Yesterday I was reading about Second-order learning1 in the book Dialogue by Ellinor and Gerard. As I read I was struck by the thought that an After action review (“AAR”), whilst itself a valuable tool in the learning process, may not delve deep enough into the root cause of a problem. Instead the “AAR” may restrict participants to “Single-loop learning” rather than “Second-order learning”.
“AAR“‘s are a reflective tool that prompts a team or and individual to ask the following questions:
- What were the desired outcomes?
- What were the actual outcomes?
- Why were the outcomes different to those planned?
- What was learnt? (and by implication what will you do differently next time?)
It is the last question in particular that sets “AAR“‘s up as being important for knowledge management as it can make explicit the knowledge that was employed on a project. The questions serve to reinforce the experience of the participants and can be documented in order to share the knowledge around an organisation.
But when we look at Single-loop learnings only, we focus in on the Strategies, Desires and Actions that setup the project results. We can fail to understand the reasons why the Strategies, Desires and Actions were selected in the first place. Organisations that do this in a regular basis will describe themselves as continually “fire-fighting” or “reinventing the wheel” and indicates that single-loop learning (if any at all) is present.
Conversely, Double-loop learning takes the inquiry one step further. It poses questions about our Beliefs, Assumptions and Values in order to determine and understand that how we see the world has a direct line to how we operate in it. The contention of Double-loop learning is that only by understanding our Beliefs, Assumptions and Values can we truly eliminate some of our negative repeating behaviours.
Now of course, this is not a simple thing to do. It takes practice to to query assumptions regularly, to suspend judgement and values, and to identify and recognise how your belief system comes into play. This is where “Dialogue” is useful.
“Dialogue” (defn.) is in many ways a conversation discipline that has implications far beyond learning and knowledge management.
…it is proposed that a form of free dialogue may well be one of the most effective ways of investigating the crisis which faces society, and indeed the whole of human nature and consciousness today. Moreover, it may turn out that such a form of free exchange of ideas and information is of fundamental relevance for transforming culture and freeing it of destructive misinformation, so that creativity can be liberated.”
In this case “Dialogue” is used to:
- suspend judgement
- identify assumptions
- listen
- inquire and reflect
Each of the above practices supports “Second-order learning” in After action review sessions and will greatly increase their value to an organisation.
Footnotes
-
Called “Double-loop learning” in the book. ↩