Not so-JG
e-mail and forum posts are great ways to guarantee miscommunication. Just as you did not mean to offend, I certainly did not mean to ridicule.... or maybe you did. Just joking. Anyway...
CRM is really a default safety improvement device. If HF/CRM/whatever was implicated in unsafe practices, then by tackling the topic directly, through ground training, we must ipso facto be 'safer'. There is little tangible evidence that this is the case and it is probably fair to say that TEM has its roots in the failure of the previous CRM to deliver a return on investment. Interestingly, despite TEM being around now for 15 years, I haven't seen any attempts to demonstrate any step change in safety arising from this shift in acronyms.
Have you been receiving 'bad' CRM? Well I cannot tell. What I can say is that you seem to have been exposed to a subset of possible CRM themes and one that is rooted in the earliest attempts to deliver groundschool. The simple prescription approach and the idea that CRM is a 'toolkit' is too simplistic to accommodate the variability of the operational world.
Why did I say you were not serious? Because I assumed your question was rhetorical and that you'd taken such a stance to throw the futility of much CRM training into stark relief. I have often said to clients that if they do not let me attempt to measure the benefits of the training I deliver on their behalf, then their investment is little more than an act of faith. In which case, it would be cheaper to pay me not to turn up. Simply pay me and I will stay away. The effect will be the same and it will be cheaper in the long run as crew will not need to be off-line to attend class. However, show me a crew training manager who even understands the concept of evaluation. Compliance at least cost is the watchword of most airline training.