Of learning and legitimacy

Almost all the organizations say that they ‘value’ learning. Some of them even claim to be a ‘learning organization’.  The trouble starts when we look at the extent to which this ‘proclaimed importance’ of 'learning' gets reflected in the ‘actual way of working’ or the ’decisions made’ in the organization.

The answers to the following questions can throw some light on the importance (or lack of it) of learning in an organization:

• Is ‘learning’ supposed to be something that one should do only when one is ‘free’ (from the demands of other work activities)?
• Are the capability building programs conducted on regular working days or on holidays/ weekends?
• Do the senior leaders participate in capability building programs? Do they 'teach' in the capability building programs that their team members attend? Do they ensure that their team members don’t get pulled out of the capability building programs when some important work comes up? Do they demand/facilitate/track the transfer of learning/newly learned behaviors to the workplace? 
• Is learning considered to be mainly a 'cost' or an 'investment'? Do the learning budgets get cut at the 'slightest provocation'?
• Is ‘learning’ a ‘cherished presence’ in the organization or is it is just a ‘tolerated presence’?

Of course, the answers to these questions are not binary – they are indeed a matter of degree – with each organization finding their equilibrium point between the two polar opposites.

This choice of the equilibrium point does have implications. For example, it is one thing to make world class anytime learning (e-learning) solutions available to the employees. It is entirely a different matter to make it ‘culturally acceptable’ to do an anytime learning course during office hours. Hence, even when two organizations in the same industry make the same set of anytime learning solutions available to their employees, how the employees perceive them (and the utilization of those programs) can be very different. Similarly, if two organizations, with one working Monday to Friday and the other working Monday to Saturday, nominate their employees to a capability building program that takes place on a Saturday, the employees might perceive it quite differently.  

 I must say that I have had a very lucky start when it comes to this aspect. Before I made the ‘quantum jump’ to the management domain with my MBA, I had started my working life as an Aerospace Engineer/Scientist with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC). VSSC had very big library with books/journals/magazines on a wide range of subjects and we (the employees of VSSC) were encouraged to spend as much time as possible in the library during office hours. Since this was my first job, I assumed that this is how all organizations (at least organizations in knowledge-intensive industries) work and I was promptly proved wrong once I started my career in management. Of course, this was not the only wrong assumption I had made while I made this transition (please see 'The why of a book: Life in Organizations - Paradoxes, Dilemmas and Possibilities'). However, my 'early career experience' did have an impact of my definition of 'what good looks like'.  

Now let’s come back to the title of this post. Does the organization consider 'learning' to be a legitimate 'business activity'? 'Business activities' can be defined as activities that a business engages in for the primary purpose of making a profit. Hence, the core issue here is whether learning is considered to be an activity that adds substantial net positive value to the business and hence worth investing in. If the answer is a clear ‘yes’, then prioritizing and investing in learning should happen naturally. If not, investment in learning is more of a 'necessary evil' or a requirement for the 'license to operate' or a 'nice to do (and not a must do) thing'. 

Of course, 'learning' is not just about ‘structured capability building programs’ or ‘anytime learning’. Learning indeed happens in many ways and as per the ‘legendary’ 70:20:10 model, about 70% of the learning happens ‘on the job’ and only about 10% of the learning takes place through ‘structured learning programs'.

I do agree that most of the learning happens through job experiences. It does become problematic when this finding is used as an excuse for 'cutting capability building budgets without establishing any concrete mechanism for facilitating the learning through job experiences'. Since 'job experiences' are outside the traditional domain/mandate of the Learning & Development (L&D) function, it is easy (and very convenient) for the organization to jump to the conclusion that 'the entire responsibility for ensuring that this type of learning happens lies with the employees and their managers. 

Unfortunately, this type of learning (learning through job experiences) often does not happen automatically. Just doing a relevant project/activity need not necessarily lead to learning the target capability. It requires multiple cycles of ‘deliberate practice' and 'reflection' (ideally with help from a coach) to derive and assimilate learning from the on-the-job experience. Therefore, there is a need to put in place mechanisms to structure, facilitate and track this type of learning (please see ‘Truths stretched too far’ for details).

 Another interesting aspect here is that capability building programs mean different things to different people and that the alternative (unstated) purposes of the capability building programs could be very different (and much more important) from the ‘textbook’ purpose of  capability building programs -  building the targeted capabilities (please see ‘The many lives of capability building programs’ for details). For example, if the capability building programs are mainly meant to be ‘fun' or 'pleasant distractions from unpleasant work realities', then conducting them on holidays makes a lot of sense!

Any comments/ideas?

The many lives of capability building programs

Technically speaking, ‘capability building programs’ are meant to do exactly that – to build the targeted capabilities. However, after spending two decades in business organizations, I have come to realize that capability building programs serve different purposes in different contexts, including those that are very different from the original purpose. 

Let’s take a look at some of the 'uses' of capability building programs (starting with those that are closer to the original purpose and then moving on to those that are quite different):  

1. Capability building programs as ‘Crossing the Rubicon’: Here the implication is that capability building programs create ‘sustainable change in behavior’ (which is the behavioral definition of ‘learning’). Of course, most capability building programs fail to achieve this.
2. Capability building programs as ‘Invitation to learn’: This is based on the philosophy that ‘you can lead a horse to water; but you can’t make it drink’.
3. Capability building programs as ‘Training’:  Here the implication is that it is something that is done to the participants. While some people do say that ‘training is only for animals’, this philosophy is very much ‘alive and kicking’ in many organizations!
4. Capability building programs as an element of the 'Employee Value Proposition': This typically happens when a company makes an explicit promise of 'x' days of capability building programs per year per employee as part of its Employee Value Proposition (EVP). Yes, this works best when these capability building programs are conducted on regular working days! This approach can be extended to positively impact the company branding/business development efforts also (by highlighting the investment the company is making in capability building to improve the product quality/ to serve the customers better).
5. Capability building programs as 'Knowledge management': When an expert is leaving an organization, the organization might ask him/her to conduct a capability building program to pass on his/her knowledge, even when that knowledge is not immediately relevant to the people attending the capability building program.
6. Capability building programs as 'Enculturation': This typically happens during new employee induction/onboarding. Another variation here is 'culture building workshops'. 
7. Capability building programs as ‘Reward’: Some organization use capability building programs as a reward for high performance. It does raise some questions. For example, won’t the employees prefer to receive an equivalent amount of money in cash as opposed to attending an expensive training program?
8. Capability building programs as ‘Paid holidays’: Capability building programs can provide ‘pleasant distractions from the unpleasant realities at the workplace’.
9. Capability building programs as ‘Detox’: Some capability building programs can indeed be fun or even 'meaningful fun'. Some programs like ‘Human Process Labs’ can also provide some degree of emotional detox. Yes, this might highlight the implicit assumption that there is something toxic about the workplace. 
10. Capability building programs as ‘Rites of passage’: This happens when training programs are linked to level transitions, Here the primary purpose is to enable the psychological transition required for the level change - in the participants and in the 'significant others' in the organization ecosystem (see ‘Accelerated learning and rites of passage’ for details)
11. Capability building programs as ‘Team building’: Here the message is that the opportunity for facilitating interactions between the team members/cross-functional team members (and the possible increase in connect between them and to the team/organization) is more important than the program content. Yes, this could trivialize the concepts of 'teamwork' and 'employee engagement'. 
12. Capability building programs as ‘Importance signaling’: If a capability building is positioned (formally or informally) as ‘only for the most valuable people in the organization’ (e.g., top talent, people who are being groomed to take up top management positions etc.), it can indeed serve as a way to signal the importance that the organization gives to the concerned employees. Yes, some of the participants might promptly include this in their CVs/mention this during the interviews for jobs outside the organization.    
13. Capability building programs as ‘External benchmarking opportunities’: This works best in the case of open training programs conducted by prestigious institutes that attract participants from across the world. Quite a bit of the learning in these programs comes from interacting with the fellow participants and from knowing what the other companies are doing.
14. Capability building programs as 'Corporate rain dance': This occurs when capability building programs are used as 'solutions' to organizational problems that are not related to capability gaps at the individual level. Yes, they do give the management the illusion that something is being done about the problems (see 'Leadership training and corporate rain dance' for details). However, they can make the participants feel 'victimized' (see 'Training the victim' for details). 
15. Capability building programs as 'Sales hook': Here capability building programs are used as an opportunity to sell other products. 
16. Capability building programs as 'Brainwashing': This happens when the focus of capability building is on 'unlearning and relearning'. 
17. Capability building programs as 'Golden handcuff': Here the idea is to send the employee for an expensive long duration learning journey program and also attach a retention clause/service bond. 
18. Capability building programs as 'Immediate profit generation': This typically happens when the monetary value of the improvements coming from the 'action learning projects' that are part of the capability building program is estimated to exceed the cost of the capability building program. While this enables the Learning & Development (L&D) function to position itself as a 'profit center' (as opposed to being a cost center), whether this 'profit' is real is often a point of disagreement between the HR function and the Finance function. Also, to maximize the 'profit generation potential' of the action learning projects, the link between the action learning projects and the learning objectives of the program gets overlooked. Yes, the capabilities built during the program can and should impact the business results (and this is very much aligned to the original purpose of capability building programs). However, they are usually more difficult to estimate/ happen over a longer period of time and therefore might not be very promising for showing immediate profit! 

I am sure that more such 'non-standard' uses of capability building programs can be found. Also, a single capability building program might serve many of the uses mentioned above. This does raise an interesting question: "why do so many alternative uses of capability building programs exist, even when they are not the most efficient ways of achieving their 'unstated' objectives?". I guess, the word 'unstated' might offer a clue. In some of the organizations, spending money on some of those alterative objectives (or even attempting to achieve them directly) might not be 'culturally acceptable'. In many cultures, learning is considered to be a 'noble' activity and hence it is put on a pedestal. Hence, by achieving some of those alternative objectives through a capability building program, they can gain more respectability! 

Of course, the above discussion was from the points of view of the organizations and/or the participants. Since there are other stakeholders involved (like the facilitators, L&D team, vendors etc.) there are additional interpretations possible from their points of view. For example, for a facilitator, capability building programs can mean multiple things like a source of income, a calling, an avenue for self-expression etc. 

Any thoughts/ideas? Any other uses of capability building programs that you have come across?

Balancing our intellectual pH!

 "Listening to him for five minutes a day might help you to balance your intellectual pH", I blurted out during a conversation with a friend of mine. We were having a conversation on a topic on which my friend had a very strong point of view and I was trying to encourage him to listen to an expert who was known for having a different point of view. My friend was refusing to do so and that was when I blurted out the statement at the beginning of this post.

The above discussion with my friend was inconclusive, and it left me feeling a bit uneasy. These kind of unresolved incidents (the undigested thoughts and feelings arising from those incidents, to be precise) can create 'ghosts' in our field of thoughts that can 'haunt' us for a long time. The ideal way to exorcise these 'ghosts' is to listen to them, revisit those incidents and thoughts and deal with them adequately to ensure that those thoughts are properly digested/absorbed/integrated. In a way, it is very similar to the 'chewing the cud' behavior of some animals (called 'ruminants'). Blogging has given me the opportunity to exorcise quite a few of such ghosts (see 'Competencies and Carbohydrates' for an example) and hence I thought I will attempt the same in this case also!

After I had done some reflection on the interaction that I have had with my friend, I became increasingly aware of the paradoxical nature of this issue. A paradox is a situation with an inherent contradiction. A paradox occurs when there are multiple points of view on an issue, each of which are true and essential, but they appear to be in conflict with one another. Therefore, let's look at few of the perspectives on 'intellectual pH' and its implications for what we should read/view/listen to:

• Just like a chemical pH balance is important for healthy functioning of the body, an intellectual pH balance is important for he healthy functioning of the mind and for intellectual wellness (effective participation in scholastic and community activities). Intellectual curiosity/openness and lifelong learning are essential for intellectual wellness. After all, it is our intellect that makes us different from other animals.  

• There is nothing like  'one right pH balance'. Even in the human body, the optimal pH value differs for different parts of the body. Similarly, our intellectual equilibrium point should be different for different issues. Moreover, while the pH balance in the body is in terms of acid-base balance, the intellectual pH can have multiple dimensions (e.g. conservative-liberal, communist - capitalist etc.).  

• It is always better to listen to multiple perspectives. It enables us to broaden our intellectual horizons and to better informed decisions and more nuanced positions on issues.

• We have only limited time and energy. Hence, we should be selective in what we read/view/listen to. Moreover, we don't know if what we read/view/listen to is accurate/valid. 

• If we try to be selective, the selection is likely to be influenced by our current point of view/biases. So, we might just end up confirming/strengthening our current point of view. While there is indeed a lot of 'fake news' out there, we can reduce our chance of being misled by focusing on those sources that are widely regarded to be reliable and that follow a rigorous validation process.  

• One has to take a position and stick to it. 'If you don't stand for anything, you will fall for everything'!

• It is very much possible to have strong opinions and to hold them loosely at the same time. Remember, the nature of 'truth' in science is always 'provisional'. 

• Not everything is a matter of scientific truth and philosophy of science. Some things are a matter of personal values and beliefs. Also, just because something confirms to the most widely held opinion, it need not be true.  

• Intellectual balance is essential for making good judgements which is essential for being effective individuals and effective members of  the society. While we do have personal values and opinions, 'no man is an island'. 

• One can't look at the world (or listen to ideas/perspectives) in a truly objective manner. All observation is theory-laden, even though we might not be aware of the theories in our mind. Since each of us have our own unique ways of looking at the world, it will be impossible to be completely intellectual balanced.

• If we are deeply aware of our point of view we can watch out for the possible biases that can creep into our thinking because of that.

Where does this leave us? We cannot resolve a paradox in the way we solve a typical problem. We cannot choose one of the options over the others without oversimplifying the situation. What is possible is to struggle with the paradoxical situation for a sufficient period of time so that we can reach a higher level of awareness and deeper understanding of the context and the issue, that will enable us to come up with the most effective response at a given moment. I guess, that is direction we should go on this particular issue also.

Yes, being 'intellectually honest' (in terms of honesty in the acquisition, analysis and expression of facts/ideas and in terms of the willingness to accept the possible limitations of one's point of view) is very important to have a fair conversation (with others and with oneself). It is often possible that being open to other perspectives might enable one to better understand ones' perspective better (or make it more nuanced) even if one doesn't change it ("We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and to know the place for the first time" - in the words of  T S Eliot). 

Humans are 'territorial' like many other animals and in our case the 'territory' includes our 'intellectual territory' and 'psychological territory' in addition to 'geographical territory'. Hence, we do have a tendency to get defensive when someone criticizes us or our points of view (as we tend to perceive it as a violation of our psychological/intellectual territory. One can (and should) definitely have personal beliefs and points of view. The requirement is just to ensure that one's personal beliefs don't interfere with one's pursuit of truth and with the quality of one's interactions with others! Yes, we look at the world (and ideas/opinions) through our own lenses. But, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to clean those lenses and to keep them as distortion-free as possible! 

Any comments/ideas?

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?

The paradox of unlearning

"Repeated cycles of Learning, Unlearning and Relearning is a must for survival today!", thundered the sage on the stage at the HR conference. "Is it even possible to unlearn?", I wondered.

I am in complete agreement with the position that in an ever changing environment, we constantly need to learn new things. The question in my mind was only about the necessity and feasibility of unlearning. When I persisted with this question for a while, this entire matter of unlearning seemed to get increasingly paradoxical.  

So, what is paradoxical about unlearning? As we have seen earlier, a paradox occurs when there are multiple perspectives/opinions (doxa) that exist alongside (para)- each of which is true - but they appear to contradict/to be in conflict with one another. Now, let us look at some of the opinions about unlearning

1. Unlearning is as natural as learning.

2. Unlearning is simply impossible. You can't really remove something from your mind unless there is some sort of brain damage or extreme forms of mind control (like ‘brainwashing’)!

3. New knowledge replaces old knowledge as individuals learn more; much like overwriting. It is not considered to be the same as forgetting, where information is lost regardless of its usefulness.

4. Change in a particular behavior does not in fact remove the learning altogether; it simply reduces the likelihood of the behavior in certain contexts. Hence, the proposal that new learning ‘overwrites’ old learning is problematic.  

5. Existing knowledge or behaviors interfere with learning and, therefore, unlearning  needs to happen before new learning can occur.

6. Unlearning and learning occur simultaneously.

7. The distinction between learning, unlearning and relearning is arbitrary. 

8. Unlearning itself is very valuable. It allows us to see things as they really are. The essence of unlearning is about 'emptying' and not about 'emptying so that we can fill it up'.

9. Unlearning should not be viewed as an end in itself. It is just an intermediate step in learning.

10. Unlearning is not about forgetting. It’s about the ability to choose an alternative mental model or paradigm. When we unlearn, we step outside the current mental model in order to choose a different one.

11. We are usually unconscious of our mental models and that makes unlearning difficult. Also, we tend to view the new model through the lens of the old and that makes switching models even more difficult.

12. We don't have to worry about unlearning. Moving towards the new learning would automatically take us away from the old learning(and hence unlearning would happen automatically). Individuals learn new ways of choosing a response to a particular situation, rather than unlearning a particular response.

So, how do we resolve this?  

Even though there is quite a bit of discussion about unlearning these days, there are few theories confirmed by empirical evidence to identify how individuals unlearn and what factors may influence this unlearning. So we have to look at other options. One such option is to look at the underlying definition of 'learning' when we talk about unlearning.

If we define learning as 'acquiring knowledge', then unlearning is not possible (in the sense that it can't be forgotten) and also not even necessary (unless the existing knowledge was wrong or misleading, in which case it can be modified keeping in mind the new knowledge). When new knowledge is acquired,  the old knowledge is not erased, but maintained (‘in parentheses’) for situations where it is believed that the new knowledge does not apply.

If we look at learning as essentially a 'sense-making process' (where individuals interpret and create meaning of their experiences) and not as a 'fact gathering process', unlearning is about modifying the way we ‘make sense’ (see ‘architects of meaning’ for a related discussion).

If we define learning as 'sustainable change in behavior', then new behavior can just replace old behavior. The only case where  unlearning is required would be that of conditioned responses that interfere with learning new behaviors.  Some of these conditioned responses have roots in the underlying (unconscious) mental models. We are often operating with mental models that have grown outdated or obsolete.  It takes unlearning to see the model as only one if possibilities and not as the only possibility. So unlearning is not mainly about replacing one mental model with another; it is about having the ability to consciously chose from a range of mental models based on which is more appropriate in a given situation.

Unlearning is a process as opposed to a discrete event. The process of unlearning is about liberation from the conditioning. It involves intentional evaluation of self, task and the environment to determine if a change in the current behavior is necessary and possible. Mindfulness, ability to read contextual cues, openness to explore other possibilities and meta-cognitive ability are key enablers for this unlearning process.

It is also interesting to look at why there is so much interest in unlearning. It is probably because of the assumption that new learning can’t happen unless unlearning happens. As we saw earlier, this is not necessarily the case – except in the case of conditioned responses that create rigidity and impact 'learnability'.  Another key reason for the interest in unlearning is the belief that unlearning is essential for promoting innovation and for enabling organizations to respond more effectively to unanticipated change or crisis events (by to recognizing and modifying previous habits, approaches and behaviors that are no longer optimal).

Unlearning can happen at both the individual (assumptions, mental models, habits, response patterns etc.) and at the organization level (beliefs, paradigms, norms, rules, procedures, strategies etc.). While the unlearning at individual and organization levels can reinforce each other, they can also happen independently. For example, organizational unlearning can occur in the absence of individual unlearning through the removal of key influencers. Yes, it is important to look at the interface between individual and organizational learning in order to better understand and manage the interactions.

In a way, constant unlearning and relearning is a wasteful process. It is more efficient to modify or re-purpose old learning where possible(like a software 'update' as opposed to 'uninstall and reinstall'). Hence, relearning is better described as refocused learning (as opposed to replacing old learning with new learning). Individuals learn new ways of choosing a response to a particular situation, rather than unlearning a particular response. The focus is on modifying the response to be more effective and not on replacing one response with another (which might not necessarily lead to better outcomes). Hence, relearning is not antithetical to learning (it can happen without unlearning) and it is in fact more like learning that is made more appropriate to the current context! 

All adult learning involves relating new information with existing information and thereby modifying the existing understanding. Hence, there is no requirement for a ‘clean slate’ or ‘empty vessel’ (unlearning!) to enable new learning. Even in case of children, it seems a bit weird to suggest that a child has to unlearn 'crawling' before the child can learn 'walking'!

If we stick with the behavioral definition of 'learning' (as 'sustainable change in behavior'), adopting a new pattern of behavior is just 'learning' and hence we can even argue that the concepts of unlearning and relearning are not really required (except in the cases of brainwashing and cognitive impairment, respectively) and that they might be even misleading! Of course, we can examine and work on any possible impediments and enablers to learning in a particular context.

Any thoughts/suggestions?