Some thoughts on the desired direction for NLP Training in the UK

I was talking to someone the other day who along with some colleagues had completed a 10 day Practitioner Certification training, as part of a corporate development programme.

She was saying that everyone had definitely benefited personally, although it was a moot point if the company was reaping any marked rewards from its investment. In fact there were a couple of situations where relations had been soured from over enthusiastic fledgling practice.

"It wasn't like that when we did it on the course!" And she admitted that they had lost sight of the reason for the investment - the badge became more important than the original purpose of the training. "It's unlikely that the company will follow through on this investment." was her parting comment.

The Present Situation
Glorious diversity or a total mess? Whichever way you would describe the situation we are currently in with NLP Certification, these facts are certain.

• We have 7 day, 10 day, 14 day up to 20-day provision.
• There are tapes, videos, e-coaching operating alongside group tuition.
• Emphasis can be on Health, Therapy, Business, Spirituality, or as in our case, Learning.
• Courses can last 1 week or take 12 months to complete
• Prices range from £70 a day to £330 a day.
• Total fees can range from £500 or £2500+

So what does that say about NLP Training Providers?
These are awesome differences. It says a lot about the range of presuppositions that must be currently held by the various Training Providers involved in such differing fare: what's possible within a Practitioner training?; what does a newcomer to NLP deserve?; how does their contribution add to the credibility and the development of NLP as a whole?

Working on the principle of positive intention, as Training Providers we will all share some common ground. Arguably we will have a commitment to developing our collective understanding of the nature of human behaviour; that we all subscribe to the NLP Presuppositions; and that we deeply share the values of curiosity and a desire to learn. Our aim and focus of attention is on guiding learners to develop flexibility so they can achieve ecological goals in any area of their choosing. Isn't it?

Because if it's not, then what right do we have to call ourselves teachers of NLP? Without this common ground we are merely run of the mill communication trainers and personal developers, masquerading as NLP Training Providers.

How do Training Providers differ?
Even if Training Providers are aligned with the founding principles of NLP, their delivery format and style differs widely, though they usually fall into one of these four camps.

1. The Incorporator: These are providers, specialists in their own field, who incorporate NLP into their overall provision.

2. The Replicator: This is often the option for the newly fledged NLP Trainer, imprinting on their own Practitioner experience. It suggests a superficial understanding of the dynamics of the original programme's design, and can result in robotic presentation. Integration of learning is more hit or miss, since the coherence is loose. It is interesting to discover how original the handouts are, or if they are direct duplications of their original training manual. With all copies, the quality becomes diluted.

3. The Franchisee: Here the NLP Trainer is publicly adopting the approach, structure, and materials of the parent Sponsor, who lends their name to the certification. Ideally, the Trainer has probably been trained to deliver these materials in depth. Whilst quality, authority and consistency of message is maintained, the provision tends to be restricted to the Sponsor's map and there is limited place for the individuality of the Trainer.

4. The Developer: Here the NLP Trainer draws on the breadth of knowledge, experience and meta cognition arising from their learning from a wide variety of teachers, possibly spanning 10 plus years. This development has become sufficiently integrated for them to customise their programme to reflect their unique rich mix. Quality relies on the Trainer continuing to learn themselves, staying open to new developments and being prepared to keep their thinking and practice fresh.

Do they hold a consensus about skill development?
No - despite the common aim to develop sensory acuity and flexibility, through maintaining rapport and achieving well-formed outcomes. Yet NLP mastery is first and foremost about skill development. And skill development is about DOING, about practice, about experiencing, testing and receiving feedback. Only then do you find out what works or doesn't work, discover how different results came to be, and reveal your levels of certainty and knowledge. How else do are you able to determine what to do next and what to skill to pay attention to?

"You don't know you know something until you apply it." Richard Bandler

If the hallmark of a credible Training Provider is the skill level of their Practitioner, It's no great leap of logic to therefore suggest that the shorter the programme the more limited the skill development. The longer the amount of directed training and practice, the greater the opportunity for experimentation and integration of learning at a far deeper level.

Why would any serious learner want to go for anything but the maximum on offer?

But what about fast track approaches?
I know that there are likely to be learners out there who will read all the books, watch all the videos, listen to all the tapes at least once, before they go on their short courses. And I know that for some people learning at an unconscious level is a wonderful experience. However, whilst these activities can bring their own rewards, knowing about NLP, having undetected unconscious competence and enjoying charismatic experiences cannot deliver the complex skills required of an NLP Practitioner.

"Knowledge is only a rumour until you get it into your muscle." Judy DeLozier

Knowing about something is not the same as understanding. Underpinning knowledge which comes from absorption and integration of tested ideas, gives us the distinctions that lets us know what else we can do differently should something not be working. Such distinctions grow out of the time spent comparing and contrasting experiences, imagining applications and testing expectations.

And then there's the question of value for money. As Reg Connelly notes in his excellent website article "Accelerated" NLP Practitioner Training - the emperor's new clothes? some of the "fast track NLP" providers were charging considerably more money for 7 days than the 20 days provided by the full-length, full-syllabus providers.

So what should be included?
How much filling do you put into the sandwich? How much spills into Master Practitioner training? What content criteria need to be met? It is a hard call when there is so much now available to be included. Every year there are more applications to consider and refinements to be made to standard content.

Faced with designing our programmes from scratch, The Northern School of NLP set these criteria.

• Do we offer something that is worthy of all our teachers and honours NLP?
• Do we provide materials and experiences from the full spectrum of NLP thinking and development, past and present?
• Do we offer something that congruently reflects our own interests and area of application?
• Does our content, approach, and structure encourage curiosity, comfort with the unfamiliar, and a modeller's mindset?
• Are there sufficiently varied opportunities for skill development and integration of learning?
• Can our assessment criteria be realistically met from the experience we offer?
• Do we provide sufficient supportive backup materials and coaching?
• Do we offer value for money, with extras thrown in?

So where do we go from here?
So just because the 120hour/20 day rule has been removed from ANLP membership requirements, that doesn't mean to say that the current free for all is good for NLP.

As training providers, if we are to have any respect for the achievements of NLP and the integrity of its developers past and present, then we surely want to be generate practitioners who can make a difference for the better, through ecological practice and enviable skill. If we have any commitment to the reasons we pursued NLP ourselves, we want to offer the best grounding possible to our learners.

And given that the scale of market rates ranges from £500 - £2500 +, we want to be in a position to match substantive quality with value for money.

The UK Schools who still offer 120 hour/20 day trainings - and fortunately there are many of them - do so not because they have to, but because they want to; not because it brings in more money, but because it lives the meta message of integrity, value for money and respect for skill development. I venture to suggest that these schools hold to their professionalism, when it could be very easy to provide less for the same earnings.

Finally, there is a need for a cohesive Register for UK NLP Training Providers, who subscribe to common guide lines and who know the benefit of transparent comparison. Uniqueness is valued within the context of shared territory. This way, new customers will be able to see for themselves the distinctions between the various provisions, understand the significance of these distinctions and make purchasing decisions based on which combination of criteria meet their needs.

Long live diversity. Long live integrity.

Fran Burgess is Director of Training and Co Founder of The Northern School of NLP. Tel: 01254 824504 Web: www.nlpand.co.uk Email: admin@nlpand.co.uk