“My turkey stacked sandwich had more bacon then turkey.  Why is it when you get a salad you get 1 tomato?  For what you pay……not worth it” – Google Restaurant Review

Today, reflection is everywhere, and at work it is especially prevalent in the human resource ecosystem. The ability to ‘hold up a mirror’ is regarded as a key to transforming ourselves through the examination of thoughts, behaviors, feelings, decisions, and more. It is taken for granted that reflection is both a core competency and an indispensable activity in people & organization development, leadership, and many of our organizational practices.

Reflection can be critical too. In one sense, we can personally confront our undesirable behaviour, results, etc. to learn and grow. One LinkedIn CEO suggests you “sit on your bed and ask yourself ‘what’s one thing I’m doing wrong… one thing I KNOW I’m doing wrong, that I could fix, that I would fix… and sit in that moment. I guarantee you it’s not going to be comfortable and you’re not going to like the answer, but that’s where real growth begins.’”

To facilitate reflection, practitioners prescribe journaling, form discussion groups, create hands-on exercises, host experiential workshops, conduct one-to-one coaching, devise action learning projects, assign problem-based learning tasks, develop learning simulations, and so on.

This kind of remembering is linked to an influential (learning) theory called constructivism. This theory posits that we learn by thinking back on our experience to construct mental representations of the world for future use. Once built, we add to, or modify, these models, based on testing them out in the world of experience.

Not long ago this idea was radical, in part, because it challenged the supremacy of the ‘objectivist’ paradigm (learning ‘objective’ facts from experts). Reflecting on experience opened up possibilities for those who had been excluded from formal learning, while simultaneously decentering top-down approaches.

Today (reflective) constructivism is positioned as all you need to discover hidden, untapped knowledge and potential, grow as a person, enrich yourself and your organization, optimize your life, and develop psychologically. One internet search reveals legions of coaches and consultants willing to help you find your ‘true self’, your ‘core purpose’, etc. The practice thoroughly dominates L&D, OD, coaching, and other people development practices too.

But what’s that saying about a hammer? Ah, yes… For some time, we’ve been banging away, building mental models, and now everything looks kind of similar. And there are some issues with our hammer: the handle is missing, it’s actually more of a sledgehammer… and why do you keep trying to bang me over the head with it?

So, can we talk about this?

First, the hammer: it would be delightful if experiential learning (a.k.a. reflective constructivism) was as simple as having an experience, building a mental model, and testing that model out in the world. But…

As Chris Argyris noted (back in 1976!!!), we have two mental models: one that we say we use, and the one we actually use. I might believe that I use participatory and democratic methods, but control others through lecture and ‘classroom management’. Why? Argyris says to “remain in unilateral control”, to “maximize ‘winning,’ and minimize ‘losing,’” to “suppress negative feelings,” and to “be as ‘rational’ as possible” (2008).

What is more, Mezirow (1994), in his theory of ‘transformational learning’ suggests that to avoid discomfort, we assign challenging experiences into preexisting ‘meaning structures.’ This often leads to externalizing the source of our difficulties: “Why didn’t you put less bacon (or more turkey) on my sandwich?” In the extreme, everyone is wrong but me.

The other issue is that reflection leads us to what Mezirow calls ‘disorienting dilemmas.’ This happens when, despite reflection, you remain deeply unsettled and experience guilt and shame at your inability to resolve your conflict. Many in this state turn to helping relationships for support.

Both Mezirow and Argyris recommend that to get ‘unstuck,’ we question the assumptions underlying our explanation (i.e., surface the real reason). This is challenging work.

What about other tools? These can be found in some of constructivism’s assumptions.

The first is that constructivism implies that everything can be reasoned through. But what about my unreasonable and powerful (conflicting) desires, subconscious conflicts, unexamined or forgotten aspects of my background, etc.? Staring these in the face is what Katie MacMillan (1996) calls ‘confronting the beast.’ Isn’t this learning too? Can’t learning be illogical and open to grappling with life’s messy mysteries?

The other assumption is that we are ‘objective’ observers of our experience. How can that be? We have to consider how our ‘subjectivities’ (e.g., age, gender, class, education, disability status, religious or spiritual beliefs, etc.), afford us only a partial view of our experiences.

Another assumption is that one ‘true’ unitary self can both stand apart from itself, and at the same time be discovered by itself? I’m confused just thinking about this. What about an evolving, context-dependent set of identities?

And what about other people!? Have you ever ‘learned’ something only to have your new ideas rejected or by others? Rightly or wrongly, learning is ‘situated’, and social, taking place within semi-permeable groups of people. Perhaps generating collective models and practices is a nice complement to solo-reflection.

There are so many additional (rhetorical) questions, like “Are there other ways of knowing?” and “Does learning really take place in a step-by-step process?” and “Do I need a facilitator?” as well as “What about the larger social and natural systems we are a part of?”

So, what does this all mean for workplace learning & development?

Our workplace learning practices may be resting on unexamined assumptions that actually limit the results that are possible. For instance, new employees, isolated from the realities of how things really get done, might struggle to transfer their learning or become disillusioned when they discover the gap between training and actual organizational practices. Or, performance management systems could be focused solely on individual performance, ignoring larger systemic factors that significantly impact what’s achievable. As well, other forms of learning could focus too heavily on individual skill-building, neglecting the crucial roles of power dynamics, organizational culture, and systemic processes.

Most critically, this reflection reveals that our workplace ‘skill inventories’ are likely loaded with way too much bacon, which is really overpowering! Especially now, as more and more of our workplace processes are becoming automated through the use of SaaS platforms, AI, and other improvement schemes (there’s so much bacon!!), we need to be able to offer each other and our employees a balanced, more nuanced, critical (focused on finding assumptions) perspective on why we are doing what we are doing and not doing it some other way (and what are we really doing?).  The people in our organization are wondering about this (and the tomatoes) anyway.

Thank you for reading and I’d love to hear your thoughts…

Referenced:

Argyris, C. (2008). Teaching smart people how to learn. Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review Press.

MacMillan, K.Trance-scripts : The poetics of a reflexive guide to hypnosis and trance talk

Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly (American Association for Adult and Continuing Education), 44(4), 222-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369404400403

Tyler Wier is the Principal of Archetype Consulting. His focus is on building custom people and organization development programs and interventions that work, through proven, data-informed, inclusive approaches. Connect with Tyler on LinkedIn or tyler.w@archetype-od.ca