Newsgroups: alt.fan.landmark
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) 
Date: 1999/12/24
Subject: Re: mr ballard
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In article <83pm58$r...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
  "Pamela Fitzpatrick"  wrote:
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )  wrote in message
> news:83l61u$osr$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > n article <83iu2g$7m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> >   "Pamela Fitzpatrick"  wrote:
> > > R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )  wrote in message
> > > news:83i1p5$oi8$1@nnrp1.deja.com...

> > > > Landmark's technology **Could** be exploited in some not nice ways.

This is part of the reason they don't just let people walk out of a course and start "doing the Forum on people". "Landmark *tries* to prevent this type of abuse."

This is just my personal opinion (caveat):

When people complete the Forum, they have had some level of transformation, but basically they are still pretty much self-centered, self oriented, and motivated to meeting their personal needs even at the cost of the needs of others.

> So, this is your opinion...and if I recollect you have been around the corporation for a bit, right?

I've been a volunteer. I've taken many courses. I have been trained in some of the leadership programs. I am not certified to lead even an introduction to the Forum, let alone a seminar or a breakthrough course.

> Do you see anything *wrong* with what you just wrote?

Landmark tries to produce extraordinary results in 3 1/2 days. They do this by focusing on personal development - having the individual create love, respect, and affinity with a few of the most important people in their lives.

At that point, much like a child who has taken 3 weeks of karate, they know how defend themselves in an "all or nothing" situation, but they aren't qualified to compete, to fight with a master of martial arts. They still need to learn the discipline of avoidig the fight.

After the Forum, people learn to see others more compassionately. They see what was previously a world of people to complain about, as a few people who really love them and show it in unusual ways.

These people aren't trained in how to "sell the course". In fact, they are the WORST possible representatives of Landmark. Most of their guests don't even know what they are coming to, in some Forums guests don't even go to the introduction rooms. Sometimes the participants will tell their guests that they are coming to "graduation", or "Dinner and a funny show". They show up in this huge room, with testimonials, and people who are too happy to be normal (they will mellow out in a few days :-).

> Basically, you are *admitting* how people come out of the courses...and what the intent of the other courses are.

Yes. Out of the Forum, people have learned the fundamental principles to turn problems into opportunities, turn complaints into solutions, turn fear of others into compassion for the fear experienced by others, and turn hate or resentment into love. This is termed "Transformation".

Not bad for 3 1/2 days.

After the Advanced Course, people have learned to cause transformation in others, and to really appreaciate what's important to others. They learn to serve others by helping others fulfill what's important to them. As a result, they begin to distinguish themselves as members of communities that have common goals, dreams, and commitments. They begin to see which commitments, including the unspoken commitments, may conflict with the primary commitments. For example, a community may espouse love, compassion, and family values, and yet their is an undercurrent of intolerance of others who are different that may include racism, sexism, religeous intolerance, and even justified violence against target groups.

The Advanced course graduate has the skills to shift those conflicting agreements and focus on the primary goals of the communities in which they live. An interesting side-effect of the Advanced Course (possibly an intended side effect) is that people get enrolled in each other's communities. The Opthomologist from India enrolls a Stock Broker on Wall Street into ending cornial blindness in third world countries. A Palastinian enrolls a hassidic Jew into the possibility of lasting peace in the Middle East. A black minister enrolls a corporate officer into contributing computers to churches and community centers in the area.

I couldn't tell you for sure whether this was intentional, but it is designed into the course. Many guests at the Advanced Course Evening Session are community leaders who are looking at this course as a source of resources.

The S.E.L.P. is about putting "Possibility into Action". Participants enroll people into a project and empower them to become leaders. Some of those leaders might to Landmark courses, but more importantly, this course is were the "rubber meets the road". By the end of the course, many projects have become "runaways" that will perpetuate themselves even if the participant died. This is actually a goal of the program.

> Is this a way of dimissing any responsibility on the part of LEC the previous courses>?

I don't know about previous courses.

> That if you don't do *all* the courses then you are "incomplete" and that > isn't the fault of the organization?

Each course leaves you complete with the intended level.

There are people who do the Forum, start having a love affair with their own spouses, and communicating with their kids in a way that makes them want to communicate back and they are happy and satisfied. They aren't interested in becoming leaders. They have otherwise full lives which may even include leadership roles in their churches, workplaces, or the little league teams. Many of these will drop out of their free 10 session seminar about half way through (about 20% of those doing their first seminar do drop out - mostly because they are satisfied and don't want to do any more.). Landmark actually took on a project of calling people who hadn't participated and found that most had simply "gotten what they wanted".

There is a smaller percentage, but a real percentage that do get upset by all the pushy people and the time wasted talking about sharing the forum (horribly dubbed the "Guest Conversation"). They have a legitimate complaint. When a seminar leader focuses on "bringing guests" instead of "Sharing the Forum" (turning resentments into love,...) a few people bring "pelts" (you really need to do the forum, it will streighten you out) who don't register and walk in feeling invalidated and walk out feeling even more invalidated. Worse, as many as 1/2 the people who started the seminar have dropped out by the end of the course. These seminar leaders don't lead any more seminars.

> I guess I don't understand...it's like I see one thing in print and then I > see another and they both conflict mightly but are okay with you.

The Forum Produces breakthroughs in 5 areas:
     Personal Relationships
     Communicating to bring out the best in others.
     Personal Effectiveness
     Doing what's really important to you.
     Making choices powerfully and effectively.

Of course, the best way to "screw that up" is to start trying to "sell the course" instead of practicing the principles of the course. :-)

> And out of curiosity....*just* what does your "answer" directly have to do with what I said to you

Perhaps I misunderstood the question. You pointed out that there are times when Forum Graduates can get very "pushy" and irrating (Bullying). I pointed out that sometimes they "trying their judo" instead of "Practicing the discipline".

If someone starts getting pushy, ask them if there's anything they need to give up. Is there any amends that need to be made. Are there any broken promises that need to be remade or revoked? Is there something driving this "you need to do the Forum" conversation that is making it seem like manipulation. If you're upset, they aren't sharing Landmark properly. This includes myself.

From our conversations, it appears that you've done the Forum and you've had a few folks try to "sell you a course".

It's funny. When I'm in the center having conversations with people, I'll just listen to what they've been accomplishing, what they are committed to, and what they'd like to accomplish that they haven't done yet. Then I'll just say "have you tried X (one of the courses) it's really good for producing those results". I walk away. Often, by the end of the night they have enrolled in the course and can't wait to tell me about it.

Landmark has about 20 courses and seminars. I've taken enough of them to know which ones are most likely to produce which results. I don't even worry about statistics. On average, I enroll two people into something every time I visit the center. Even when I don't want to (which I usually don't).

> > > I have yet to of seen anything that Landmark actually *does* to stop the bullying and abuse that *does* occur .

[snip previous answer]

Bullying does occurr. It's usually because people are trying to sell the course to a stranger, or worse "someone who really needs it", and because they are completely ignoring everything their Forum Leaders, Advanced Course Leaders, Communications Course Leaders, Center Managers, Enrollment Managers, and Particpation managers (did I cover all staff members ?) tell them NOT to DO.

When I was production team Leader I finally got to the point where I insisted that every production manager who called a potential production assistant (someone who had asked to be on a production team) have a calendar of every course being offered. They would call the assistant and share a bit about assisting - mostly finding out what the assistant's needs, goals, interests, and hopes were. Then they would ask "when would you like to assist - what weekends are good for you?". Invariably they would get bookings for 2-3 courses from one call, and the assistant was eager to participate.

Prior to this, each production manager was calling each assistant to ask them to assist in the course that was about to begin. Not only did the assistant have to deal with short notice, but the PM was so desparate that they would start trying to make the assistant feel guilty.

I still had PMs who would go into "frantic calling mode", but if either me or the staff member in charge of production caught them, we'd have a 15 minute conversation to make sure that they stopped "making messes".

Using "high pressure enrollment" (guilt, shame, begging...) we often started courses with less than a full team.

Using "open invitations, based on their interests" (real Enrollment as Landmark defines it) we often had teams overfilled as much as a month in advance.

If someone from Landmark says "you gotta do this course", I start right out with "I don't gotta do anything". If they can't at least take the time to find out what's important to me, they have no right to ask me to do their "friggin course".

You know. When I do that, they get back to what Landmark stands for, what it tries to teach in it's courses. In the communications course they actually spend a whole hour trying to distinguish Sharing the Forum and Enrollment (cleaning up what's in the way, finding out what people are up to, and looking for ways to forward their commitments) from "Selling the Course" (trying to use a "Killer share" about how great your life is and trying to use guilt, shame, failures, elitism... to convince them to do the course).

I'm living a life I love. But if I'm sharing the Forum instead of selling the course, what matters is where you are living a life you love and what you'd like to do next.

Sometimes, what's next is "Shamanic Journeys", or "Christian Revivals". If I'm really focused on the other person, I'm going to see if there's anything that might forward their commitments. If I'm just "selling a course" anything you say will be used as justification to get you to register in MY course.

One of my favorite analogies of this is when a moderately overweight person is telling an obese person that they want to lose weight, and the obese person suggests "their course" (the one they are statistically accountable for). If this course is so good at helping people lose weight, and we BOTH want to lose weight, why are you claiming that this will alter the weight.

If you really want to forward your relationship with that person, and you know a personal trainer who has been producing great results for people, you might give them that trainer's name, a card, or promise to have the trainer contact them. THEN your "guest" might be open to discussing a matter which MIGHT be appropriate to "your course".

> IMO? Slick way to avert any real responsibility on the part of the corporation and you "bought" into it too..."well, they didn't complete the courses..." and "they didn't listen to us".

Ladders have 27 different warnings pasted on them, most of which are ignored. Each course has 30 minutes to an hour of warnings about "selling the course" most of which are ignored by over-eager participants.

I do remember reviewing one Forum where the Forum Leader actually told the participants "YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BRING GUESTS" unless you have "remade or revoked any broken promises", admitted any harm done, and told them that you love them and you know that they love you and listened to whatever they had to say and thanked them for the contribution they are to your life. He even threatened to "pull your covers" during the evening session (and he DID!).

The punch line. The guest statistics were off the charts :-). One participant said "they followed me here". The number of FES guests who registered was unusually high as well.

> > > And *a lot* of people don't listen Rex.

Ladders have 27 stickers.

> No it's not. It's a matter of language skills being taught that are highly abusive.

Historically, I would agree. Landmark is trying to shift this as quickly as they can. Unfortunately, Landmark/EST has a 20 year HISTORY of it's own that they need to put in the past. The corporation leadership is trying to do this. There are still some old "Esties" who insist on "hammering the guests".

I might point out that I have the LOUSIEST CONFIRMED GUEST RECORD (7 confirmed guests in 10 years). I do however keep getting phone calls, e-mails, and voice-mails from people I talked to for as little as 3 minutes, only 30-90 seconds about the Forum, who wanted to thank me for telling them about Landmark.

> It should not be that difficult to deal with Rex...it's an *excuse*. A ~racket~ if it makes it easier for you to understand.

Good POINT! It's My racket!

> I suggest that you obtain coaching about this matter. It ain't gonna come from me at this point. I only suspect at this point that your usefulness to LEC as you are is what is keeping you from learning to be a *real* leader.

Good point!

> -pam

Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million and growing at 2%/week!

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/