After 25 years as an educator both in American Business and the University
System, I have a different take on safety and learning. The questions is
not whether you learn in a safe or non-safe environment BUT WHAT YOU
LEARN.
Safety and what you learn is also dependent on early learning experiences.
If the early learning experiences were conducive to explorations and
encouraged the child to have courage, to be self- competent, to have a
strong social ego then the adult will have a solid foundation upon which
they can stand to continue learning. If the organization presents
challenges that are looked at as challenges with open acceptance of
contributions, then the adult learning will be conducive to furthering the
goals of the corporation and its future. Safe learning environments
usually mean just that, that the individual can take time to explore their
learning experience, choose what they want to learn and build a solid set
of ideas for further exploration. The information gathered is looked at
as useful, beneficial, and "safe to use."
A non-safe learning environment does produce the same opportunities, but
gathered material may not feel like it is "safe to use.". The same
material may be presented, but the individual now has to mingle the
material, in their mind, with issues of safety. If the stress in the
learning environment is great enough the individual will not see the
information gathered as useful unless it promotes personal safety. Future
exploration has little or no meaning in a non-safe environment because the
goal is switched from learning/exploration to personal safety. So
although the same material may be present, it will not be filed in the
memory system of the individual in the same beneficial way. Often, data
learned in this environment produces more of a tunnel vision than an
opening to a new vista.
BUT, there is another type of learning that happens in organizations. I
call this SHADOW LEARNING. Some tasks in organizations can not be learned
through academic approaches, through material presented, no matter how
well thought out. This learning deals with changes in consciousness.
Leadership for instance, is not an academic approach, but can only be
learned by the individuals personal understanding of their power, ethics,
and the nature of humankind. The understanding of yourself as a leader
and your goals does not come through reasoning or thought, but rather
through insight. And insight can only come (this is perhaps what Andrew is
seeing) when we meet our shadow self and challenge our views, our
consciousness and previous experience against a greater or larger concept
of our self and our relationship to a greater whole in an existential or
ontological manner. This challenge is very "non-safe." For a change in
consciousness or meeting the challenge of your shadow self in a learning
situation, will in fact threaten all previous relationships and
understandings that your ego holds dear.
"Changes in consciousness never take place in safe environments." "
Learning after the change of consciousness should take place in a safe
environment." A change in consciousness only comes as we cross a line
from light to darkness, where we do not know what we will find. This line
and this darkness are not safe. And in this darkness we have the
opportunity to change the environment through insight and personal
confrontation of our unconscious mind and our shattered social ego. It is
in this darkness or wilderness (in archetypical terms) that actual
learning takes place.
All knowledge that is to be widely applicable must cross this line at one
point. That is data by itself is not learning nor is it educational in
nature. Ideas, concepts and new visions are educational. But to be
useful they must be axiomatic to the present situation or application.
And this can only occur after a change in consciousness.
What is a non-safe environment for consciousness change? I don't think
that we can look at safe or non-safe environments in the same manner we
would look at elementary or even university education. The
"teacher-counselor" must produce an environment of safety. That is our
approach must make it safe for the individual to reach a place of lost
safety in order to produce their consciousness change. As a
teacher-counselor-mentor we can only produce the encouragement to learn.
Learning happens from in the inside out. No amount of data, no amount of
instructions or challenges can make a person learn or change their
consciousness. But if we understand the nature of reality or the nature
of human kind and how they learn, then as guides through the darkness we
may be instrumental in the learning processes. As the teacher-counselor
we can only stand in the darkness with a hand out to help the individual
cross their shadow line. WE can not produce the learning or the
challenges they must take. All challenges and incidents worthy of
consciousness change are produced internally by the individual from their
"supra- consciousness."
As a teacher-counselor-mentor, to try to set up the challenges of these
changes would be to impose our own consciousness on our students/clients.
And this is more dangerous than any attitude, paradigm or non-safe
condition an organization can create in the learning environment. AS much
as we each participate in a universal unconscious which produces
archetypes and myths, we are each an individuation of consciousness where
in our challenges and opportunities may only be addressed by our-self, no
matter how similar they appear to others situations.
Sorry about the long post, but this has been brewing in my thinking for a
week and I wanted to share it before it slipped away.
Suzanne Deakins, Ph.D.
Oregon
--"C. Suzanne Deakins" <sdeakins@teleport.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>