In-Reply-To: <4jvkr2$785@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: 
References: <4juueh$qtv@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4jvkr2$785@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard


On 3 Apr 1996, FinchHaten wrote:
> In article <4juueh$qtv@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, carol2180@aol.com
> (Carol2180) writes:
> In article <4jn1mj$i40@news3.realtime.net>, bladex@bga.com (David Smith)
> writes:
>
> >What do you mean by open up to scrutiny?  Landmark has commissioned 17
> >independent studies on the effectiveness of their programs,   
>
> < Lewis for which she received a grant from The est Foundation?

First of all, Landmark is not est anymore than a Lincoln Town car is a
bicycle.  Werner sold the company to the employees of Erhard and
Associates who licensed some of the technology from Erhard and went on to
develope a substantially different product called the Forum.  There are
some similarities, and both had life-altering results, but there is a
whole different approach.  Even the Forums conducted in 1996 are much less
confrontational than they were in 1991.

Besides, with Deprak Chopra, Steven Covey, and others providing
introductions to the basic concepts, it is easier to move from the
concepts and insights to the coaching and appropriate action.

> Or is one
> of them the "Outcome Survey" conducted by Robert Ornstein and Charles
> Swenciones for which they received over $10,800 from the est Foundation?

Again, we are talking apples and oranges.

> Can we have the names of these independent studies you refer to?>>

I haven't seen "independent studies" sited in landmark liturature, other
than those conducted by Dan Yankelovich.  Landmark does however keep
statistics at several levels.

	At every introduction to the Forum, surveys are taken and results
	are evaluated.  The leaders are rated on their effectiveness.
	If an IFL registers 85% of the room but gets negative feedback in
	the surveys, he will be coached based on the result of the survey.

	At the end of each Forum, participants are given a survey.  This
	is used to evaluate the short term effectiveness of the Forum.

	During each seminar, participation is tracked and absent
	participants are contacted to determine causes and effectivness.

	At the end of each seminar, participants are surveyed.  Again to
	determine effectiveness of the leader.

	During the Self Expression and Leadership Program, each
	participant is interviewed at least once/week to determine
	effectiveness of the program.  Result forms are turned in weekly.

	Leaders and trainees are evaluated based on the ongoing
	participation of participants.  The assumption is that if they are
	getting value, they will want to register for something else.  If
	they are not getting value, no amount of "pitching" will make a
	difference.

	Center Managers also keep statistics on the number of people who
	volunteer, how many hours they volunteer, and the nature of their
	assisting agreements.  It is an interesting testament that a
	substantial number of graduates (used to be over 25,000) volunteer an
	average of 7 hours/week.

My own unscientific survey (using snippets of all of the above) is that
most people put the Forum in the same class and subordinate to their
Religious Experience (getting saved, babtism of holy spirit, completing 12
steps...), or the birth of their children.

Most people leave either because they got what they wanted to get
(satisfied customers), or because they got sick of being asked to bring
guests and register for the next course (stopped practicing the principles
of the Forum).

> What I find curious is that you seem to equate the fact that these studies
> were paid for, which I believe is what "commissioned" means, with the ability
> of these studies to be "independent".  Is that your assertion?

I have participated in the collection of several surveys.  Some of the
samples are very poor (people who walk out early are not surveyed, people
who register are not surveyed, people who get into involved discussions
with an assistant or the person who brought them are not surveyed...)

> Or do you have some real evidence of bias?

If there is any bias, it is probably more to the negative - see above.

> Do you expect that the people doing the research are interested in doing
> it for free?

Volunteer Assistants actually do several different levels of statistics
collection.  So does the staff.  In addition, feedback from forums such as
this have been used to expose flaws in their approach.

> Or is it just that any study about Landmark or The Forum that has a
> positive outcome will be flawed in your perception?

Landmark has been very good about protecting the anonymity of
participants.  Even the most basic lists are shredded at the end of an
event.  The only records are kept on computer and lists are not sold or
redistributed.  There are even restrictions on the use of a phone list
from one program by participants in another program.

Participants are encouraged to "Share the Forum", by getting into
comunication with people to express their love or friendship with them,
but are advised NOT to spend a lot of time talking about Landmark.  It has
mostly to do with having people continue to get the benefits of the Forum,
as opposed to some sense of secrecy.

When an organization is that concerned about the privacy of it's
participants, it often occurrs to others that they are too secretive.  I
for one did not want to become a celebrity for my participation in
Landmark inspired projects (Commercialization of the Internet, projects in
On-Line publishing, and projects in Electronic Commerce).  I wanted to
keep benefits of privacy and being able to enjoy a private life.

I eventually got some coaching and have started letting others know what I
have been up to.  I have sacrificed some of my anonymity and allowed
myself to be recognized.  Other Graduates I have personally known have
taken on projects to bring peace to the Middle East (meeting with Perez
and Arafat), end cornial blindness (raising funding for and opening over
100 eye-banks in 3rd world countries), ending hunger on the planet (and
instituting emerging markets coverage by financial news wire services),
providing economic opportunity (helping inner city children and single
mothers get access to used computers).

On the less grandiose scale, routine accomplishments include the
recommitment to marriages that were in process of divorce, reestablisment
of relationships between children and parents they handn't seen or spoken
to in years.  Many return to practicing their religeon or upgrade the
quality of their participation.

	Rex



From rballard@cnj.digex.net Sun Apr  7 01:23:44 1996
Newsgroups: alt.fan.landmark