the difference

There are a number of different ‘schools’ and associations in NLP.

Each organisation has its own set of training standards, which in most cases includes a prescribed syllabus for NLP Practitioner training.

I believe this situation to be fundamentally flawed in two key regards:

1)  As a field, NLP concerns itself with the modelling of extraordinary results in any area of human experience.  As such, it is inherently oriented towards the progressive development of human knowledge and expertise.

Maintaining a fixed syllabus for NLP training is therefore fundamentally incongruent with the nature of the field itself, in my view.

( Some organisations have not updated their NLP Practitioner syllabus in over twenty years! )

2)  Some of the more significant developers of NLP have attempted (either explicitly or implicitly) to trivialise the developments of others while promoting their own work.

This is subsequently reflected in the NLP Practitioner syllabuses of the organisations with which they are associated.

Consequently, students within a given ‘school’ of NLP are often deprived of the opportunity to learn many of the more significant developments in the field.

So while there are benefits to standardisation, I choose to remain independent and unaffiliated.  By doing so, I enjoy the freedom to constantly update and upgrade what I offer my students.  I’ll take cutting edge and best of breed over familiar and predictable any day of the week.

Besides – even factories with the most rigorous quality assurance requirements can find it difficult to match a top quality, hand crafted product.

And to be quite candid …

Warning:  some strong language follows (paragraph five)

In my personal view, both students of NLP and the field itself suffer a disservice when trainers choose only to follow the syllabus and standards of a particular organisation, for whatever reason.

I am constantly on the lookout for any new (or new to me) developments in NLP which would be of great benefit to my students, regardless of where those developments came from and who does or does not approve of them.

The pursuit of excellence suffers greatly from the pursuit of validation from an authority figure or official body, in my opinion.  You don’t get anywhere new by staying on the same set of tracks – and too many trainers design their courses with conformity rather than possibility in mind.

My students just get the best of everything I’ve ever learned, as well as the best of everything I have ever personally developed, and I’m constantly striving to find and / or develop things I can incorporate so as to offer an even better training than the last one.

I’ll be damned if I’ll let my students’ development be constrained by the dictates of some person or group of people who have declared themselves the guardians of all that is good and proper in NLP.  So I hope you’ll excuse my language for a moment when I say:

F___.  That.

I will not conform, because I will not compromise.

So I don’t align myself with any particular organisations or certifying bodies.  When my students get certificates, they are certificates from me.  They may not tick someone else’s bureaucratic boxes, but the vast majority of the people who train with me don’t care about that.  They don’t train with me because they want approval, they train with me because they want skill.