Of life and human process labs!

“Life seems to have become a human process lab on a cosmic scale”, I blurted out during a free-flowing conversation with a friend. This conversation happened in the context of the environment of uncertainty brought about by the pandemic. Since, both my friend and I have a process work/ human process lab background, this comment appeared to have 'communicated something'.

Later, I started wondering why I made such a statement and what exactly it meant. When I persisted with this question for a while, three 'answers' emerged. 

One similarity was in terms of the uncertainty/unpredictability and the lack of structure/direction involved. 

The second similarity was in terms of the transformation potential. It is said that transformation potential of human process labs is comparable to that of very stressful life events. Also, this learning/transformation is something that one has to derive by oneself though the facilitators and the group are 'there with you'. Of course, this 'transformation' need not necessarily turn out to be 'easy' or even 'pleasant' for the participants. 

The third similarity was in terms of the importance of the focus on 'here and now'. While 'here and now' (which is emphasized in a human process lab) has always been the most 'real' aspect of life in general, the unpredictability and uncertainty about the future generated by the crisis made the 'here and now' focus even more important.

Yes, under normal circumstances, it would have been much more appropriate to say that the lab is a microcosm of the world (or life), and not the other way around. 

In this post, let's focus on taking a closer look at the human process labs and their potential to trigger insights and transformation. We will also explore the thorny issue of taking the learning from the lab to the real world. 

Origin

The origin of human process labs is often traced back to the workshops conducted by Kurt Lewin post World War II, the 'encounter groups' of Carl Rogers (to facilitate authentic encounter between people to promote personal growth) and the Sensitivity Training Groups (T-Groups) of the National Training Laboratories (NTL) in USA. So, various factors, including the need to help individuals to deal effectively with post war stress/tensions, the desire to facilitate authentic human interactions and the Human Potential Movement influenced the origin and development of the underlying concept.

Human process labs in India

In India, currently Indian Society for Applied Behavioral Sciences (ISABS), Sumedhas Academy for Human Context (Sumedhas) and Aastha Foundation for Human Learning and Growth (Aastha) are the prominent organizations that organize these labs - in various hues and shades. Of course, there can be significant differences in the way the labs are facilitated, based on the 'philosophical paradigms' of the organization and the facilitators. In this discussion, we will focus mostly on the so called 'basic' versions of the human process lab (that focus on intra-personal and interpersonal awareness and sensitivity) and not on 'meta-labs' (that builds on basic labs to explore deeper aspects of group dynamics and process work). 

The Anatomy and Physiology of human process labs

 

Human process labs are typically so called 'stranger groups' or 'encounter groups' where one is likely to spend about 40 hours over 5 days with a group of 10-12 'strangers' sitting in a small room. The organizers try to ensure that people who have known each other before/the people who are working in the same organization are not part of the same lab group. While the group typically involves two facilitators, they are very different from the facilitators that one sees in training programs (where the facilitator structures the agenda/ interaction and ensures that a predefined learning content is delivered). Especially in the initial stages of a process lab, the facilitators are unlikely to do any visible 'facilitating'. 

This unstructured situation prompts the participants to make attempts to structure it and in that process project themselves (and their predominant patterns of feeling, thinking and behaving in the larger world outside the lab) into that attempt. This, in turn, prompts reactions from the other participants and gets the group interaction going. This is most important, as human process labs rely on 'learning through discovery', based on the processing of the 'here and now' (shared) group experience and the flow of feelings and behaviors in the group as the primary tool for learning, with each group member being a resource. 

The main role of the facilitators is to create/manage the learning environment (to hold the learning space) and to help the participants to be in the 'here and now'. Extensive storytelling about past events in the life of the participants are discouraged (as those past events are not in the shared experience of the group) and the participant is encouraged to focus on how that past event is impacting the 'here and now' of the participant (which is available to the group). The focus is on authentic sharing of emotions and not on deriving conclusions/making judgments. A lot of focus is placed on helping the participants to focus on and magnify their feelings and to break down composite emotions (or 'vague sense of discomfort') to concrete feelings. 

Benefits

The most common benefit of attending a human process lab is greater awareness and a more nuanced understanding of one's emotions, in addition to insights on how one's actions impact others and how one is impacted by actions of others. These insights typically come as a series of small epiphanies that add up and not as one 'big bang' realization. In a way, the other participants and the facilitators act as mirrors that enable the participant to see oneself and one's actions more clearly (especially around one's 'blind spots'). It is also insightful to observe how the different participants in the human process lab (including oneself) react differently to the same stimulus (the situation in the group). The lab provides a supportive environment to try out new behaviors based on the insights and awareness mentioned above. So, the lab enables one to get in touch with one's feelings and to express one feelings/behave in an authentic and open manner. A human process lab can also be viewed as some sort of 'group psychotherapy' though a very unstructured and non-directive one. 

Different people experience the human process labs differently. Some find it to be highly stressful, some find it to be deeply liberating, and some find it to be a bit of both. A human process lab is essentially an invitation (and not a compulsion) to explore and experiment. In general, the more (of yourself) you invest in the lab, the more you get back. Also, while the labs often trigger insights, what to do with those insights is entirely up to the participant. The insight is the easier part and integrating that insight into one's life is the harder part. This is especially significant because these insights, might not necessarily be 'pleasant' ones. In a way, it is like what happens in psychotherapy; making the unconscious conscious is just the beginning. One of the risks with human process labs is that they might not provide a sense of 'closure' to the participant, and this can be quite disconcerting. 

Of human process labs and crying

'Outsiders' often associate the lab experience with a lot of crying. While some people do cry for some time in the lab, crying is not the main point. When someone expresses strong emotions, tears sometimes come along with it. While crying can be cathartic, crying as an end in itself (or as an attention seeking behavior) is not something that the human process labs encourage. 'Empathy without collusion' is one of the key principles for the interaction in a lab. 

Do we really need five days?

Another comment that is often made by 'outsiders' is that the typical five-day duration of the human process labs is too much or even unnecessary.  While each lab has its own course of evolution over the five days, it is usually observed that most of the significant learning and insights happen during the last two days. It takes time for people to tune into the lab process and for the lab process to gather momentum. Since the labs use the shared experience of the participants in the lab as the raw material and each participant as a resource, it is very much logical that it takes time to 'develop' these resources. Attempting a lab with too short a duration risks trivializing the underlying principles of human process labs.  

Side effects of human process labs

Some people do find the supportive environment of the lab 'intoxicating', 'seductive' or even 'addiction-forming'. It is true that the level of emotional openness and emotional support found in the human process labs is found only in very close relationships in real life. Yes, this can lead some of the lab participants (in a Pavlovian/classical conditioning way) to believe that they are in love with another participant in the lab (or that another participant is in love with them). In general, human process labs do help in some sort of emotional detoxification, and hence attending labs periodically can indeed be a rational decision!

While the human process labs do increase emotional literacy and provide insight on the impact of one's behavior on others (and how one is impacted by the behaviors of others), it is often very challenging for the participants to take the learning from the lab to 'real life' (e.g., to one's family and to one's workplace) where the supportive environment ('shared space') of the lab is missing. 

The significant others in family and work (who haven't gone through a 'human process lab experience) might not be able to relate to the level of emotional intensity and openness that the participant might have carried forward from the lab environment. They might even consider such emotional intensity/behavior inappropriate/dysfunctional in the work/family context. In a way, a relationship is like an equation and if the lab abruptly changes one side of the equation, it can destabilize the equilibrium in the relationship (which can be very unsettling for the other person who hasn't gone through the lab experience). Fortunately, or unfortunately, this 'post lab high' experienced by the participants usually lasts only for a week or two!

While there are labs that are designed for couples (that one can attend along with one's spouse), the same can't be extended to the organization context. In a way, such attempts to extend the lab's scope goes against the basic assumption that the human process labs are 'stranger groups' who learn together and go back to their different worlds after the lab. If that assumption is violated, it can pose very serious challenges to the effective functioning of the lab (e.g., by introducing power structures into the lab interaction, creating concerns about possible retaliation after the participants go back to the real life etc.). 

Human process labs in organizations

The human process labs can also give insights on how groups function/on group dynamics. One of my key insights from the human process labs that I attended was that so much processing can be done with so little data.  However, we must remember that the dynamics of an 'intact group' (e.g., a work team in an organization) can be significantly different as compared to that of a 'stranger group' (because for an 'intact' group, there is a shared past and future in addition to the 'here and now' of the lab). So, the insights that one gained from the lab on group dynamics might not translate easily to the workplace context. Also, as we have seen above, running human process labs for work groups/teams in organizations becomes a very challenging as they are not 'stranger' groups.

While conducting human process labs for 'intact teams' in organizations are not advisable, one can definitely leverage some of the elements of the human process lab principles/approaches with appropriate modifications in the organization context to drive participative discovery and non-coercive change. For example, I have leveraged those principles/approaches to help a large group of leaders to do joint exploration and deep soul-searching to crystallize the identity, vision and mission of the organization. I still remember many of those leaders saying that they never had a similar opportunity in their career to have such authentic interactions and open discussion, especially on their fears and on their not so politically correct opinions! Similarly, one can leverage human process lab principles as part of programs aimed at facilitating effective 'Campus to Corporate' transition. 

The vitality of organizations can be enhanced by the authentic human interactions, joint exploration, creative problem solving, proactive contribution and commitment that approaches based on human process lab principles can facilitate.  Leaders must remember that this is essentially an organic process and hence they have to trust the wisdom of the group and not get too prescriptive about the solution. The paradoxical aspect there is that while such interventions (using human process lab principles) can positively impact the level of trust in the group/organization and the organization culture, the receptivity to such an intervention would depend on the level of trust and the organization culture! 

The alchemy of the magic of human process labs

In a way, the magic of the lab lies in the 'lab space'. The lab space enables the participants to 'feel with' and hence 'resonate with' other participants. Even for people who participate in the same lab interacting with each other outside the lab space is very different as compared to interacting with each other in the lab space. But lab do give us hope (and offer a 'proof of concept') that 'authentic human interactions', 'resonance' and 'living life intensely each moment' are indeed possible and that we need not be prisoners of the entrenched patterns of behaving and relating. While the magic can't be fully replicated outside the lab environment, labs can make us more confident of the human potential and also enable us to be a little bit more aware, sensitive, authentic, creative and alive! This, in turn, can benefit the groups and organizations that we are part of. 

In lieu of a conclusion

Where does the above discussion leave us? To me, developing greater emotional literacy, self-awareness, active non-judgmental listening, new ways of perceiving and responding and inter-personal awareness/sensitivity are definitely reasonable expectations from the lab. This awareness and openness can unlock human potential and create new action possibilities. It can also enable more authentic human interactions and relationships. 

However, all these will happen only if one makes oneself open and vulnerable during the lab as human process labs rely on participative and experiential learning. This implies that people should attend human process labs only if they are self-motivated. Organizations nominating/ forcing employees to attend human process labs to correct perceived problems related to self-awareness or inter-personal sensitivity is highly unlikely to work. There is quite a bit of stress and stretch involved in learning through human process labs and hence an enthusiastic participant with an open mind is an important part of the alchemy of the magic of human process labs!

Any comments/suggestions?

Of inner compass and uncertainty

“Do what you think is right!”, said the HR leader. I had gone to him to seek his advice on a complex issue where there were multiple courses of action possible and all of them contained significant risk of failure. Somehow, this comment impacted me profoundly.  

I am not sure if I interpreted this comment in the way he intended it to be. May be, the that is exactly the way it should be. The impact of these conversations are often similar to what happens when we read a great book. The meaning often runs in parallel with or is even independent of what is written/spoken. These books (and conversations) create some sort of a ‘field’ that helps us to derive our own meaning.

I guess, the current uncertain environment made this comment emerge from the ‘back of the mind’ to the ‘day to day mind’! To me, what is great about this comment is that it helps in decision-making under uncertainty. 

To maintain integrity (in the sense of integration of thoughts, words and deeds), our actions should be in alignment with our values (what we consider as important, see ‘Of values and competencies’). In an uncertain situation, evaluating the various courses of action based on whether they are likely to work becomes even more difficult. 

So in such situations, one’s inner sense of right and wrong or the inner sense of fit or inner sense of beauty (one’s inner compass) becomes the only useful guiding force. If one hasn't paid enough attention to this inner compass, then one's actions might be driven primarily by fear, in uncertain situations. Use of this inner compass also ensures some sort of affirmation/intrinsic reward even if the course of action that one chose doesn’t succeed to the expected level or ‘pay off’ in the external sense!

This 'inner compass' is somewhat like a muscle. The more one uses it the stronger it gets. In a way, this creates a bit of a 'chicken and egg problem' and hence this involves some sort of 'leap of faith', with the word 'faith' being used in its original meaning of 'trust' (from Latin 'fides').'  While external validation has some relevance, the most important question is if one beats oneself up if the choice made using the inner compass does't succeed as expected. This brings to mind the following quote/story: "From the morning, I have been standing in front of a house begging. Only now I realized that it was my own house!".  

Note: It would be interesting to examine if the concept of 'inner compass' is applicable at the organization level also. To me, the 'inner compass' is applicable - for those organizations that have done successful 'soul-searching' efforts and haven't 'bartered away the soul' after that. In a way, the 'real values' of the organization (not necessarily the ones that are pasted on the walls) are the closest organization equivalent to the inner compass. One must differentiate between values and competencies. Something qualifies as a value only if it is so important (so core/so valuable) to the organization identity that it would be demonstrated even if it leads to a competitive disadvantage. Also, values are discovered (through a deep soul-searching process) and not designed. Competencies are about how to win whereas values are about how to live! 

Any comments/thoughts?