bastardized in some way. That's not "New Age"!

I saw an opposite phenomenon occurring in coaching circles, that being that 'authorities' in the field, and I do believe in authoritative sources in the social sciences, happily jumped on board the coach 'network' thing. At first I thought that they rationalized this repositioning based on the idea that these networks had built enthusiasm for the field, in general...I expected that they would make efforts to CLEAN IT UP. I have seen no CLEANING UP.

What I would say is that there are healthy and necessary expressions of authority, and if we eschew all authority, we are ripe for the plucking by guru's, and totalist technologies like Landmark.

Bakkagirl

Indeed! I agree that there are some places and situations where authority is needed. I just didn't see a need for it in my spiritual life.

In the business world, corporations do need a chain of command, with policies and rules. Societies could not function without laws. On the flip side, very few adults need authority figures in their personal lives, (with the exception of a few general laws).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2019 12:31PM by kdag.