Standards of Training

[Heidi Heron]

(a thread offshoot from the NLP R&R Post – started by Hugh Comerford)

Yes, and events like this do an excellent job shredding credibility: $95 4-day NLP “Certification” training…

https://www.livingsocial.com/deals/1579548-inlp-practitioner-training

[Heidi Heron]

(Reply from Lisa de Rijk)

Thanks for sharing Hugh.
Scary that Matt has dropped his prices to this, wonder what the standards are like including assessment, monitoring and supervision?
Lisa

Lisa de Rijk (formerly Wake) MSc, RGN, PhD Cand.

[Heidi Heron]

(reply from Brian Cullen)

My wife took that particular course a few years ago and there was indeed a huge amount of up-selling and cross-selling. She had already taken a practitioner elsewhere and was just interested and was in the area at the time.

The marketing nature of these courses is also well illustrated by the screenshot of the website that appeared when I clicked on the link a few minutes ago. I’ve attached it below just in case you thought the $90 was too expensive 🙂

I don’t think that there is much to be gained in discussion here by talking about quality of individual courses or schools or trainers. However, in general terms it is interesting to see just how far NLP practitioner courses have been transformed into a marketing vehicle. The disconnect between this and well-executed research seems to be an ever-widening chasm.

All the best,
Brian Cullen

[Heidi Heron]

(reply from Lisa de Rijk)

Interesting screen shot, and I think one focus of the leadership summit is standards, quality and ethics.
Which inevitably at some point will lead to specific trainers, schools and approaches.
Are we brave enough to go there?
Lisa

Lisa de Rijk (formerly Wake) MSc, RGN, PhD Cand.

[Heidi Heron]

(reply from Hugh Comerford)

With regards to Lisa’s question of ‘are we brave enough’…on the one hand, ethically and morally, I don’t believe we really have any choice – we HAVE to address the issue because our credibility has been damaged for decades because it either wasn’t addressed or at least not to the point where it had impact. And of course on the other hand, we simply accept that the lack of adherence to proper training standards is one very strong reason the field has little credibility and stop complaining about it.

Let’s be honest – Wikipedia has done an excellent job of discrediting the field and NLP ‘Certification’ trainings that are objectively sub-standard have absolutely done the same thing. I’ve mentioned this before to this group – I’ve had people take competitor’s (very expensive) trainings (to Master Prac level) then came to me saying they didn’t know what they were doing and could I help. What is the impact on the field of an inept practitioner? I would say it’s enormous but only becomes visible when people slam NLP as a modality because of their personal experience….and then people like us may try to fix the problem created by colleagues who don’t seem to care much beyond sales and marketing.

(I have stories of a local trainer browbeating people into giving their credit card details using absolutely shitty NLP manipulative techniques for their short, overprices course)

In my (perhaps very isolated) case I bought the company that trained me and with it came a 12-day course curriculum which, over the years, I have deliberately expanded to 20 days specifically for this reason; to address credibility in the market and in the greater world. Make no mistake, it hurts me financially because I lose people to the shorter courses…but that’s because I’m quite alone in this. At least in Canada…but also in a large chunk of the USA from what I can tell.

What we can do as individuals and as a group is to commit to provide excellent Certification trainings which meet or exceed the generally accepted standards, market toward that distinction and importantly then resist the market pressure and temptation to cut down on the quantity/quality of the offerings.

I understand there was a group at the Summit very interested in INCREASING the standards of the field.

In that vein, here’s a provocative suggestion: If everyone in THIS group adapted their curriculum to properly meet the 120 hour minimum for Practitioner (as well as all the other standards), or to a standard we can all agree to conform to, we would collectively be making a very strong statement and taking a definite step toward credibility for the field.

It is a statement that I personally feel needs to be made. To paraphrase Dilts, we need to become the type of group we aspire in our best selves to belong to.

Best,

Hugh

[Heidi Heron]

(reply from Lisa de Rijk)

HI Hugh
These are interesting thoughts.
My emails earlier have picked up on some of this and I would like to address the hours issue here.
For me it is about content, standards of training, standards of assessment, supervision and scope of practice both while in training and post training.
As a leadership group it was clear at the summit that we can’t monitor or police the entire field, what we can do is be examplars.
There is some work being done on curricula, but not standards per se. Does anyone want to take that on????
Lisa

Lisa de Rijk

[Heidi Heron]

(Reply from Hugh Comerford)

Thanks Lisa,

Yes and, as a measure of training rigor, the number of instruction hours is not a radical or unique concept. Many (most?) professions a the number of training hours as a criteria for certification. Is NLP so unique (or are others such brilliant trainers) that you can train to excellence in 1 or 2 or 5 or 8 days? If you can, please let me know how.

It’s the old saw but it’s a valid one: do you want the brain surgeon who was certified in a 4-day brain surgery course? Because that’s what we have going on in the field.

Content, standards, supervision are great. Instructional time matters as well.

As far as I can tell, the 2nd longest course in Canada is 9-days in duration. Does anyone reading this believe that a 9-day practitioner certification is equal to or greater than a 20-day practitioner certification all things being equal?

As I said, and I believe this, we can either do something about increasing the credibility of NLP via training standards (as one part, granted), or we can simply accept things as they are.

It puts the conversation on the table, at least here in Canada. . I’ve had people attend others introductory sessions where the Trainer said, “You can be certified in 6 days! Why would you want to do a 20-day certification training??!” as if a) 20 days is a waste of time and b) 6 days is more than sufficient for excellence to be transferred and c) Certification is more important than education and skill…

I wouldn’t have any problem whatsoever doing a hybrid model where we can have (and I’m just making this up):

a) NLP Professional Practitioner that follows Peter’s standards,
b) NLP Certified Practitioner that follows the training criteria that’s been floating around for +/-20 years that I shifted to accommodate (120hrs etc)
c) NLP Technician certification (or something similar) which can be the catch-all for training that doesn’t meet shared criteria (i.e. the self-referenced crowd creating their own accreditation criteria with a puppet certification ‘board’).

I don’t pretend to have any control over NLP in Canada, but via my own actions I do have some influence to change the conversation, or at least put it on the table. As a group the influence we wield could reframe the perception of the field in a positive way. I think we all want that…but to steal Lisa’s line, I think we need to be brave enough…

The truth is I don’t feel 20 days is enough…but it’s enough for now.

[Heidi Heron]

(Reply from Hugh Comerford)

Thanks Lisa and Hugh and all,

I run 20 day practitioner courses in Japan. Most NLP courses in Japan run for 10 days. I have seen an interesting discussion on a Japanese language forum which concluded that longer is definitely better but that it doesn’t suit the shorter vacation and free time of people in Japan.
Like Hugh, I agree that 20 days is too short to really raise people to the standard that I would like to achieve in order to ‘certify’ them. To raise standards further, I’ve started giving a lot more assignments between modules. I also teach at a university (not NLP) and we of course give regular homework, outside reading, and preview work. It seems odd to me that there is so little homework and preview provided as part of NLP courses. Another area that is clearly under-utilized is practice groups. For some modules, I have compulsory out-of-class practical assignments (e.g. practice of perceptual positions etc.) which students can do in person or over Skype etc. One reason that I am able to do out-of-class assignments is that I generally run the practitioner over a year with one module per month. Clearly, there is less scope for outside work if the course is run on 20 consecutive days.

To achieve deeper and higher standard learning, I consider it fairly necessary to spread courses over longer periods of time, and to increase out-of-class practice and study.

All the best,
Brian Cullen

[Heidi Heron]

(reply by Anneke Durlinger)

Hi everybody

At the Leadershipsummit we have taken the initiative to generate an overview of all the standards/curricula set by the different associations.

This overview will offer transparency to all leadership summit members and can be subject of discussion in the next summit.

It will also offer transparency to the next generation of NLP trainers, who want to engage themselves with an association, to check which standard complies with their own criteria and values.

And the transparency will also inform all persons who want to follow a NLP training to get information about the different standards.

I am waiting for the information of the different leadership members who committed themselves to deliver this information. (so this may be a kind remembering 🙂 )

I will keep you posted.
Happy greetings

> And you know what: I am still very grateful for all that NLP has
> brought me over the last thirty years, how I can utilize it for
> myself and facilitate individuals and groups to create a more
> ecological sound world, within the person and thus in the world
> surrounding him/her.

Anneke Durlinger

[Heidi Heron]

(Reply from Lisa Rijk)

HI Hugh
These are interesting thoughts.
My emails earlier have picked up on some of this and I would like to address the hours issue here.
For me it is about content, standards of training, standards of assessment, supervision and scope of practice both while in training and post training.
As a leadership group it was clear at the summit that we can’t monitor or police the entire field, what we can do is be examplars.
There is some work being done on curricula, but not standards per se. Does anyone want to take that on????
Lisa

Lisa de Rijk (formerly Wake) MSc, RGN, PhD Cand.

[Heidi Heron]

(reply from Marcel Genestar)

Dear colleagues:

I share my experience in Spain.

We are the only school that offers certification in NLP double accreditation (AEPNL, ie, the Spanish association, and IANLP).

Indeed, this election causes many people interested in a short and cheap course, reject our proposal. But at the same time, it is positioning us as the most prestigious school in this field. And it allows us access to another type of customer: people seeking rigor and quality.

It is the price we need to pay.

As communicated to Michael a few months ago, unfortunately I did not attend the meeting in London. Good job.

Best regards

Marcel Genestar
http://www.pnlplus.es

[Heidi Heron]

(reply from Lisa de Rijk)

HI Marcel
It is good to hear this, and as you say this accesses those wanting rigour and quality.
Lisa

[Heidi Heron]

(reply from Anneke Durlinger)

Hi everybody

At the Leadershipsummit we have taken the initiative to generate an overview of all the standards/curricula set by the different associations.
This overview will offer transparency to all leadership summit members and can be subject of discussion in the next summit.

It will also offer transparency to the next generation of NLP trainers, who want to engage themselves with an association, to check which standard complies with their own criteria and values. And the transparency will also inform all persons who want to follow a NLP training to get information about the different standards.

I am waiting for the information of the different leadership members who committed themselves to deliver this information. (so this may be a kind remembering 🙂 )

I will keep you posted.

Happy greetings

And you know what: I am still very grateful for all that NLP has brought me over the last thirty years, how I can utilize it for myself and facilitate individuals and groups to create a more ecological sound world, within the person and thus in the world surrounding him/her.

Anneke Durlinger

[Heidi Heron]

(reply and attachment from Jaap Hollander)

Hi Anneke

For the NLP-LS voting project we amassed a list of NLP-models and techniques.
Maybe you can use that too. Standards will probably have a list.
See attachement.

Love
Jaap

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Heidi Heron]

(reply from Lisa de Rijk )

Hi Anneke
I think it would be worth considering standards and curricula separately.

For example, one can teach basic anchoring, stacking, chaining, collapse in 30 mins to 1 hour. Would this cover theoretical underpinning, history, operant vs classic conditioning, neurological pathways, parasympathetic vs sympathetic arousal, scope of practice, which conditions is it unsafe to use for etc.

I once did a 4 hour workshop at the NLP conference on anchoring and operant conditioning and then only briefly touched the surface.

Curricula for a business audience would be different than for a therapeutic audience. So application would want to be considered.

Standards then is about competence. How competent is a person in utilising anchoring in a given context and how do we measure that?
I hope this helps deliberations.
Best wishes in this exciting discussion
Lisa

Lisa de Rijk

[Heidi Heron]

(Reply from Peter Schutz)

In 1985 we started with 37 day Practitioner Courses
Max 25 Students , 4 OR 5 different trainers , and a personal interview with Each student during the First two seminars

We quickly understood that One of The key structures creating the bad name For NLP was the selfreference …

Since 1990 we require video Feedback of a coaching Session , First audited by the Peer group, then by a trainer

Professional NLP standard

This led to a good competence standard of our graduates
And s high appreciation For NLP with psychologists And MDs

1993 the First published Research was started .,

Around 1995 the quicky sects appeared
Cashing in with 1-2 Week 150 Student Seminars, referring to various US standards …..

We still do Professional standard , 37 day Pract

( this has nothing To do with psychotherapy )

Would be Great if the Summit colleguages would come on Board To Level 4 http://www.icpnlp.org

This also would mean a big Investment in PR , clearly drawing lines To the many crooks and sectoids in the NLP field

And Now , 30 years After the murder of Corinne Christensen , make an official statement , that whoever was involved
Is ethically not reccomended as a trainer …and the graduations of this
” Tribe” will not be respected

Brave enough for that ??
Peter

[Author]

Posts