Why I teach one method instead of many courses

A weekend in hypnosis. A different weekend in NLP. A coaching course that never mentioned either one. Then somebody sits down in front of you on a Tuesday morning and you have to choose.

So you improvise. It mostly works. But you could not write down what you did, and that is the part that keeps practitioners anxious.

Collecting techniques adds options. It does not tell you which option belongs now. A method answers the harder question: what comes first, what comes next, and what stays out of the room today.

That is why I teach four disciplines as one sequence. The disciplines contribute content. The sequence protects the client and the practitioner.

If I cannot explain a step in plain words, I do not understand it well enough to use it on somebody else. Clients notice this. Clear explanation is part of consent, not decoration.

I ask practitioners to describe each phase in one sentence a fifteen-year-old would follow. It is harder than it sounds, and it changes how they practise.

A method should tell you where it ends. Mine names its limits: it is education and practice structure, not medicine, diagnosis or therapy licensing. Saying so costs a sale sometimes. It is still the right thing to put on the page.