By way of a 'thought experiment', I would suggest that folk read the article posted above and insert for Werner Erhard, the name of Keith Raniere, or Tony Robbins.
I am hard-pressed to find significant differences in either the backgrounds of Erhard, Raniere, Robbins or their methodology, so it is interesting to contemplate WHY a Harvard professor at the apex of his career would become so enamored with a California kook cult that he, essentially, propagated its development -- and, no, I don't believe the story about Jensen's daughter and her new Landmark-minted self. Personally, if my child emerged from a 'training program' a dramatically changed person, I would not be favorably impressed.
So, how do we explain these fantastic lapses of judgment and professional ethics, in Jensen, in Bennis?
I recall musing to a professor friend a while back that I would have been less surprised had it been announced that Jim Jones had played a seminal role in the development of our field.
His response was that Erhard was/is a vastly more dangerous character than Jones.
Bakkagirl
I am hard-pressed to find significant differences in either the backgrounds of Erhard, Raniere, Robbins or their methodology, so it is interesting to contemplate WHY a Harvard professor at the apex of his career would become so enamored with a California kook cult that he, essentially, propagated its development -- and, no, I don't believe the story about Jensen's daughter and her new Landmark-minted self. Personally, if my child emerged from a 'training program' a dramatically changed person, I would not be favorably impressed.
So, how do we explain these fantastic lapses of judgment and professional ethics, in Jensen, in Bennis?
I recall musing to a professor friend a while back that I would have been less surprised had it been announced that Jim Jones had played a seminal role in the development of our field.
His response was that Erhard was/is a vastly more dangerous character than Jones.
Bakkagirl