DEBATE
Integrity, Money and NLP
Can you have all three?
With some Trainers,
M
elody Cheal believes that there is no in line with our own values. Integrity therefore
coaches and therapists
issue between making money and is a first person thing.” Andy Smith supports
retaining integrity, “although I can this view and points out a potential issue, “it
who use NLP in their work
see that others might see it as an issue.” Andy is possible to have integrity in your own view
Smith saw “No conflict between integrity and whilst not having integrity from the other’s
charging large amounts of
making money whatsoever” whilst Michael perspective.” So, as Michael Beale points out,
money for their services,
Beale was more worried by the question, “if the client has a different value system, we
because it “presupposes that to make money will need to explore that value system and
we ask if it is possible
you have to compromise your integrity. I think understand what he or she needs.”
that is 100% wrong. The inference is that There is also a third perspective to integrity –
to make a lot of money
NLP doesn’t work. If you believe that NLP is that of an outsider, what the law often describes
through NLP and still
genuinely useful then I don’t understand the as a ‘reasonable person’ – and whilst this is
integrity question.” largely out of the control of the Practitioner, it
have integrity in doing so.
Our first task then seemed obvious. To try to is something that must be considered. There are
define what we meant by the terms, beginning things you can do to mitigate this. Smith and
Andy Coote talks to three
with Integrity, which, as Cheal points out, “is Beale both suggest that being congruent and
Trainers and Coaches of
a nominalisation and tends to be about being true to your own ethics is a good starting point.
Beale also suggests being comfortable with the
NLP and finds that the
client’s integrity, which means that “I wouldn’t
take on somebody if his or her use of the skills
question raises a number
might be outside of my own value system.”
of key issues.
There is, however, no easy way to measure
integrity and thus, no easy way for a potential
client to gain assurance of it. Cheal suggests that
the way that measurement can be approached
is through behaviours. She suggests some
examples, “always doing what I say I will, giving
appropriate credit and references for ideas.
Working within a Code of Ethics, such as that
to which ANLP members sign up, is a good
starting point towards measuring the elements of
integrity.” “If what you offer is genuinely good”,
adds Beale, “there is no need to compromise
your integrity.”
When talking about money and the making
of it, it is important to remember that there are
many differing, often emotional, attitudes to
it. “Money is a very interesting topic. It can be
very symbolic,” suggests Cheal. “Money can
become a single focus. Some people are focused
on finding the cheapest provider regardless of
content,” she adds, “Money can often be used
as a measure of self worth. Maybe that single-
mindedness says something about their own
self-worth.” The need for money can also distort
judgement and create ethical issues. “Some people
will always grasp at straws and buy short term
fixes. If you desperately need money, you may
be motivated to respond to adverts offering a six
figure annual income from NLP” suggests Beale.
Some definitions of Integrity (for example in
Wikipedia) talk about the “depth and breadth
4 | Summer 2009 - rapport
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56