Transformation Reformers

This site is written for Landmark grads who are open to the possibility of transforming Landmark Education from what it is today into a newly open and amazing engine of transformation. To follow the flow of discussion, please read this blog from bottom up (from oldest post to newest). If you are intrigued by what you see here, please join our Yahoo group and be part of the conversation:

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

New Landmark Radio Documentary

I was recently interviewed for an Australian radio documentary about Landmark.

An Australian fan of the reform work recommended me to the documentary producer for my perspectives.

Those of you in Australia can find the original link to the radio broadcast here:

Outside of Australia, there is a copy of the program at:\2



Monday, November 03, 2008

New Phase for the Reform Conversation

The reform conversation (as embodied here and in the Reformers Yahoo! Group) was born three and a half years ago of many foundations. Among these foundations were 1) the recognition that Landmark Education 2020 (the LandmarkEducation Charter) was not going to realize its intention of having "the power and magic of transformation alive and real for all people," and 2) that we, the graduate community, have the power to move the organziation, even if the leadership of Landmark itself seems unwilling or unable to realize the intentions of the enterprise and the Landmark community.

Landmark headquarters became aware of our reform conversation in the Spring of 2006, and soon after began a serious self evaluation. Landmark first considered updating LE2020, but realized, as we had, that an update would not be enough - that a full reinvention was needed. About a year and a half ago, Landmark initiated a process of self review, analysis and creation, which was shared with the broader Landmark community in the recent reinvention weekends.

Those of you who have been in the reform conversationup to now probably also recognize that our reform conversation has not been making anywhere near the sort of progress that we would need to make to ensure that our vision of the future ofLandmark is realized. The Landmark reinvention process provides a new context and a new opportunity (and a new inspiration) for enormous contribution from the reform community. You can expect to see a number of posts about this from me in the coming days and weeks.

In support of this new era, I have begun a new blog for a new phase of the conversation. The conversation will continue as the Graduate Reinvention Initiative. Please visit this new blog at:

Just as the reform conversation was at its founding three and a half years ago, I promise you that this conversation will remain at the vanguard of what is possible for Landmark, providing unique insights and initiativesthat will prove essential if this community (the entire Landmark community) is to realize its full potential.

Thank you.


Saturday, December 09, 2006

Powerful vs. Pitfall when Introducing Reform

Here are some notes on reactions to be aware of when sharing the reform conversation.

As the reform conversation is outside of many agreements that are commonly held in the active Landmark community, a reform advocate will sometimes find themselves in communication with someone who is upset about the conversation.

Be aware of the following features of some of the agreement around Landmark:

1) The agreement is unconscious.
Those in agreement believe the agreement is “what is so” and do not get that it’s just their story about what is so.

2) There is emotional attachment to the agreement.
Many people are in love with the Landmark that they have created inside the story of their agreement, and people often fall out of possibility when their loved ones are called into question (even when you both want what’s best for them). Even if you do nothing to “challenge” anyone, some people will feel that their views have been challenged.

3) Agreement is always backed up by a plausible story. As such, demonstrating that the agreement does not necessarily reflect reality requires dialog and a degree of openness from the person in agreement.

4) Because skeptics and questioners tend to drop out over time, the deeper the level of involvement in Landmark, the greater the level of agreement that is likely to be present. By the nature of the program, ILP participants overall seem to have a higher degree of attachment to Landmark story and agreement.

People often fall out of possibility and react negatively when something they are attached to is called into question. A “something is wrong” feeling is triggered in the person with attachment to their agreement, and coming from “something is wrong” has them outside of power and possibility. The person then seeks to restore the agreement by neutralizing that which is out of agreement. This shows up as people questioning you personally or making you wrong and/or feeling compelled to counter with nice stories about Landmark.

Here is an example from a dialog that I once had.
A former introduction leader had read one of my essays on reform and we began a dialog. As the conversation continued with little progress, I was informed that all questioning or resistance to Landmark (not just mine, but everyone’s, every time) is being right with an already always listening, frequently exacerbated by a strong suit. I was also informed that the entire Reformers Yahoo Group (maybe 60 members at that time) was machinery, operating entirely in blind spot and inauthenticity, not from power and possibility. My counterpart was completely out of possibility in the conversation, made all the grads wrong, and had no listening for the possibilities of reform.

Among those immersed in the Landmark community, there is an observable pattern of otherwise generous and powerful people dropping completely out of possibility upon exposure to the reform conversation.

Common out-of-possibility reactions to reform include:
1) Citing unsubstantiated stories to back up the agreement.
2) Making the reformer wrong through question or accusation.
3) Citing superior inside knowledge (i.e. if you knew or did X, you would not support reform)
4) Dismissing reform as "fixing" or "changing" or "making Landmark wrong."
5) Dismissing the graduate-led aspect of reform (i.e. that one must rely on Landmark leadership to get anything done or that Landmark is already dealing powerfully with every issue of concern).
6) Dismissing reform as something that many people have tried before and failed.
7) A last resort of those out of possibility in terms of reform is to simply say that the conversation is not inspiring and to discontinue the dialog.

Patience is a virtue in a reformer, for we have many years of machinery and many layers of defense to break through. Do not be attached to the outcome of introducing reform or hold expectations that everything will go smoothly, for this is a recipe for upset.

Powerful and positive communication of reform requires that we not follow others out of possibility. If someone makes you wrong for suggesting reform or attempts to change the conversation with story, ask if you can return the conversation to the substance of reform.

Please share your experiences of where you see out-of-possibility resistance to the reform conversation as well as what works for powerfully communicating our possibilities.


Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Reform vs. Fix vs. Change vs. Making Wrong

One of the concerns or pitfalls that people sometimes experience upon learning of the Landmark reform conversation is that "reform" equals "fix" or "change" or "making wrong" or is otherwise out of possibility. This essays distinguishes reform as a subset of transformation, born of power and possibility.


In Landmark terms, "change" refers to going from the way it was to a new way, and because the new way is born out of the old way (in a sense contains the old), there is persistence, not possibility, not transformation. Fix, like change, includes the past and also includes the element of "making wrong," the effort to go from broken or wrong to good and whole. Transformation, unlike change or fix, begins from nothing, the clearing for possibility. In Landmark discussions of ways of being, transformation works. Change and fix do not work and are considered as tied to the past, not from possibility.

Take care not to confuse transformation, change and fix as ways of being with the use of those terms when applied to real things. Change and fix happens to real things and that is simply what's so. For example, if we have a tire that is low on air, we change it or we fix it. This does not make a flat tire wrong or tie us to the past. The tire is what it is, and we choose to change it or fix it to make it more effective.
The act of changing a tire is too mundane to be called "transformation." It is change. It is fixing. And it is the the kind of action that a person in possibility can and will take. Reform is about making things such as policies or methodologies more effective. It is not reflective of a state of mind that is tied to the past.

Specific to reforming Landmark, organizations modify policies all the time to adapt to new ideas, new realities, and new possibilities. As a practical matter with organizations, one can take what is, which is known to work, and tweak it. Modify it. Change it. Reform it. Drop it. Add to it. Landmark/EST has evolved in this way as well. The mindset may be of starting from nothing, from possibility, or from transformation, but what happens in reality is that some policies or items in the curriculum are rewritten (changed), and some are kept. Some are dropped and some are added. One could call each of these modifications a transformation or a change or a reform, and the words "change" and "reform" would be true to their standard meaning. Often, a series of small changes and additions result eventually in the transformation of an organization.

The "change" that we don't want refers to the state of mind of the actor, not to what happens in reality. In reality, things change. These are "fine" and necessary elements of making a difference. A person in possibility will often transform an organization through real changes, even if they don't use that word.

In the endeavor of this group, we are starting with Landmark as it is today and our vision, the possibilities we see for Landmark. We can be in possibility in our minds, but the subject of the endeavor, the organization, curriculum, and methodology of Landmark is what it is. The key is that we stand in possibility and that our mindset is that of transformation when we call for the specific actions to take place between where Landmark is now and where vision shows that it can be.

What "reform" adds to "change" is the concept of moving in a positive direction. "Change" means going from one state to another. "Change" does not indicate if things are changing for the worse, or for the better, for good or ill, into integrity or out of integrity. "Reform" implies that things are moving in a positive direction. Unfortunately, "reform" can imply that things are bad and need fixing, but this is not necessarily so. If one thinks of "tax reform" or "tort reform," I don't think one gets the sense of making things wrong or fixing things. Take instead from "reform" the sense of making things work well or work better ("better" is also not a Landmark usage as it is tied to the past, but just as outlined above, in reality the new tire is "better" in reality, meaning more effective at serving its function, than the flat one).

In the reform conversation, we distinguish reform as a subset of transformation, coming from possibility. We are in reality talking about positive changes and additions to what is.


Making wrong is story and "wrong" exists only in conversation. The key, as above, is our mindset. A tire that is low on air is what it is, it is not wrong. Fixing a tire does not make the tire wrong. One changes a tire from being in the possibility of getting back on the road safely and effectively, not from making the tire wrong. We will be successful in doing what we do in reform if we come from possibility and what is so, not from story or making wrong.

There are a variety of views of what is so about Landmark, and the more negative view that one holds, the easier it is to fall into the pitfall of making Landmark wrong. Landmark teaches us to take responsibility for falling into pitfalls such as making wrong, get off it, and create possibility. If we are doing our work "properly" in this endeavor, we are not making Landmark wrong. As it says in the introduction to the reformers Yahoo group, we are working to transform Landmark itself into an extraordinarily effective engine of powerful living for all. This is a stand born of power and possibility.

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Misapplication of Statistical Measures

The reform petition calls for "balancing statistical and numerical measures of performance (for seminar leaders, introduction leaders, ILP participants and others) with measures of the quality of participant experience." This post is intended to illustrate the background and value for this key reform.

Currently, Landmark measures the performance of seminar leaders by statistics such as the numbers of guests, registrations, and attendance at each seminar session. Introduction leaders are measured by number of registrations. Provider programs, ILP, TMLP, course supervisor programs and so on measure "effectiveness" by guests invited and registrations. There is relatively little effort spent on directly guaging participant experience or the participant's own measure of value from a course or introduction. Landmark uses measures to drive numbers instead of using measures explicitly to optimize authenticity or participant value.

The reform movement sees that a central driver of inauthenticity and pressure in Landmark is a misalignment of incentives. People will optimize what they are measured to optimize at the expense of other measures so organizations must take care to align the incentives they provide with the end goals of the organization.

As an example of the critical role that appropriate incentives play in organizations, consider teh story of an automotive industry company that measured its managers by their ability to keep parts inventories low. The idea of using parts inventory levels as a measure was to reduce waste, to have the managers order only the optimal amount of parts needed to build and fill orders.

Some months later, a barge heading down a nearby river struck a pile of auto parts. The factory managers faced fluctuating demand that made it impossible to keep inventories near zero and still meet customer demand, so they did what it took to keep inventory low and excel in their performance measures. They dumped excess parts in the river before each measurement day.

A misapplication of incentives, intended to propel the company forward, instead created waste and loss. This is a simple story told in a graduate management course, teaching future leaders to beware about how they measure their employees and managers. Any management instructor will advise that human beings in organizations respond to the incentives they are given, even when those incentives don't line up with the goals of the organization. The message is, choose your incentives wisely.

As with the company using inventory as a measure, the measures Landmark is choosing to use today are at the source of profound losses in its effectiveness. We're no longer talking auto parts. We're talking about spreading the good stuff of transformation. The result we observe is that course leaders are overdoing the guest and invitation conversations to meet their measures. We observe that statistics are filtering their listening, impacting their stands, distorting their perceptions. Those who need to be a stand for an amazing experience for all participants are dealing with countervailing incentives that draw them away from authenticity, instead to make the case for being in their seats and bringing guests.

Harry Rosenberg, CEO of Landmark Education, wrote of surprise about participants feeling pressure, even in introductions where there were no opportunities to register. The pressure is built into a system that has its providers measuring their interaction with guests by statistics instead of by the quality of that interaction and by the quality of the experience of the participant. When the people in the room need registrations to be considered effective, the participants will feel their pressure and feel their inauthenticity. The misapplication of statistical measures drives feelings of pressure and inauthenticity in many areas of the organization. This is why reform of the way statistics are used has drawn such attention in the Reformers Yahoo group, and why it is central to reform.

A renewed Landmark will not have its leaders treat participants as statistics and will not give incentives to course leaders to do anything but provide value to participants.
We believe that there is no need to focus on numbers when one has a conversation of power. No need for pressure where people come together to do good for each other. With the right incentives and with a new spirit of openness, we will see a dramatic elevation in the atmosphere of the organization.

The Hazards of "Agreement" and Implications for Reform

In writings in the Reformers Yahoo group, I have mentioned how "agreement" among those immersed in Landmark culture or a "culture of agreement" can have a negative impact on the organization and on participants outside of that agreement. This post is intended to elaborate and clarify those statements so that we can powerfully drive reform in this area.

Agreement in this context is not a good thing. It is not the same as consensus building.

What is meant by "agreement" in the context of the reform and renewal of Landmark?

Agreement in this context indicates something that a group's members in general accept as what's so, perhaps with supporting evidence, but not with anything approaching incontrovertible evidence. With agreement, to fill in where facts are insufficient, there is a degree of faith or wishful thinking or "manufactured agreement," which is agreement that arises through repetition and positive reinforcement of certain themes and/or social censure or dismissal of dissenting viewpoints.

Later in this post, I will suggest some of the agreement that I have observed around Landmark. That an agreement is listed here does not mean that all immersed in the culture believe it or that the agreement does not match with what is so (sometimes agreement fits what is so, sometimes it does not). Listing here simply indicates agreement that is largely shared and frequently repeated in Landmark.

The dangers of agreement include:

1) Getting Agreement Wrong
In agreement, people sometimes accept as fact what is not so, which distorts their choices. When one is confused about what's so, one does not have the correct menu to choose from.

2) Intolerance
Hearing views outside of the listener's agreement leads to a "something is wrong here" feeling in the listener's mind, which disempowers the listener and can also lead to negative or intolerant behavior. Examples include the listener being defensive, making the dissenter wrong (directly or by suggestion or implication), or repeating agreements as fact in an effort to counter or disempower the dissenter.

3) Group Think
Individuals allow social pressure to conform to agreement to impact expression and/or belief.
Impacts: Inauthenticity, lack of full self expression, loss of power. Group agreement can appear cult-like. Those outside of agreement are disinspired to remain in the community.

Examples of agreement:

Agreement: The Landmark Forum is THE vehicle for spreading transformation.

Agreement: Landmark is not about making money.

Agreement: Landmark does about the best job humanly possible of self correcting.

Agreement: Landmark does about the best job humanly possible of spreading the conversation of transformation to others.

Agreement: Sharing about Landmark and enrolling others is an essential or inseparable part of the curriculum and the process of mastering transformation.

Agreement: Landmark leaders are of the highest integrity.

Agreement: Taking complaints/problems up the organizational hierarchy is THE way to resolve them. Discussion among third parties is counterproductive.

Agreement: There are good reasons for Landmark to be a for-profit business, not a non-profit.

Agreement: There is something wrong with someone who maintains a criticism of Landmark even after they've communicated fully with Landmark staff.

If you find yourself wanting to defend these statements (saying to yourself, "that's not agreement, that's reality" and then running through the evidence in your already always listening), that's a sign that you have a stake in the agreement. A person who is simply comfortable with what is so and who is open to other points of view does not feel compelled to defend. If you feel the urge to defend, take a look at your evidence and consider what assumptions you rely on in believing that the agreement matches what is so. Then for every agreement listed above, write down a "What's so Statement" for that issue that you know (as if your life depended on it) is what's so. The what's so statement may be much more uncertain than the statement of agreement. To be clear, I am not saying that the above "agreements" do not match with what is so. I am saying that people act as though these things are so without sufficient knowledge, and that people have an attachment to these agreements, which results in the negative consequences outlined above (see dangers).

In terms of reform, our task is to reform those methodologies and items in the curriculum that generate agreement.

Examples of agreement manufacturing at Landmark:

Agreement Manufacture: Collapsing Landmark (especially taking The Forum) with transformation in conversation.

Agreement Manufacture: Especially praising, applauding, and rewarding those who bring or register guests (often using meaning making terms like "amazing" or "miracle").

Agreement Manufacture: Public making wrong of Landmark critics (they don't get it, have deep problems, or have other agendas).

Agreement Manufacture: Meaning making around "transformation".

As noted above, agreement runs counter to full self expression. Agreement is disempowering. Agreement breeds intolerance. Agreement breeds group think.

Agreement has people be small. In the end, agreement turns off those outside of the agreement, which includes the throngs of prospective participants who have not yet heard the conversation of transformation.

Just as we have called for the reform of methodologies that unnecessarily create a sense of pressure, for us to create an open and welcoming Landmark that works for many more people, we must also reform training and curriculum and methodologies that manufacture and perpetuate agreement.

The Reform Conversation, Work and Inspiration

I was at a beautiful Landmark event recently and conscious of the difference between the feel of being in the reform conversation and the feel of being in the good stuff of the conversation about possibility.

The bottom line is that the reform conversation is about the vessel that brings possibility to others. It's about structure, methodology, policy. This is not (directly) a conversation about possibility, and it's especially not a conversation about possibility for us (we who work for reform) because it's not about us, not about what works for us, not about what we like.

This conversation is not intended to be fun (...except when we make side comments with smiley faces). :-)

Hopefully you get something out of the reform conversation for yourself, such as a fresh perspective on one aspect of Landmark or another, light shed on something that had been a blind spot, awareness of where you may have been out of power and possibility, etc. People also find value here as a clearing for discussion that is intentionally free from both Landmark agreement and the stridently anti-Landmark posts seen in some of the public Landmark sites. These benefits can stand on their own to make this conversation worthwhile, but in the end, they are not what this conversation is about.

Borrowing from the introduction of the Yahoo reformers group, the group is here to "discuss and coordinate actions to reform the Landmark structures and methodologies at the source of some negative perceptions, consistent with the possibility of Landmark as an open, welcoming, extraordinarily effective engine of powerful living for all." If I may inject a little story, this is work. Hard work.

This is one of the factors in why it can be challenging to enroll those who don't see the costs and pitfalls of Landmark's current methodologies into the reform conversation. From Landmark agreement (see post on Hazards of Agreement), the reform conversation looks like work, negative work, unnecessary work, no play, no joy.

The core joy and inspiration for participating in the reform effort derives from a couple of sources. First is reducing or eliminating the negative impacts that we have discussed, which on its own is a very substantial contribution. Second, and even more powerfully for me, the joy and inspiration for participating here comes from creating a future where people who yearn to live powerfully and live a life they love have easy access to a powerful conversation for transformation, with no sense of pressure, no sense of weirdness, no fear of manipulation...whatever it is that keeps people away today. Easy as going to the park on a Spring day like today.

Friday, April 07, 2006

Getting the Word Out

The power of the graduate conversation for the reform of Landmark Education depends on graduates. If you are inspired by this conversation, I hope you have signed the online petition (see post of March 1, 2006) and will share the online petition and Reformers E-Mail Group links with your Landmark grad communities:

You can also find flyers for spreading the word about the reform conversation (and petition) in the Files section of the Yahoo group. You may be inspired to hand them out in front of your local Landmark center or you may want to keep a few with you for when you are at Landmark related events or get togethers.

Thank you.

Message from Landmark CEO Harry Rosenberg to Reformers Yahoo Group

Dear Customers of Landmark Education –

Your Yahoo Group was recently brought to our attention and we wanted to take the opportunity to be in communication with you. We are very interested in you concerns and criticisms, and beyond that we actually share some of your frustrations.

We can see through your writings that each proposed reform has come out of actual negative experiences. While we continually strive to deliver excellent customer service, we make mistakes and are not always in the listening of our customers. We are fully aligned with your commitment to elevate Landmark Education and are at work transforming many of the areas you pointed out.

While we may not necessarily approach each topic exactly as you would suggest, or to the degree you feel is needed, we are in action on many of your concerns. In closely reviewing your proposed reforms, we understand that you continue to experience pressure in the registration process. We also fully hear your assertion that Landmark Education has not been as open, as you feel we need to be regarding suggestions or criticism related to the company, our history, and our practices.

Given your commitment to communication and reform, we hope there is an opportunity for us to be in full communication. We want to make sure we are clear about your concerns. We also want to share with you the actions we are already taking and we want to get your response about those actions as well.

We have received a significant amount of customer input and feedback from surveys and other communications, and we are currently making many changes based on that input and research. While the following may not address all of the areas represented by your reform ideas, we would like to inform you of the following initiatives we are undertaking:

1. The Landmark Forum Ending between 9PM and 10PMOver the last year we completely reviewed each aspect of The Landmark Forum. We redesigned the course to both end the course earlier and to ensure that we are being responsible and rigorous regarding how much time we allot for registration conversations. In addition we are ensuring that those conversations occur inside of the context of what’s possible and not sales. While the idea of sharing will remain fundamental to The Landmark Forum, as we are committed that people have the opportunity to make a difference for another, we believe that the reduction of time and the clear context of enrollment for those conversations will positively impact the concerns.

2. New Introduction Format - All of our introductions world-wide have been redesigned into a new format that lives in a total commitment to our guests leaving informed, having gotten value from the introduction, and with a feeling of no pressure. To that end, the first half of the introductions focus exclusively on what is possible and creating the world of possibility for our guests. There is no focus on Landmark Education or any of our programs. When we come to the break, we tell people that they are welcome to stay and hear about the specific programs that we offer that are designed as an access to the worlds we created in the first half of the evening. We also tell people that, if they are not interested in hearing about Landmark’s programs, the evening is complete and we thank them for coming and participating in the introduction. The survey results of this new introduction show that we have been very successful in greatly reducing the conversation for pressure that existed much more significantly prior to the redesign. (Note: We have found out that in any situation where people are looking at their personal lives, some people feel a certain degree of pressure. In fact, we tested doing introductions where there were literally no opportunities for customers to register, simply informational and if someone wanted to register, they were invited to call the center at their convenience. To our surprise, there was still a certain level of pressure for people. However, the nature of transformation and looking at one’s life seems to have some people experience a certain amount of pressure. While this was useful to recognize, it doesn’t take us off the hook. We are committed that our customers are delighted by their experience.)

3. The Advanced Course reduced from 4 to 3 days - By the end of 2007 all of our Advanced Course Programs will be 3 days. This change was an answer to our customers needs for less time commitment in this program. We have also managed responsibly the amount of registration opportunities in this program.

4. Customer Service Standards – Around the world, the Center Staff have been working on eliminating the top complaints of our customers. In addition, we have taken on an expanded commitment to hearing and impacting complaints and concerns from our customers. We have developed a new set of customer service standards and training that are designed to raise the level of service in all areas of our centers. We have regular calls with the entire worldwide staff (literally hundreds of people in 20 countries) that are dedicated to and designed around taking care of our customers. In addition, we are in the process of instituting a new customer feedback system through our website, plus integrating regular and ongoing surveys throughout numerous courses in our centers so that is easy for our customers to communicate with us on a regular basis. All received recommendations and suggestions are reviewed and taken seriously and rigorously examined by the executive accountable for each area in the company.

There are numerous other suggestions and recommendations that are currently under consideration. We very committed to continually improving our programs and our relationship to our customers. We know there is certainly much room for improvement and we will continue to address those issues seriously.

You’re invited to send any additional questions or comments to us through (Note: Please give us couple weeks to get back to you.)

Thank you for your commitment to the quality of Landmark Education and your stand for the programs Landmark Education makes available.


Harry Rosenberg, CEO

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Transformation Reformers Petition is Online

The following petition is now online at:

We, the undersigned Landmark graduates, stand for a breakthrough in the conversation of transformation through the reform and renewal of the curriculum, organization, and methodologies of Landmark Education.

The reforms at the core of this renewal cover the following interrelated issues and actions:

1. A substantial reduction in regular course time devoted to guest invitation and related conversations, including time used for conversations regarding the virtues of Landmark Education and transformation - providing more course time for additional distinctions, coaching, sharing, and other exercises and activities.

2. Allowing the results embodied in Landmark graduates, the education itself, and the intention of graduates to speak for the organization and for transformation - reducing reliance on invitation to introduction structures.

3. Creating commitment and sensitivity at all levels of the organization to a positive, respectful experience for current and potential participants - balancing statistical and numerical measures of performance (for seminar leaders, introduction leaders, ILP participants and others) with measures of the quality of participant experience.

4. Taking measures to ensure that course registration efforts do not create negative impressions, perceptions of pressure, or otherwise turn off significant numbers of prospective participants to the conversation of transformation.

5. A commitment to transparency and openness, including openness to criticism, openness to straightforward and public discussion of all aspects of Landmark, its history, and other transformational methodologies, as well as greater transparency into Landmark ownership, decision making, and financial information - openness also to graduate-led reforms such as these, and to changes in Landmark leadership itself if leadership serves as an obstacle to positive reform.

Landmark methodology too often creates a negative impression among those who interact with the organization or its participants, unnecessarily inhibiting Landmark's effectiveness in spreading transformation to the broad global community. Having observed these fundamental obstacles to widespread acceptance and participation in the conversation of transformation, and seeing and standing in the power and possibility of renewal, I add my name to those calling for reform by signing below: