Based on corboy's reference materials, am going to suggest that you do not need something called LGAT to effect thought reform. Any team can work pretty well: corporate leadership team, community organization, service group, business network, academic body.
In retrospect, I first saw LGAT techniques used by facilitators tasked with gaining consensus of a global network of small business owner to agree to the selling of THEIR network, and all of the know-how, and business relationships jointly utilized within it to a multinational. The entailed creating the illusion of free choice, the illusion of concerns being aired. Once a critical mass were 'on-board' the facilitator used group dynamics to coerce a consensus.
I would suggest that corporate teams are also highly subject to manipulation.
My own experience of thought reform (corporate environment).
A feeling of helplessness in attempting to deal with the impersonal machinery of control.
(Sense of inscrutable levels of control within a relatively small organization. Sense that information provided by local management was not the whole story. Sense that some people were 'in the know' and some were not. Impossible tasks, impossible learning curves.)
2. An initial reaction of "surprise."
("I cannot believe you didn't spend the weekend memorizing [a 27 page script]!!!")
3. A feeling of uncertainty about what is required of him.
(Standards of performance forever changing. Success is failure. Failure is success.)
4. A developing feeling of dependence upon the interrogator.
(Interrogator or boss is arbitrator of performance and success. Interrogator/boss restricts contact with other parts of the organization, serves as information conduit, and reality constructor.)
5. A sense of doubt and loss of objectivity.
(Many colleagues said they thought they were losing their minds.)
6. Feelings of guilt.
(For me, more like what dogs must have felt in learned helplessness experiments.)
7. A questioning attitude toward his own value-system.
(This was the gaslighting thing -- principles of good business practice, ethical administration of services were completely flipped on their heads. Alice and Wonderland world.)
8. A feeling of potential "breakdown," i.e.,that he might go crazy.
(I witnessed two bona fide breakdowns.)
9. A need to defend his acquired principles.
(I felt the need to reality check the Alice and Wonderland world with external parties).
10. A final sense of "belonging" (identification).
(Didn't happen in my case, but note this experience still occupies too much space in my head).
...
His complaints fall on deaf ears.
(Many took their complaints to the top of the food chain. Haphazard investigation, no follow-up.)
Everything that happens to him occurs according to an impersonal; timeschedule that has nothing to do with his needs.
(YES, YES, YES, an entire organization had reset its working hours to accommodate distance management.)
///
More to follow -- any team will do.
bakkagirl
In retrospect, I first saw LGAT techniques used by facilitators tasked with gaining consensus of a global network of small business owner to agree to the selling of THEIR network, and all of the know-how, and business relationships jointly utilized within it to a multinational. The entailed creating the illusion of free choice, the illusion of concerns being aired. Once a critical mass were 'on-board' the facilitator used group dynamics to coerce a consensus.
I would suggest that corporate teams are also highly subject to manipulation.
My own experience of thought reform (corporate environment).
A feeling of helplessness in attempting to deal with the impersonal machinery of control.
(Sense of inscrutable levels of control within a relatively small organization. Sense that information provided by local management was not the whole story. Sense that some people were 'in the know' and some were not. Impossible tasks, impossible learning curves.)
2. An initial reaction of "surprise."
("I cannot believe you didn't spend the weekend memorizing [a 27 page script]!!!")
3. A feeling of uncertainty about what is required of him.
(Standards of performance forever changing. Success is failure. Failure is success.)
4. A developing feeling of dependence upon the interrogator.
(Interrogator or boss is arbitrator of performance and success. Interrogator/boss restricts contact with other parts of the organization, serves as information conduit, and reality constructor.)
5. A sense of doubt and loss of objectivity.
(Many colleagues said they thought they were losing their minds.)
6. Feelings of guilt.
(For me, more like what dogs must have felt in learned helplessness experiments.)
7. A questioning attitude toward his own value-system.
(This was the gaslighting thing -- principles of good business practice, ethical administration of services were completely flipped on their heads. Alice and Wonderland world.)
8. A feeling of potential "breakdown," i.e.,that he might go crazy.
(I witnessed two bona fide breakdowns.)
9. A need to defend his acquired principles.
(I felt the need to reality check the Alice and Wonderland world with external parties).
10. A final sense of "belonging" (identification).
(Didn't happen in my case, but note this experience still occupies too much space in my head).
...
His complaints fall on deaf ears.
(Many took their complaints to the top of the food chain. Haphazard investigation, no follow-up.)
Everything that happens to him occurs according to an impersonal; timeschedule that has nothing to do with his needs.
(YES, YES, YES, an entire organization had reset its working hours to accommodate distance management.)
///
More to follow -- any team will do.
bakkagirl