leadlag learning system

I wrote this in November 2019; this represented an upgrade on my thinking from previous-to-that, but I've since had further shifts in my thinking so I probably would do something slightly different than the below, or I would at least articulate aspects differently.

There are also probably unexplained things below, since it was originally written as an internal doc for Liminal Space Agency.

That is, it can be used descriptively as a lens for understanding any learning process, or intentionally deployed as an explicit practice.

We need to somehow create clarity about how we intend to operate, while recognizing that we're not automatically already operating like that, and there's going to be a learning process, so that we can't just instantly instantiate a new set of protocols and everybody's suddenly following them. While, allowing for there to be clarity that what's happening in the meantime isn't in accordance with the kind of thing, but is in accordance with the meta-thing which is the learning process.

To support the embodiment of these commitments & assumptions:

We also need to practice the skill "distinguish content from meta" / relates to revealing activation challenge.

framing the work, as described in #book: The Fearless Organization, and in The Power of Habit's ALCOA case study

< lead & lag measures >

(I wrote an article a few years ago called Needles you can’t move with your hand, that is about lead & lag measures and how they relate to designing for the emergence of a collaborative culture)

It seems to me to make sense to

Say we have a new protocol that we're wanting to instantiate. Framing that protocol as "we're starting an adaptation phase of this protocol right now, and your response-ability, in relation to this protocol, is within the next week (or two weeks, or whatever time frame) is to attempt to embody this, notice where resistances come up, and do whatever you need to do to get clarity on those resistances."

(This is contrasted with the implicit frame that would otherwise be present, of "your job is to immediately behave in this new way".)

As an example, let's consider some sort of new protocol intended to decrease the frequency at which people in the ecosystem get sick, that involves some behavior that people would also be doing while not sick. Details not key here.

So, having decided that we're going to implement that protocol, the adaptation phase begins. During this time, everyone is co-responsible for everyone doing the learning and unlearning that they need to do to adopt the new protocol.

Learning might involve:

Unlearning might look like recognizing some resistance present in relation to following the new protocol, then doing emotional processing on it.

The Learning & Unlearning will interplay in interesting ways. My thought is that people can intend to just adopt the protocol 100%, and then see what happens when they do. They might find that they forget but they are relaxed about it, in which case maybe habit-training is the thing to do. They might find that they have a bunch of resistance, in which case there's unlearning to do.

What this whole structure does is provide a scaffold for people to lean into these core commitments: "[missing block]" and "[missing block]".

What I want to instantiate is a meta leadlag learning system that looks something like this:

So what's going on there? What would it really mean?

And trying to try to get a view of what that gap is.

And then trying to close that gap, but not in like an immediate, like, close the gap way.

But in a like, if I attempt to embody the level of realness that's being pointed out here, what emotional constructs block that?

Okay, then notice them, try to surface them and articulate them and be with the emotional truth of that and let it dissolve.

So it's like similarly, if we have #fishbowl conversations about Jean's health, the people watching the #fishbowl are going to get activated, right?

Whether they, you know, experience a lot of direct emotionality or whether they just experience like, you know, some sort of defence mechanism like blankness or whatever shows up. So the goal is to shift to an understanding of this as an opportunity for people to unlearn their old schemas that are keeping them from taking in what's happening, as opposed to it being seen as like a thing where you're just you're just supposed to already be able to take it in?

Because on some level we don't actually expect people to already be able to take everything in. If we could, we'd be in a different place. In any given moment, someone might have an insight that lets them take it in, but we don't expect that to happen straightforwardly every time.

So I'm seeing the #fishbowl form as an opportunity for that! Where any frustration or fear or confusion or anything that surfaces is like, immediate opportunity of like, okay, cool, you know, everyone watching the #fishbowl have a little notebook, write down the things that scare you that come up.

And then, either in the moment or as a whole later exercise on that, do coherence therapy, do Bio-Emotive, do whatever else to get to the schema.

It seems to Malcolm that it's important to be able to fake it til you make it with a mindset learning lead measure. I'm not saying we want people to fake it--I'm saying they necessarily will fake it, so we need to make the result of faking it be a result that we want.

And with learning, more so that many other things, you can reasonably say "I know I'm stuck in judger mindset right now, but if I were in learner mindset, what might I do right now? and then do it. That could involve emotional processing, or taking some space, or something else. It makes it clear that we don't expect people to always suddenly be able to just make the flip (although this absolutely does happen!) but instead, by creating a sense that it's a natural part of the learning process to be stuck, that invites the flip on the meta-level.

So I guess it's worth distinguishing between "seeing everything as a learning process" and "acting as if everything is a learning process"

Jules talking in short /today mid-aft recording about lead & lag measures, and setting aside euphemistic judgment around "online vs offline"... and the need for onlineness to be a lag measure, not a lead measure

revise LLL model based on AtH

relate "noticing what's already working"

say more about the coherence piece in particular. like really grokking the sense the existing behavior makes

fractal post-judgment

+ revealing activation + the value of being able to hold something without revealing

+ FIRST: mindset first, AND the frontloaded first

import my Spheres of Feedback thing from malcolmocean roam into here

this connects with NVC, and "doing the best one can with existing situation" vs underlying learning

What do we do with shock/upset/activation when it shows up? And, and I'm asking that not not even quite in a prescriptive way, but just in a descriptive way, like how do people systems tend to respond (here and in general) when something like that occurs?

How do we handle activation or defensiveness?

David Yu remarks

Competing commitments & immunity

Article: errors vs bugs and the end of stupidity

framing the work from #book: The Fearless Organization

failure in general

sapolsky & baboons - 6 months to learn the new culture

creative tension arrow

non-negotiables

transition phase

pattern-as-resource

pre-success failure

Context / assumptions:

originally had the idea ~1h25 of 19-11-07 AuWe Instantiate Jean CEO, organizes trip to Toronto but didn't speak to it

articulated the idea around ~1h20 of 19-11-09 MalJe vncz - dream secret learning contexts

articulated it to David November 15th, 2019: otter link

articulated it to Selena November 16th, 2019: otter link

the November 16th, 2019 evening convo (threads to doors) was also relevant