New Member Proposals

Forums New Member Proposals New Member Proposals

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    • #453
      Heidi Heron

      Do you know someone who meets or exceeds the criteria for membership with the NLP Leadership Summit? If so, after discussing their desire and agreeement propose the new member here. The current requirements for membership are:

      1. Have they been in the field of NLP for 15 years or more?
      2. Are they committed to high standards for NLP and not engaged in the 5-day prac. Etc.?
      3. Are they “good” with the definition of NLP we have on the website and able to “sign off” on it?
      4. Is there someone on the Leadership Summit who would recommend them?
      5. Have they been influencing people to enter the field of NLP to be considered Leader?
      6. Are they a member of an NLP Association (if relevant) of which they agree and follow their code of ethics?


      1. Go to the New Member Proposal Forum
      2. Create a new topic using the following format *New Member Proposal – Trainers Name
      3. In the content box share a paragraph or two about the person including their NLP experience and demonstration of leadership in the field (training, research, writing, etc.). Please add their website details if available.
      4. If you’d like to get updates of any replies tick the box “Notify me of follow-up replies via email”

      This then opens the group to a conversation – if there is no objection someone on the Membership Team will contact you and the prospective member and add them to the group.

    • #643
      Ueli Frischknecht

      re. ‘Admission Procedure’

      The following seems to be our consenus:

      “When we began introducing trainers for membership, it was on the basis that – 1) the trainer meets the minimum timeframe requirements (15 years training NLP), 2) the membership of the trainer was proposed to the group, 3) the trainer agreed to the ‘what we stand for’ and ‘sign off on the manifesto’ – with the stipulation that no one strongly disagrees with the membership of the proposed trainer.
      If there are [strong objections] they need to be discussed among the group.” Heidi Heron

      “Our process is simply to put forth a name and if people agree, or no one disagrees, they become members—very easy, very simple. If someone or several disagree, they do not become members.” Juli Siverthorn (From Emails March 2017)

      • #645
        Ueli Frischknecht

        Excerpt from an Email by: L. Michael Hall, March 30, 2017

        Regarding the question of ethics — the idea is being basically truthful and respectful. That would mean not misrepresenting oneself regarding one’s degrees or status, etc. When questions came up about that with David Shepherd, several of us contacted him, asked him about that in order to deal with the misrepresentations.

        Currently, what has emerged is this
        • If there are 3 objections to a person, we say, Thanks but no thanks.
        • If there’s problems with the association you were certified with, please make things right with them first.

        If one of our goals is to build up the credibility of NLP — then making sure that a “leader” has a generally decent reputation helps — and welcoming those who have a questionable reputation, especially at this stage of our development — does not help.

        I know it doesn’t answer every concern, but it is a beginning. And it certainly does challenge us to keep working on this in the coming years.

    • #644
      Ueli Frischknecht

      From: L. Michael Hall, March 30, 2017

      The NLP Leadership Summit is for “leaders” in all sorts of roles in this nebulous field called NLP. That would include anyone who is “leading” the minds, hearts, and activities of people — and so would include writers, sponsors, researchers, etc. So it does extend beyond merely those training the primary NLP trainings.

      We have left “leader” and “leading” pretty general — indicating those who are leading people into this field, those training people for the field, those raising credibility through research or publications, that kind of thing. Many of the researchers — Like James and Penny — once were trainers but now have a new leadership focus. They are certainly “elders in the tribe” however much some of us have semantic reactions to the term “elder” ! 

      One of the things that seemed to emerge last year in Alicante was how everyone really valued the importance of personal integrity and having a good reputation among those with whom we work. In a sense, that’s what we bring to each other. We care about the quality of NLP training, we care about its credibility in the world, we care about maintaining standards — and we care about spreading the word.

      How we treat people with respect and how we present ourselves in an honest way (without misrepresenting ourselves) is what enables people to believe us and in what we are ready to teach and train. For me, that’s why we have to ask some really hard questions to those who want to join this associating of known leaders in NLP — esp. if we have questions about their reputation or behavior.

      It’s not about control or being exclusive — it’s about living what we teach — and correcting things when we make mistakes.

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.