Reply To: Standards of Training

Forums General Conversation Standards of Training Reply To: Standards of Training

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.