Malcolm Burson asked several penetrating questions concerning what
constitutes safety in learning.
>I'm finding the entire conversation fascinating, but am coming to
>realize that the conversants are only beginning to probe at what for
>me is the heart of the matter: just what does the word 'safe' mean
>in the context of learning?
>Does it mean,
>safety of self
>where the implication is safety from criticism?
I experience two sides to criticism, criticisms of who I am and criticism
of what I think. It may be better to think of this latter as criticism of
my mental models of the world. As Malcolm went on to say
>For me, a 'critique' is a reasoned presentation of my stream of
>thought from another person's perspective, and may be positive or
>negative.
This critique is one factor of dialog, it is a part of learning for it
either reinforces my mental model or causes me to change the model -- that
is to learn.
In his post Malcolm goes on to strengthen this notion of dialog about
perspectives (Malcolm's word) as not feeling unsafe. It is a good read.
To me an unsafe environment is one in which the person is subject to
attack. Years ago while deeply engaged in software development several of
us extended a technique that I think originated with Yourdon. A review of
a product (computer code) was conducted in a definite structure. The two
operative principles were (1) everyone must commit to making the product
better and (2) no one is to critique the person or make a remark that can
be taken as critical of the competence of the people on the team. These
assured a safe environment for the teams trying to build good products to
get the help of other people.
We called them In Process Reviews and they worked very well. But we
learned that we had to go slowly. Gaining confidence that the environment
is safe is a lot like peeling an onion, one must go layer by layer.
In several other posts concerning safe learning environments the safe
concept has been associated with spiritual safety. This rings true with
my experience. If I can believe that my idea will be respected and my
vision of myself as an 'honored' person will not be threatened -- then it
is safe to offer an idea that is risky. When I lead I want these 'risky'
ideas. In fact most times I want some pretty wild ideas. If my team
doesn't respect the idea and honor the person that offered it -- I have
failed as a leader. But this is the joy of being in a position to lead --
for when the wild ideas work the person who risked to offer it and the
people who helped bring it to reality all grow spiritually. These are the
peak experiences all of you will remember. They are the stuff of
corporate myths.
Is this dealing with the spirit of people and the spirit of the team? --
yes it is. Is it risky for a leader to muck around in the spiritual
arena? Yes!! But this is one of the defining differences between being a
manager and being a leader. Because many of us are called to be both
manager and leader we must be careful that in one role we do not
contravene the other role.
Aloha
Bill Hobler
--"William J. Hobler, Jr" <bhobler@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>