Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Out. . .

The training cults are back, getting media coverage and being embraced by morally bankrupt "leaders" who are willing to trade the promise of results for employee dignity and respect. Some people will jump at any promise without consideration for the details, the methodology, and the human consequences of the intervention.

This post was prompted by two things:

a. Contact from my friend Alex Kjerulf, The Chief Happiness Officer, who received an email that "chilled my blood when I read it".

Got my attention. After all, Alex is The Chief Happiness Officer.

The email Alex received included a link to a somewhat-dated Fast Company article about one Fernando Flores and his approach to "open, honest" communication being peddled to, and bought by, corporations. Read the entire article.

Flores' approach, among other things, is for "honest feedback" in the form of the following (these are examples from a person whose company pays for this training and which the contributor claims are accurate). I am using the information verbatim--with some fill-in-the-blanks-- so that you can get a genuine look at the kind of "openness" this mode would espouse:

• “You talk about things that you know nothing about so people think you are a bull_ _ _tter!!”
• “You are not telling me a good story about what you are doing…you are incompetent”
• You have no skills…you are fu_ _ed up when you leave here”

Note that the "feedback" attacks the very worth of the individual. This is a psychological tactic designed to ultimately create dependency on "he who is worthy." This leads to the ability to control.

b. After reading the content and link to the email, I was immediately reminded of a situation at AT&T.

Let's Look Up "Lawyers" In The Yellow Pages

Immediately following divestiture in 1984, it was my role to lead the change efforts at AT&T Information Systems and part of Western Electric.

One day, my client--the VP of the operation--called me into his office. He was disturbed by a request he had received from an employee who had attended a weekend retreat and immediately went to the VP's office on Monday morning to insist that everyone needed "this." The VP had an uneasy feeling and asked me to look into it. I did.

It turned out that the retreat was a personal growth "experience" conducted by the then-latest iteration of the Werner Erhard organization. Erhard (born John Paul Rosenberg) was the founder of 'est'. If you click on the link on his name it would be worthwhile reading it--and this--from beginning to end.

My client firmly refused to become involved following my report to him. We continued to be approached not only by the permanently-smiling employee, but via telephone by other devotees recruited to recruit us.

We were fortunate.

The folks out at the then newly-formed Pacific Bell bought in. By the time the dust settled from the $100 million dollars (you read it correctly) spent on "employee training", PacBell was awash in employee lawsuits as well as suits and countersuits with the Erhard people.

And The Connection Is. . .?

Back to Flores.

He has been a follower and student of Erhard since 1971. Erhard financed Flores' first "personal growth" business venture.

Companies and organizations need to be especially discerning when it comes to subjecting employees to any outside training influences whose foundations are to alter reality. That is what, in part, this approach is all about. Combining attractive--but unspecific--words such as transformation, change, growth with feedback, honesty, and openness sounds like motherhood and apple pie (apologies to our readers outside of the U.S). Employees are vulnerable in situations supported by senior executives whose job is, in great part, to build people up as well as ensure their safety in the workplace.

Buying into any activity that tears people down, demeans, and disrespects them in the name of "honesty" shows a lack of wisdom and discernment at best and, at worst, a willingness to trade off the health and well-being of employees for a promise of quick results. If you haven't yet been exposed to these tactics masquerading as "development", be alert. In difficult times humans are especially susceptible to promises of deliverance.

Here's a quick and easy test.

Let's say your mother decides to stop by and cook dinner for you and your spouse. It was made with love but really wasn't all that tasty. So you show her how enlightened you are in order to create an even closer, more trusting relationship that will help you truly bond:

"Well, Mom, you have no skills…and you are fu_ _ed up when you leave here.”

I didn't think you would.

_______________________

Alex, The CHO, has posted his thoughts here.

Comments

[Beth Robinson]

OMG. I cannot think of a faster way (and, yes, I think that includes non-criminal versions of sexual harrassment)to get me looking for a different job, ANY different job, even if it involved taking money from my parents to pay my mortgage, than my manager consistently making statements like that to me with the approval of top management!

It is really scary to think that there are companies that buy that training.

[Steve Roesler]

Beth,

It does happen, it is happening, and it's important to recognize it when it appears on the scene.

If someone chooses to opt-in to that kind of "experience" on their own outside of work, that's an individual choice. You now have me wondering: If HR depts. are conducting training for every imaginable form of real and imagined harassment, where is their discernment on these kinds of interventions?

[Lisa Gates]

Oh this is really a difficult post to read. In part because I took the aforementioned training (on my own) in 1994, and it was one of the best things I've ever done. I did 4 courses with what is now called Landmark, although I have to say I never drank the recruiting Kool-Aid. I (and nobody else as far as I can tell) was never torn down or ripped apart, although I was forever altered. Shifted. Changed.

In 2003 I was volunteering for a nonprofit whose board president "mandated" everyone in the organization to take the Landmark training. I objected because the mandate was contrary to the values of the organization (autonomy and personal responsibility among them). And his mandate carried a threat of "not being a right fit any longer if you don't."

His actions caused a huge rumpus and he resigned after several months of havoc, including the loss of several big, long-time donors.

Moral of the story: Model your learning. Be your learning. If the learning is paired with leadership and grace, the trickle down will be natural AND freely incorporated.

The other moral of the story: Reality is not objective.

[Phil Higson]

I'm so glad you've written this Steve. I saw Alexander Kjerulf's post this morning and read the Fast Company article in full. I have to say I can fully understand yours and Alex's responses and some of the comments that have followed on both sites.

Interestingly, one of two of those comments seem to have supported Flores (though not mine - I had to compose several drafts before I managed to compose myself!). Alex has posted a very reasoned and detailed reply which is well worth reading.

[Steve Roesler]

Lisa,

I have no objection to any adult knowingly and voluntarily opting in to whatever kind of "growth" activity they think is a match for them at the moment.

It is the combination of mandate + the model represented in the article that violates, rather than builds, individuals.

[Steve Roesler]

Phil,

Thanks for citing the conversation on Alex's blog. I would direct readers to your link to follow the various points of view.

[Bud Bilanich]

Way to go Steve. Good one!
All the best,
Bud Bilanich

[Michael Lee Stallard]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for explaining the link to Erhard. These methods are repulsive and reminded me of Edgar Schein's article about the brainwashing techniques he studied during the Korean conflict and how such methods are used at times in organizations. Here's the link to the Schein article: http://www.solonline.org/res/wp/10010.html

Michael

[Howard Schumann]

Most of the criticism comes from those who have received their information second hand. The vast majority of those who have done either est or Landmark have been extremely positive. There are more lies and misinformation about Werner and his programs than for any other personal growth program.

One wonders why this program has been so threatening to the scientific establishment, the right-wing anti-cult crusaders, and those who thrive on putting anything down that is of benefit to a great many people.

The stories about cults and brainwashing are ludicrous nonsense. It only took me one half hour of the est training in 1974 to find out that the ground of being of the training was love and support. The training was challenging and the fact that people's lives were transofrmed over the course of two weekends was one of the most inspiring things I've ever seen in my life.

Why can't others see that? It makes me wonder with all the lies and cons people are surrounded by these days if it is even possible any longer for people to recognize something that is true, honest, and full of integrity.

[Steve Roesler]

Howard,

I would have to wonder, if it is true, why there would be so many lies and information about that program vs. all others if there weren't substance to the comments after so many years. I don't condone passing judgment based upon second-hand information. I have heard both pro and con comments from participants.

The issues I take in the post above are:

1. With company-sponsored "personal growth" that places participants in a threatening position regarding their jobs if they choose not to go along with such an approach.

2. Personal growth activities are just that. If one decides to "do some personal work" and understands the methodology applied (in most cases they don't because such methodologies wouldn't survive the light of day if published in advance), then it is a matter of individual choice.

3. I would have to question one's definition of "love" if it is connected to the application of profanity and degrading language. If "truth and honesty" are the real intended product, then both should be spoken in a spirit of love so that they can more easily be heard. No one who ever loved me spent their time calling me names and cutting into the core of my being.

[Howard Schumann]

I'm a film critic but you wouldn't rely on my judgment if I reviewed movies that I hadn't seen. Whose judgment do you think might be more reliable - someone who spent seven years in an organization, participated in as many as ten weekend trainings, and watched the lives of their two children turn around after taking The Landmark Forum, or someone who has gotten some word of mouth comments from others? My suggestion to you is to take The Landmark Forum, then we can talk.

[Steve Roesler]

Howard, actually I am quite familiar with the Landmark Forum and its process(es) and am pleased that it has had the impact that it has on your children.

The issue from my perspective is not about whether or not the Landmark Forum has positively impacted peoples' lives. I know that it has, as one of my employees has been to multiple weekends. My issue is that attending personal growth experiences should be the result of personal choice, not corporate directive. Since you are intimately familiar with the methodologies, you would recognize that "placing" someone into an intense situation is much different than "opting in" to an intense experience. There are many ramifications: legal, psychological, and otherwise.

[Howard Schumann]

Steve: Yes, I agree that it should be a matter of choice, not a corporate directive but as I see it, the forum can only be of benefit to people who are willing to be open and honest about themselves.