

### Listen Think Talk

Modern Learning Applied

Anders Christian Hansen

Copyright © Anders Christian Hansen 2020

First edition

First published as ebook 2020

Published via Smashwords

Title: Listen Think Talk – Modern Learning Applied

Author: Anders Christian Hansen

For information about permission to reproduce selections from this book, write an email to ach@greenbay.dk

Credits:

Cover by Joleene Naylor

English proofreading by editor_linda (Fiverr)

Professional proofreading by Jesper Knudsen

Formatting by Ebook Launch

ebook ISBN 978-0-463933-05-3

Listen Think Talk

To my mother and father,

Johanne and John

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.

It's what you know for sure

that just ain't so.

\- Mark Twain

Table of Contents

Detailed Table of Contents

1 How & Why

2 About this book

3 Listen!

4 Think!

5 Talk

6 Autopoiesis

7 Context

8 Neuroscience

9 Learning model

10 The End...

Acknowledgment

Selected bibliography

End Notes

# Detailed Table of Contents

1 How & Why

How this book became real

Running a series of courses

Before bias and neuroscience became trendy

Scientific theory or just meaningful observations?

What is learning? And how is "learning" used in this book?

2 About this book

The need to change constantly

Welcome to my book

Who is the customer?

Who control the learning process?

3 Listen!

Listening is not the most dominant sense we have

The brain is constantly bombarded by billions of impressions

Good learning conditions

You will never have the full picture

The presenter and manager also need to listen

Full attention

True listening

Listening - basic scholastic behavior

Praxis on long presentations

4 Think!

How the presenter can increase the learning output

What is Thinking?

Reflection

Jack Mezirow on reflection

Peter Jarvis on reflection

The power of Thinking

Change-management and thinking

Questions

How to implement Thinking in your learning process

5 Talk

Social Constructionism and language

Collaborative work and talking

Language from a brain perspective

Introvert vs. Extrovert

Introversion and extraversion in the learning process

6 Autopoiesis

Learning objective - imitation or construct new?

Human brain as a shell

You cannot control what other people learn

7 Context

What is context?

Be proactive

Context according to Gregory Bateson

Transferred learning?

8 Neuroscience

Perception

Sensory Cortex

The seeing process in the sensory cortex

Memory

Implicit memory

Explicit memory

The episodic memories

The semantic memory

Inculcation - limited

Storing – fragmented and uncompleted

Recalling - a construction

You and every awake person on earth

9 Learning model

The definition of Learning

Learning model

Behaviorism and traditional learning

B.F. Skinner

Behaviorism on the shoulders of Positivism

The looks of Behaviorism

Competence and learning

Competence

Qualification vs. competence

10 The End...

Implementation and bottom up

Implementation

Bottom up

We are all good change managers...

Keep it simple

Learning as incremental steps

Acknowledgment

Selected bibliography

End Notes

# 1 How & Why

How this book became real

In the summer of 2010, I was about to go on vacation for three weeks when I broke my ankle while out running. I was grounded. Luckily, I had been working with learning theory and praxis for years and had developed parts of what would become Listen Think Talk. So, I decided to write a book.

After three weeks, the book was written. And then it just lay there.

Years before, I was in the middle of my career as an officer in the Danish Army. Always testing ideas and theories about leadership, operations, training, education, and organizational development.

I had just finished a long period as commander of first one then a second tank company (Leopard 1A5). There I tested and implemented value-based leadership (mission, vision, strategy, and values) several times. I write _implemented_ , as I alone defined the different settings and sort of pushed this new system down over my companies.

The first and second time it was a big failure because nobody had been involved and nobody understood what it was all about. Therefore, the resistance was widespread among my employees and very loud and explicit.

The third time I used value-based leadership when I was preparing for a mission to Iraq. This time I had developed and tested my training vision in another unit, and I was accepted by the new team. The mission was obvious, so we did not spend much time working with this part, and the strategy was based on the learnings from my other units and adjusted with input from my new team. That meant that the only thing my team and I developed together was the team values. The result was that the values became meaningful to all and was used throughout the mission.

A year before my mission to Iraq, I attended a year-long course at the Royal Danish Defense College. It was a compressed course about adult learning comprising psychology, pedagogics, didactics, learning theory, and sociology.

It proved to be a course totally fitted to my personality and interests. Absolutely mind-blowing. I can only say that my perspective of myself and the world around changed 180 degrees.

From then on and forward, I tested some of the modern learning theories as a manager, facilitator, and teacher.

Especially on one period that made a huge impact on how I would come to look at learning and the development of the concept Listen Think Talk.

Running a series of courses

After my mission to Iraq, I got a job at the Royal Danish Defense College. Together with my army officer colleague and good friend Christian Bruun Aarhus, we were given the task to train all officers at the college in the Danish Defense newly developed employee assessment and development system.

We planned and ran several courses comprising seasoned and very experienced officers from all arms and ranks from captains (as both Christian and I were at that time) to general.

The new system would replace a thirty-year-old employee evaluation system. The new system was very different than the old one and based on modern theories about humans, society, and psychology.

It turned out to be a huge task to train and convince many officers to let go of the old system and start using the new. Each course we ran, running over several days, we experienced massive resistance and questions toward the theories behind the new system. On top of that, we were both underdogs compared to our seasoned officer colleagues. And of course, we were mostly the lowest rank present in the room.

Luckily, Christian and I had both attended the same college course about adult learning, had worked together on the master thesis, a thesis about the Danish Defense new employee assessment and development system. So, we had a solid and very relevant base to work from.

From the first course and forward, we dug deep in our learnings from the course and tested different learning theories, didactics, and learning psychology approaches to both handle the massive resistance and to facilitate the learning process more than trying to implement the new system.

We constantly evaluated what worked and what did not. Refining our course plan and the way we presented and facilitated the course. We evaluated before, during, and after every course, feeding heavily on the feedback from all the participants.

The impact on our understanding of learning was immense. And this period lay the foundation together with the course about adult learning to the development of Listen Think Talk.

After and through the years, I developed a certain approach to how I would communicate and how I would prepare and run situations where learning was the aim. From 2010 and forward, after writing the book, I was even more effective and efficient when facilitating change processes or communicating.

Today the approach is natural and embedded in me. I see all relations as communication and as a potential learning situation. Along with Listen Think Talk, I have developed a few simple mental positions that I use when I engage in a relationship where collaboration and learning are possible.

Sharing these observations and insights have also been a driver to write this book.

Before bias and neuroscience became trendy

I have naturally been interested in decision making as a leader but also from a learning point of view. You make decisions alone or together with others based on the experience you have at the time. The prerequisite for making a decision is the experiences you have, and the prerequisite for your experiences is the learnings you have made.

The decision-making subject has been a theoretical ingredient in all three military schools I have attended and part of the course about adult learning at The Royal Danish Defense College in 2005.

Then in 2011, Daniel Kahneman published his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow about human thinking and how biases influence our decision-making processes. The book was translated to Danish in 2013, and I read it in 2017 (the second issue). From 2011 and forward bias, as a subject linked to decision-making and thinking, has become more and more often and widespread. And gratefully, the trend continues.

The book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, made a huge impression on me and fitted nicely into my own experiences about learning and decision-making processes, especially the part about human biasness. It fitted nicely with what neuroscience has called structures and patterns in the human brain. Or what learning psychology has called development of mental patterns, prototypes of meaning and preunderstanding[1]. One of the great things about Kahneman's book (2013) was that the variability of biases was presented and explained.

As you will see in the following chapters, all learning is heavily influenced by the existing patterns and structures from earlier learnings. This means that patterns or biases are real and should be calculated into every learning process and decision-making process. One point being that human beings make decisions based on fragmented and limited information, within lay biases, which we all should consider when we learn or make decisions.

The same focus is relevant to the area of neuroscience. When I wrote this book in 2010, the field of neuroscience was on its way as a trendy area in management and adult learning. But the last 10 years have made this science area even more popular among others because of the interest in artificial intelligence, including machine learning and its subgenre neural networks.

Today, neuroscience is at the front along with robotics and artificial intelligence to help better understand how learning happens and how we can positively affect learning processes as humans and, of course, develop effective algorithms.

Scientific theory or just meaningful observations?

I have called this book Listen Think Talk - modern learning applied because this overall and simple approach holds what I see as the _minimal viable product_ of learning basics for laymen.

The approach is based on my experience working with and testing modern theories and scientific discoveries.

It has been both a pull and push development. I have pulled theories to myself that confirmed my own experiences. These theories gave me a meaningful explanation. Other times theory has been pushed to me as the answer to a specific learning challenge. All very meaningful.

It is important to understand that I use theory of scientific findings, only because they are meaningful to me. They help me interpret what I experience.

It is not important if what I use _is_ based on scientific findings from the neuroscience area or not. Even if the neuroscience area has made great findings about the human brain and still does, I also find great usefulness in newer learning theories. This, because they help me interpret a situation, prepare for a change process, or support a learning session.

Today, change is the norm. This means that employees and managers are used to taking part in or support change processes. I label this a person's _change competency_. We are basically all good at it. This is because we, as Homo Sapiens, are extremely good at adapting[2]. In that aspect, Listen Think Talk can help you be even better.

The learning approach can support your change process and maybe increase the quality or reduce standard reluctance to change. Maybe Listen Think Talk can eventually normalize your and your employees' expectations of the change process. Maybe Listen Think Talk can reduce the length of the change process. And maybe you will be able to communicate more clearly.

What is learning? And how is "learning" used in this book?

Surprise, this is a book about learning... But what is learning? Though I have dedicated an entire chapter to the learning concept, I think it is appropriate to frame learning initially on an overall level.

To frame and present a single perspective about learning I will quote, the British adult educator and emeritus professor of continuing education Peter Jarvis[3],

" **All situations have the learning potential,**

but not all situations lead to learning."

I think it is such a great sentence that portraits the many possibilities and variables that _may_ support learning, but if one or more is missing, there will be no learning.

The sentence also highlights that possible learning depends on how every individual interprets and understand the situation and how each individual act relative to this understanding. The concept _meaning_ plays an important role here, as the individual experiences the situation as more or less meaningful. How meaning is established, though, will be presented in the following chapters.

In this book, I see learning as every change made in a person's knowledge, skill, or attitude. Thereby learning is linked closely to change; to be more precise, I use learning (cause) as a prerequisite for change (effect).

Further, learning is linked to specific brain activities, both enabling and limiting the possibility to change brain connections. Finally, I also see learning as linked closely to how a person interacts with the surroundings and other persons, including the role of emotions.

As you will see in the following chapters, I have narrowed the modern learning approach to Listen Think Talk to comprise the three basic human brain functions and the simplest approach for you to increase learning in any situation. You can say I have reduced facilitating learning processes to only three coherent beacons.

Finally, before we move on – one overall point is that to increase the effect and efficiency of any learning process, you need to facilitate time and space for all participants to both Listen, Think and Talk about the subject.

# 2 About this book

The need to change constantly

You do it. I do it. We are all either part of or in charge of change initiatives _constantly_. This is just how it is. Change is so common that we almost take no notice anymore. Almost.

You either need to learn to change, or someone needs you to learn to change. The need to change is present all the time. Everywhere. It is almost both a prerequisite and a premise when working today.

Change is so constant and overwhelming today, and what is really needed is space and time where things are stable and not changing[4]. This could help focus on the areas where change really matters and where the effect will benefit more people and organizations, solve a huge problem, or save more people and nature. And give people a better life. In a job context, some call it Work-Life Balance[5] or WLB. But maybe this is just too narrow view on change?

This book is about adult learning on the job. In a job context. In your company, agency, or enterprise.

This book has come true because I have discovered something about learning processes and have developed a simple approach, narrowed down to the three most basic brain functions (potentially) involved in any learning process: Listen, Think, Talk.

Welcome to my book

So, welcome to my book. The aim of this small book is simple.

I would like to share with you what I have discovered about facilitating learning processes. Simply put, Listen Think Talk is modern learning theory narrowed down to the most basic approach. It is simple, easy to adapt to, and use. The aim is to be able to facilitate learning processes with higher quality and outcome.

And it is not that I believe that I can make you better. It is completely out of my hands. I can only hope to inspire you to try it out. Gain your own experience and maybe – just maybe – think that Listen Think Talk is a top-notch change approach. And that Listen Think Talk actually make you more efficient and effective when facilitating learning processes or engage in change initiatives.

Who is the customer?

All my discoveries were made in a job context. So, it is not like I started out planning that I would write a book and look at learning from a job perspective. I just started to experiment and test learning theories to succeed better at the tasks I were handling on the job.

I had to find practical ways to answer questions about how learning is happening and handled in a job context? And like most other people, I worked in a job context linked to the never-ending need for enterprises and its employees to learn and change. Characterized by daily challenges where small and big change initiatives were replaced or overlapping the next change initiative.

So, it turned out that this book is for the person in charge of the change initiative. The owner of the change. The person who needs others to change. The person with the role and responsibility to run the change process and facilitate a learning process. Small and big learning processes involving many employees and down to only a single person—teams who engage in team development to improve cooperation and internal work processes.

This book is also for the person who participates in change initiatives, either driven like implementation, bottom-up process, or a combination.

In other words, this book is relevant to change agents (agile or waterfall), change managers, organizational development responsible, project managers, team leaders (leader teams or team of employees), teachers, instructors, supervisors, coaches, mentors, and facilitators.

You can see the learnings from this book as the base of any change process and compatible with all known change process or project models. This book is modern basic learning applied.

Ok. Now, we are ready to dive into the blue waters of Listen Think Talk. Thanks for reading this far. I hope you have become curious enough to continue.

Who control the learning process?

The answer is no one does but the person who are at the center of the learning initiative.

Not you, me or anyone else can teach another person anything. Unless a bunch of stuff happens in the brain of the presenter, the participant, the emotional and cognitive relation between the two and the context. None of which you basically can control. Other than in your fantasy.

As a facilitator, you merely start a process and have no control of where it ends. All you can do is facilitate, try to shape the process and hope the best.

This book will give you the simple tools to support and facilitate more efficient learning processes and get better learning results.

Please, also note that I use learning and learning processes seemingly random. It is not. You can link learning output to effect and learning process to efficiency.

Credits: © Krakenimages (Adobe Stock) – ID 229797541

# 3 Listen!

In your brain function, Listening is one of five senses that covers the entire human sensing toolkit. In this book and the modern learning approach Listen Think Talk, Listening represents all five senses and can be replaced by each of the other four (seeing, smelling, tasting, and feeling).

The point is that any learning process starts with an experience based on you taking in data via your five senses.

You _see_ the lecturer, the PowerPoint presentation, the movement (macro and micro) among the participants. You _hear_ the spoken word, the tone, how someone utters the words. You _feel_ the coolness of the room on your skin, the hard tree on your chair against your back. You _smell_ the hot coffee in your mug, the perfume of the lecturer, and the bad breath of the person sitting next to you. You _taste_ the wine, the cookie, etc.

Credits: © NLshop (Adobe Stock) – ID 137731824

The function of _taking in_ data through your senses represents in my mind, mechanisms related to the traditional learning approach in a classroom. But it also happens when you participate in a collaborative group effort to solve a specific problem. You see the other participant's expressions and body movement (macro and micro), their drawings on the whiteboard, etc. Hear them talk, their tone. Feel the warmth in the room. Taste the bitterness of the old coffee.

Therefore, Listen in Listen Think Talk (LTT) can also be S(ee)TT, F(eel)TT, S(mell)TT, or T(aste)TT.

Listening is not the most dominant sense we have

From a neuroscience and evolutionary perspective, _Seeing_ , and not Listening, is by far the most dominant human sense[6].

But the reason I picked Listening among the five senses is because Listening is closely linked to the basic ingredient in traditional learning - _language_ ; well known to all people, as language is the easy, explicit, simple and systematic way to communicate. Easy to write and store on paper or on the screen of your digital choice.

We have all listened to a teacher presenting stuff through ground school, high school, or any other school or course we have encountered as teens and adults. We have all listened to a manager presentation or been introduced to a work process to follow. And, we have all listened to our mother and father's guidance on small and big matters in life (listened but not always following the advice of course). Sometimes the spoken word was accompanied by visuals like a keynote presentation, drawings on a whiteboard, paper, chalkboard, or even better, someone who showed us how to do things.

The brain is constantly bombarded by billions of impressions

To broaden the view on the stimulus to each of the human senses, look at the table below[7]. The table is from the book Dr. Zukaroffs Testamente (2012) by the Danish neuroscientist, Peter Lund Madsen. In his book, Madsen points out that your brain is bombarded by billions of impressions through your senses, and you can by far not handle them all[8].

Each system is either open or closed. If your eyes are open, they will take in about 10 billion bits per second. If your hearing is open, you will only take in about 2 million bits per second. Feeling about 2 billion bits per second. Tasting about 10.000 bits per second and smelling only about 200 bits per second.

Good learning conditions

Therefore, setting up good learning conditions are important because nourishing, comforting, and avoiding to pressure most of your senses will support the ability to focus on the learning process. If you have ever attended a course with lots of delicious food and drinks, in nice and cozy surroundings, tempered rooms, good chairs, and quiet acoustics. Those things are part of setting a supporting learning environment. Hunger, uncomfortable seats, hot temperature, noise, etc., affects learning; therefore has to be eliminated/overcomed.

On top, you could close your eyes to listen closer (with less distractions) to the spoken word of the presenter. Or to stop being distracted by the appearance of the presenter. Even though today, it is commonly known that visualization helps communicate. So maybe you should keep your eyes open and ask the presenter to draw the main points of the presentations. But more importantly, close your laptop, mute your cellphone and other wearable electronics - and pay attention and participate.

You will never have the full picture

Because of the limitations in the sensing system, Madsen (2012) underlines that your brain will constantly prioritize and get rid of the superfluous data. You will, in other words, _never_ have the full "picture" of the situation you are in right now. And it is ok and perfectly human.

Another peculiar function about our senses at work is that if one sense is working hard, the other senses are prioritized down. This explains the situation where you are focused at playing a video game and hear nothing else around you because you have prioritized your seeing-sense and focused your hearing only towards the game.

The presenter and manager also need to listen

But what about those who present, tell a story or show how things should be done? How is listening related or relevant for these people?

The presenter also needs to listen (see, feel, etc.) to be able to adjust the presentation and react to accompanied questions from the audience.

Like the presenter, the manager also needs the ability to listen. The American psychologist, Daniel Goleman, mentions listening in his book, _Social Intelligence_ (2006). Goleman argues that Listening is found to distinguish the best managers, teachers, and leaders[9].

Full attention

Full attention is a rare state of mind in this age of multitasking and online living. Self-absorption and preoccupation shrink our focus, so we are less able to notice other people's feelings and needs, let alone respond with empathy[10]. Full attention maximizes, what Goleman (2006) calls _psychological synchrony_.

From my point of view, full attention gives the presenter the needed ability to _adjust_ the presentation to support the learning process better.

But to achieve full attention, you must set aside what you are doing, put down the paper you are reading, disengage from your laptop or smartphone, abandon your daydream and focus on the person or persons you are with. As a presenter, this is hard because you have a plan to follow to complete your lecture and say all you think you need to say on the subject (maybe to fulfill your own need to tell only your story).

But from a learning point of view, it is far more efficient to focus on how to support the best learning process. Think about that.

True listening

True listening requires presence and sincerity. The American psychologist, Carl R. Rogers, reveals about his therapeutic listening approach, "If I can offer an open _listening position_ , the other will discover own capacity and use the relation to growth and change, and personal development will happen."[11]

The listening position Rogers mentions builds on the following preconditions[12]:

• The listener must be sincere and mentally _present_.

• The listener must be able to express unconditionally _accept_ of the other person's assumptions, feelings, and behavior, and not even agree on them (accept is not the same as agreeing).

• The listener must have a genuine need to understand the other, his or her universe without being _condemning_.

One point here is that mere listening supports learning! And the challenge is really to give full attention to another person.

Listening - basic scholastic behavior

We have done it since birth, and the competence has been trained, rehearsed, and developed through childhood, through school and adolescence, and finally through your time as an adult.

What I am talking about is our presence in the schoolroom; whenever we are part of a learning process, it is expected in general - almost as a globally spread scholastic norm - that we sit down and listen (when a teacher, presenter or manager stand before us and present). No one questions this approach, behavior, or process.

Credits: © kasto (Adobe Stock) – ID 92365513

I do not question or need to change this norm, either. I just invite all participants to increase the listening phase. Take control of your own learning process and,

• Listen and observe with a _curious_ mind.

• Ask yourself what you personally think is _interesting_ among the presented elements.

• It is totally normal that you do not listen to all I say, because, whenever you find something interesting in the presented, your mind will start to wander on its own path.

• Do not listen as if you should repeat the presented afterward.

• Do not try to identify what the presenter thinks is the most important.

Praxis on long presentations

This is not rocket science. The challenge here is for you to be more attentive to supporting a learning process, rather than delivering your planned lecture or messages.

If I have a long presentation, I split it into minor parts and let the audience think and talk after each break. Ten to fifteen minutes for each part is enough. If you have a sixty minutes presentation, break it up into four to five parts and make sure you have delivered the most important point before each break.

And finally, it is never my goal to present all my slides. I am only here to facilitate an efficient learning process with a hopefully good effect and quality.

Credits: © alphaspirit (Adobe Stock) – ID 57183764

# 4 Think!

From a learning process perspective, I see Thinking as the most important mental function - this is when learning really happens. We think all the time - both consciously and unconsciously, and this energy can be used to optimize the learning process.

In this chapter, I will present some simple aspects of Thinking in Listen Think Talk and different perspectives about the function.

How the presenter can increase the learning output

As a presenter (teachers, instructors, or managers), you need to influence the Thinking function to improve the learning process and increase the impact of your presentation or change initiative.

Just presenting and then ending the session will do no good for your communication effort and, at times, be a waste of time. I suggest that you simply break up your presentation and pause where you ask one or two questions to support the main parts of your points. This is to make people think and maybe influence what your audience will be talking about later.

If you do nothing but deliver your speech, period, then right after your audience will start talking about all kinds of things, look at their smartphones, open their laptops or just walk out of the room to pursue other tasks of the day. There is a huge chance that their minds will drift and be directed at other stuff immediately after you say, "...and this ends my presentation."

The challenge for you is to accept that just presenting with no pauses and guided questions to support the Thinking function is inefficient and often a waste of time. On top, it can also be a challenge for you to accept that you having a good time pouring all your splendid points and facts all over the audience, is not the same as making an impact or changing anything inside their minds.

After the Listening phase, you need to facilitate a session where the audience can think about the presented. And to guide the thinking, you can ask a question.

Asking questions is how you steer the thinking process. It is never 100 % steering; it is more like supporting a Thinking process in a specific direction.

With a question - you guide the audience to combine their own experience with elements of the presented. You set a direction for the thinking process but will never know what it turns out to be, other than a deeper approach to the points from your presentation. And this is exactly what you need.

If you can do what I have described above, you will have increased learning output of any presentation you may engage in from now on and forward. It is that easy!

What is Thinking?

Listen Think Talk use of Thinking is more like reflection, that is - you think cautiously and on your own terms about the interesting parts of the presented, the situation or to answer an open question from the presenter.

The point is that there should be "some kind of thinking" as part of an efficient learning process. This could be a reflection or just plain thinking. I will reveal the difference hereafter.

But Thinking is also the complex process presented later in the chapter about neuroscience. What more do we need to explain thinking?

Though some people look at neuroscience findings as THE answer - to me, these findings merely represent useful perspectives on learning processes that help me (and maybe you) make sense about learning.

Further, in some instances, neuroscience findings support earlier theories about learning. This is not very important to me because I look at learning theories to get inspiration and meaningful explanations about learning and learning processes, and to help explain findings and experiences from my own praxis.

This way to approach knowledge is also a normal human approach - trying to narrow the gap between own experience (existing patterns and structures in the brain) and the presented.

In this case, it is more important for me to make _sense_ between my own experiences about learning than being scientifically correct. When a theory makes sense to me, it can guide me when I facilitate a learning process. You can say I have pre-arranged system boxes to move inside when I facilitate a learning process. I have a plan and a system.

Reflection

I could end this chapter here. But I will present some views on reflection because I see this part of the Thinking function as very powerful. To be able to reflect is also a precondition for developing new. If you get an idea, this follows due to reflection. When you develop an idea towards more substance, this also follows because of reflection. When you try to formulate sentences and put words on how you see a specific subject or how you feel, this is generated by your reflection.

Reflection is what you must use to be in thinking system 2 as I interpret Daniel Kahneman (2011); when in system 2, it requires strenuous mental activities[13]. This also points to, that none of us is reflecting a lot as most of our daily brain activities run in system 1. System 1 acts automatically and fast. It demands less effort and gives no feeling of conscious control.

In the following, I will present reflection, as seen by Jack Mezirow and Peter Jarvis. Finally, I will tell you about my own experiences and gains through reflection.

Jack Mezirow on reflection

The American sociologist, Jack Mezirow, developed his own concept about reflection.

Initially, he importantly states that all thinking is not reflection, and all actions do not require reflection[14]. Thereby Mezirow differentiates between reflection and thinking.

• First, all reflection comprises an examination or testing of validity.

• Second, and related to actions that can either be reflected or non- reflected. To have a reflected action, there must be a _pause_ in the action phase to make the reflection happen. (That is why I break up my presentations, pause and ask a question or two)

• Third, Mezirow uses the word _transformation_ to describe the result of the reflection process.

• Fourth, the result of the reflection is dependent on whether it is directed towards substance, process, or premise.

Figure 1: Meaning structure and levels of reflection. Jack Mezirow[15]

The transformation is dependent on,

• Substance like, _where_ do you act from? An examination of the substance within the problem. What is the problem core?

• Process like, _how_ do you run the sequence? An examination of solution strategies and methods that have been used to solve the problem.

• Premise like, _why_ have you understood the problem like this? It deals with what you may call your basic assumption. Why is it that you understand, think, feel, and act like you do?

Mezirow deals with reflections that result in three levels as,

1. Meaning perspectives

2. Meaning schemes

3. Interpretation

Premise can influence the transformation of the meaning perspectives. Change among more meaning schemes may also lead to reflection on premises for basic assumptions and a thereby transformation of meaning perspectives.

Meaning perspectives are the basic assumptions, which are the frame for the interpretation of any experience[16]. If you have read Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011) by Daniel Kahneman, you could also see Mezirows Meaning Perspectives as influencing our biases (my own interpretation).

Substance-related reflection can influence the meaning schemes. They can be strengthened, developed, or changed. Every meaning perspective comprises a set of meaning schemes. A scheme holds specific knowledge, assumptions, and values related to an experience. The schemes are easier to shape compared to meaning perspectives which are more grounded in the human mind.

Interpretation is not reflected.

Mezirow sees reflection as a conscious action where an examination of assumptions takes place. Reflection differentiates from Thinking by being linked to assessment and evaluation, including a systematic process where you can reflect on the problem substance, process, and premises. So, if Mezirow could decide, he would maybe change Listen Think Talk to Listen Reflect Talk?

Peter Jarvis on reflection

The British and renowned adult educator and emeritus professor of continuing education, Peter Jarvis, points out that learning processes can lead to non-learning, non-reflected learning, and reflected learning[17]. Even though you could say that Jarvis emphasizes _social_ _context_ as very important to adult learning (I have dedicated a whole chapter to Context), he still sees reflection as an important part of learning.

Figure 2: Peter Jarvis' learning model[18]

I admit that the Jarvis Learning model in figure 2 looks a bit complex. But there are three different learning processes in the model that Jarvis describes as reflection. As you may see, Jarvis sets up an entire learning process and points out where reflection appears and what is needed beyond bare Reflection to reach what he describes as _changed and more experienced_.

The learning process starts with an interpretation and experiencing of the situation. From there, the learning process can move in many different phases. First, Jarvis looks at Reflection as part of the cognitive process. Reflection moves beyond what I interpret as mere imitation. Reflection is a process with thorough thought activity. It consists of both looking back at the situation, thinking about it and forward planning and conception. Thereby Reflection is both recalling and reasoning[19].

As mentioned before, Jarvis learning model operates with three different ways of reflected learning (as well as three forms of non-learning and three forms of non-reflected learning):

• _Thoughtful and introvert_ learning like _pondering_ or lost in a muse, which only comprises pure thinking activity. This learning process follows step 1-2/3-7-8-6-9

• _Reflected proficiency_ learning where you respond to a new situation and construct new skills and, at the same time, learn related concepts. This approach supports your knowledge on why and how a specific skill is conducted in a certain way. This learning process follows step 1-2/3-(5)-7-5-8-6-9

• _Experimental learning_ is where you test theories in praxis and where the result is unique knowledge. This learning process follows step 1-2/3-7-5-7-8-6-9

A couple of points.

A great thing is Jarvis use of Reasoning as part of the Reflection. In that way, Reflection supports _sense-making_ and becomes some sort of driver for the learning process and delivers fuel to reaching a learning end goal.

It is not enough just reflecting to reach an end state as changed and more experienced. There must be an evaluation phase after Reasoning and Reflection. In Jarvis' model, this evaluation has three outcomes. Practical experimentation, Reasoning and Reflection again or Memorizing. It is not clear how Jarvis' evaluation function unfolds. But I see the evaluation function as comparing the findings to the existing experience. I interpret this as the process where meaning may be established.

Further, having an internal evaluation function fits a daily conscious evaluation praxis where we run evaluation processes after ending a project or a task. Some do this from time to time, and others do it systematically. My own view is that to improve learning, you should run evaluation processes systematically. That way, you will also improve your evaluation skills.

A final point is that to reach the end state as changed and more experienced, you need to Memorize your findings. This last part is key to reach the phase where you are changed and more experienced. This focus on memorizing can be related to knowledge sharing and knowledge anchoring as an individual and as an organization. And you need a system to be consequent.

From a Listen Think Talk perspective, Jarvis' learning model highlights brain processes like evaluation and memorizing as two additional phases to gain and store new findings. I see and use this from a person or an organization's point of view. So, this is important if you strive for maximum learning effect ( _effect_ as doing the right thing in pursuit of the right goals versus _efficiency_ and doing things right - use of resources).

You may ask yourself why I have not merged Jarvis functions (evaluation and memorizing) with Listen Think Talk. The reason not to is I would like to maintain Listen Think Talk a simple approach, easy to use.

The power of Thinking

I have often experienced that a reflection continues unconsciously. Maybe I start a reflection at my job. Walking the dog in the evening after work - the reflection suddenly pops up, and I get some new results, or add-on thought. The point here is that I did not end the reflection at my job. I stopped consciously because I had other work to do. But the reflection continued to sort of unconsciously and suddenly emerged when my mind was not occupied.

From the many situations where I have engaged in heavy reflection, I have experienced a long-term payoff of related thoughts. Engaged in a project, I started up a heavy reflection "fire" inside my brain. The fire slowly died over several days - giving me loads of related payoff thoughts. The harder, longer, and more powerful reflection I engaged in, the longer it would continue unconsciously and produce payoff thoughts. To anchor the many payoff thoughts and ideas, I scribbled my findings in a log.

In my praxis as a manager, I use this experience.

Either I facilitate a process with heavy reflection among my employees, or I keep the reflection ongoing by engaging in short talks with specific employees over several days or weeks. The latter approach supports long reflection with little effort. I uses this approach if I need to support an employee moving from one mindset or idea to another. The reflection process and the power of Thinking helps to engage my employees.

Change-management and thinking

Another point about reflection and the power of Thinking is related to change-management processes.

If you look at change-management and the situation where you need to change something within an organization. Startup the process with a reflection on the situation and know that it will take some time to move all (or the majority) towards the new. But if you accept the time perspective, you can view the small steps where reflection among the participants can support the process and bring you towards the end state.

If you do not have the time, facilitating reflection processes can reduce resistance to the change process.

Finally, I would like to state that whether you see Thinking as reflection or not - the point is that any "forced" change or learning process should involve some sort of guided thinking. The use of the word _forced_ here is to emphasize that I am talking primarily about situations where you need other people to learn something or where you need to implement a change. In other words, implementation.

Questions

I divide reflection into three depths. And to facilitate the thinking process, I ask one or more questions.

Light reflection may be like Jack Mezirows "not all thinking is not reflection." The question could be related to the question model by Karl Tomm, the Canadian Professor of Psychiatry and a Family Therapist. Light reflection can be supported by an easy question from Karl Tomm's question model, related to the part about simple assumption - linear logic (Clarification) - one reality[20].

Figure 3: Karl Tomm's question model (1988)[21] (own abstract)

A medium depth of reflection where you think about answering a question, related to the other part of Karl Tomm's question model is related to complex assumptions - circular logic (Development) - many realities.

And a deep reflection which often runs consciously and unconsciously over several days and where you physically feel your brain "explode" and much energy is consumed; this starts from the Development side of the model and goes deeper and deeper as you continue your reflection and reflect on your reflection (meta reflection). This could be what Jack Mezirow refers to as a transformation of meaning perspectives[22].

In the periods where I developed Collaborative Man ® and Listen Think Talk © I experienced a series of "Brain Orgasms" - enlightenment and Eurekas as I discovered the many different parts of the two theories[23]. Both fulfilling and very satisfying at the time.

How to implement Thinking in your learning process

With each short pause of your presentation, ask your listeners to take 2 minutes of Thinking.

Instruction before starting the Thinking phase could be:

• Think about the presentation and ask yourself this question: _What was the most interesting parts and why?_

• If you think better when writing, feel free to scribble your thoughts.

• If you think better when walking or standing, please feel free to take a walk or stand up for the next 2 minutes.

Humans think constantly, but these 2 minutes support a focus toward the presented. Maybe the mind of each listener has been busy through the presentation about personal issues or tasks to be solved later, and then this is your chance of guiding a focused Thinking for a short period.

Individually, to be given the time to think or continue thinking on subjects chosen from the just presented, or just try to embrace the entire presentation by asking yourself again, what was interesting, is an easy way to expand your learning.

Second, the areas chosen by each person support a growing sense of personal involvement, which may generate new ideas, questions, and energy to the work.

Third, Thinking and the possibility to think as described is a vital part of an effective learning process.

The Thinking phase is a _precondition_ to be able to _talk_ with increased quality unless you just repeat the words just presented. Then it is just imitation. A function we are all very familiar and proficient with.

So, let us move on to talking.

Credits: © Prostock-studio (Adobe Stock) – ID 253141515

# 5 Talk

In this chapter, I will present the last of the three dominant learning functions in my learning approach, Listen Think Talk.

The value of Talking as an essential part of any learning process is, in general, underestimated. Whereas the functions Listen and Think are normally accepted as ordinary ingredients in any learning process, Talking as _a predominant function_ in learning processes is nowhere to be seen among theories about learning other than theories about social learning[24].

Talking and language are, of course, present in modern learning theories, but not as a predominant function in the learning process, but more as a function that supports the creation of reality in relations.

Within the linguistics area, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis claims that the structure of a language affects the person's world view or cognition, and therefore is a person's perceptions relative to their spoken language. The modern and "weak" version mostly held by modern linguists say that linguistic categories and usage only _influence_ thought and decisions[25].

The overall aim of this chapter is to support knowledge about Talking as an important function in modern learning processes.

Social Constructionism and language

Social Constructionism theory originates[26] from the fields of sociology and communication theory.

Social Constructionism claims that _language_ is the most important way of acting for human beings. Every statement is an act, and every act is a statement. Through interchanging of linguistic actions in social relations, people create meaning of the situation[27]. In other words, people create meaning of the situation as they negotiate their subjective interpretation of reality with other persons as well. This _negotiated version of reality_ is also called _intersubjective_.

If this is the case, language and talking become essential when constructing _meaning_ of the situation, which means that it supports the learning process.

Therefore, intersubjective processes become essential as a "meaning booster" because each person tells his or her version of reality. This exchange of realities _nourishes_ both persons' experience of the situation. This way, each person listens, reflects, and combines the spoken words with own subjective interpretation of the situation.

I recall the situations when I engaged in deep reflection as I developed Listen Think Talk. I discussed my views and findings with colleagues and friends and found their input extremely valuable to my ongoing learning process.

My own explanation is that I will never know everything about a specific subject. But if I engage in a dialogue with other people, I will gain new perspectives I can use and expand my own knowledge base. That is if I listen, of course.

From a learning perspective, I, therefore, see the Talking function as a very important driver and power when exchanging points of view (dialogue) and negotiation over what is the right answer or what possibilities and perspectives there are.

Listening to other person's reflections can fire up your own subjective interpretation. But only if you listen with an _open mind_ and a _genuine interest_. You listen, find interesting parts, combine, and develop your own reflection. Then it is your turn. Your brain gathers the many pieces, creates the words in your mind, and as you speak, you change the words one more time. You hear your own words, which inspires your reflection again. The other person listens to your spoken words, finds interesting parts, combines and develops their own reflection, etc.

Talking supports your own reflection and nourishes the other person's, as well.

Collaborative work and talking

The exchange of subjective perspectives is a core function in collaborative work and imply the presence of openness, genuine interest in other perspectives, and a common goal. Intersubjectivity (negotiation of reality) is, in my opinion, in the center of common development, entrepreneurship, creativity, and change. Therefore, Talking as part of any learning process is even more important today than ever because of the challenges that humans face. These challenges will most likely be solved in collaboration between humans and between humans and intelligent machines.

Systematic social learning processes like collaborative work is a natural part of human work today and part of newer agile project methods like Scrum and Kanban, where people construct meaning together.

The development of collaborative teams is a precondition for innovation, great discoveries, and inventions.

In my social technology, Collaborative Man ® everyday negotiation and dialogue plays a central role[28]. In these processes, Talking is an essential brain function to achieve intersubjectivity. This points towards Talking as an equal and important function in modern learning processes like Listen and Think.

Language from a brain perspective

The grammatical language is unique to the human species and makes us able to communicate abstract and very complex. With grammar - words are not just a reference to, e.g., a chair or a table, but also where it is placed in the sentence, the spelling, etc.

The ability to understand grammatical code is preprogrammed in the human brain. We are born with this ability. It is natural and human[29].

Modern brain science has identified that the language functions are spread all over the brain area - both in the cortex and in the limbic system. Some research points toward that the job of the sensory and motoric cortex are to coordinate the overall production of language, hereunder grammar[30].

The point is that language and the brain Talking function is a natural part of daily interaction and integrated into learning processes like Listening and Thinking. They are all connected.

Introvert vs. Extrovert

Humans have an urge to talk - it's an instinct - some persons more than others. You have most likely lots of experiences about how people either talk a lot or talk less linked to their personality.

The famous psychologist, Carl Gustav Jung, has framed two traits of personality types and named the different types; Introversion and Extraversion[31].

The aim of mixing this perspective with Talking is that you can take advantage of this knowledge to support a better learning process.

Jung was one of the first people to define introversion and extraversion in a psychological context. In Jung's book Psychological Types, he theorizes that every person falls into one of two categories, the introvert or the extravert. Jung compares these two psychological types to the ancient archetypes, Apollo and Dionysus.

The _introvert type_ is linked with Apollo, who shines light on understanding. The introvert is focused on the internal world of reflection, dreaming, and vision. Thoughtful and insightful, the introvert can sometimes be uninterested in joining the activities of others.

The _extravert_ is associated with Dionysus, interested in joining the activities of the world. The extravert is focused on the outside world of objects, sensory perception, and action. Energetic and lively, the extrovert may lose their sense of self in the intoxication of Dionysian pursuits[32].

Jungian introversion and extraversion are different from the modern idea of introversion and extroversion. Modern theories like MBTI or JTI often stay true to behaviorist means of describing traits such as sociability, talkativeness, assertiveness, etc. whereas Jungian introversion and extraversion are expressed as a perspective - introverts interpret the world subjectively, whereas extraverts interpret the world objectively[33].

It is my experience that especially extrovert persons have developed an experiencing process where talking and language is an important part. They behave as if talking is an important catalyst in their thinking process. If you have not observed this kind of phenomenon about extrovert people communicating, observe carefully next time you are in a dialogue with an extrovert type person.

Introversion and extraversion in the learning process

I have, through the years, used the modern perspective of participants either being introversion or extroversion types when I have been facilitating a group leaning process.

From a learning point of view, it is very simple to consider both types.

Introvert persons need time to think about the presented. They often have a more developed approach to reflection and uses mainly this function to process the experienced information.

What I have learned is that introvert persons seldom have realized the potential about Talking as a part of the learning process. As a presenter, you can support the learning process by inviting introvert people to talk.

Extrovert people have no problem with Talking. It is a totally normal part (catalyst) of their experiencing and thinking process. Contrary to introvert people - sometimes extrovert persons lack the understanding of reflection. They will rather talk because this is how they learn best.

As an extrovert person, it can be a tremendous investment in your learning process if you dedicate more time to Thinking, aka Reflection.

When participating in discussions, extrovert people often dominate the scene with their Talking because this is just how they are. The problem is that the introvert people are sometimes sort of coerced by the extroverts and can have a hard time participating in the discussion.

As a facilitator, you gently need to pause the extroverts and encourage them to respect the input from others. Secondly, you must support and invite the introvert persons to come forward and share their thoughts. Finally, you can facilitate room and time for reflection to help the extrovert types.

Talking is part of a good learning process. You can increase your learning if you engage in dialogue with others.

Credits: © pinkeys (Adobe Stock) – ID 299322209

# 6 Autopoiesis

Autopoiesis is a term developed and presented by the Chilean biologist Humberto Maturana[34] and his student, Francisco Varela, in their book, The Tree of Knowledge: Biological Roots of Human Understanding (1992).

The term autopoiesis is Greek and means self (auto) meaning/creation (poiesis) and points to a system capable of reproducing and maintaining itself[35].

An explanation of autopoiesis is that _no living system can be understood alone as controlled by exterior causes_. All living systems evolve and act in accordance with inner mental and biological programs and are not affected from the outside, in general, unless the organism is life threatened[36].

The concept points toward a situation where every human being can be seen as a closed and self-referring system.

I use the concept of autopoiesis as a central perspective when I take part in or facilitate a learning process. As a listener or student, being a closed self-referring system means that you decide what to _take in from outside_. And only you decide how you will use _what you have taken in_.

In other words, if I explain something to you, I expect that only you decide if any part of my information will enter your brain for further processing. This perspective is different from traditional learning theories, where the notion is that the lecturer can _pour_ all kinds of information into the mind of the student.

I use Autopoeisis as a sort of _worst-case scenario_ to do my utmost to engage participants in the learning process and not just assume that I can dictate the information I present to be absorbed into their minds. I simply see each of the participants like closed boxes.

Learning objective - imitation or construct new?

Most traditional learning approaches have a hard time to support any learning process other than situations where _imitation_ is the learning objective. That is why new and modern learning approaches are better suited to support more efficient learning processes where the objective is to construct new.

This could be where you need innovation to happen or the situation where you need the participants to take your information and develop their own version to fit their specific job context.

That is why it is imperative when understanding learning, to distinguish between learning objectives where imitation is needed and where you need to construct new. The latter being the individual combining own experiences with other knowledge and thereby creating new. Often imitation is automatically linked to learning. This is because imitation is mainly the objective in basic school, through high school and sometimes after. Some jobs also require that you follow specific procedures, and you, therefore, need to learn as imitation.

Both learning objectives are needed and relevant. But the reason I have more focus on learning that construct new is that most challenges and problems require the ability to construct new to be solved. This is where humans can unfold creativity and produce innovative solutions.

Human brain as a shell

But how do we know if the human brain is a shell and that every person decides for themselves what will pass through and what does not?

We know that information can be imitated and repeated. This is easy to observe and control. This points to the fact that information can travel through the _mind-shell_ and into the brain. If the motivation or the situation demands imitation, then a person will imitate.

Autopoiesis is not scientifically proven within cognitive research, but from a biological point of view, the term can be proved at cell level. The notion here is that the concept can be expanded from the cell level as one system level to all the next system levels.

The reason for me to present autopoiesis as part of the Listen Think Talk concept is that I have experienced tremendous learning effect when approaching every learning process with the assumption that every listener and participant decides for themselves what will pass through and what does not. This is one of the fundamental learning ideas behind Listen Think Talk.

You cannot control what other people learn

In a learning situation, I, therefore, use the autopoiesis position as a guiding learning principle. Whatever I present visually, auditive, kinetic, or smell - I can never dictate or control what anyone will take in or how they will use my information.

To acknowledge this idea is essential to any learning process.

The challenge is this: If individuals are closed systems that cannot be penetrated by outside input. The question is, how can you influence any kind of learning process inside the closed human system?

The answer must be to _involve_ the individual in the learning process. The next question is how?

If we presume that a person is a closed system. A closed system that decides what part of the present information that will enter the system and how this information will be saved.

If this is the case, you need to (1) be able to penetrate the mind-shell and thereafter (2) be able to shape the learning process.

The autopoiesis theory, therefore, always reminds me to try to _engage_ the participants in the learning process. The simple approach is to use my learning principle of Listen Think Talk. This will support individual involvement and engagement, and thereby give access inside the mind-shell. I still do not know what information that will go inside, therefore I need to _shape_ the process.

The next challenge is to shape the perceived information. I do that with questions.

In other words, it is all about communication.

For example, if you want to communicate a new procedure or strategy to a group of persons. Then it is not enough to just stand up and talk, draw on a whiteboard or run through your keynote...and talk some more. From an autopoiesis perspective, this will be a waste of time. Instead, you can facilitate a process where the group takes on a critical approach to your new process or strategy. This to involve the participants, make them think, and talk about what you have presented.

Penetrate. Shape.

Credits: © Chris Titze Imaging (Adobe Stock) – ID 130332137

# 7 Context

Every learning process takes place in a unique context or situation. A context that influences the learning process. And a context impossible to recreate exactly. If this is the case (and I believe it is), you have the possibility to positively influence the learning process through active modeling or controlling the context.

Knowledge about elements within the context concept gives you the opportunity to actively prepare or shape better learning environments and learning conditions.

Knowledge of context gives you the opportunity to influence negative elements, provide explanations about learning effect and efficiency, or even postpone a learning process because the context is too counteractive.

What is context?

Other words for context are _situation_ or _learning situation_ (Illeris 2001), _learning environment_ (Wahlgren et al. 2002), _learning room_ (Illeris 2001), _background_ (Andersen 2006), or _socio-emotional context_ (Wahlgren et al. 2002).

I define context as all artifacts, physical surroundings, mental systems (cultural, historical, societal, or organizational) and the relations between the participants (each relation as a unique system of interactions) that is present in the learning process.

Further, I see context from the perspectives past, present, and future.

The past comprises issues and elements that will or can influence the learning process. An example could be how the room is built and furnished or the historical relations among the participants.

The present comprises elements like air quality, sounds, and the participant's mood.

The future holds elements like how the learning process and results have been experienced in total. This will directly or indirectly influence the evaluation and memory saving phases.

Though past and present will be present in the context and influence the learning process as it unfolds, my point is that you can influence the learning process before it starts and after.

This is an important perspective because you can increase the impact of any learning processes and support your effort in facilitating the process.

Be proactive

Be aware that many variables make every context unique and thereby impossible to recreate. Every learning process is connected to a specific context.

All this points to you taking action when planning a learning process.

• Become aware of the context and do something to improve the elements you can influence.

• When the learning process is on, be aware of what elements that suddenly stop supporting the learning process, and try to do something about it. Correct or adjust these elements to minimize the negative learning effects and boost the positive effects.

• After the learning process, be aware of how context can help or initiate the learnings - what to do to anchor the learnings.

Context according to Gregory Bateson

The British scientist Gregory Bateson[37] defines and uses context as part of his theory about communication (Ølgaard 2004)[38]. He explains that _context classifies the messages,_ and he works among others with meta context and context. Meta context as the physical and tangible world surrounding the persons involved, but with an emphasized look at context as the systems involving verbal and non-verbal communication.

Bateson's theory about 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th degree of learning involves context too. We normally know what context (environment and situation) we are in when we act as part of being together. If we do not know, we simply cannot respond and act. To know what context we are in, we receive information on many levels. Often from the surroundings and non-verbal communication from other persons. Information which is mostly sent and received unconsciously.

We do not stop and consciously analyze the situation and investigate the present relations. In general, we trust the persons we are together with and expect them to be raised in the same culture and trained in almost the same rules for being together. Bateson states that it is always important for all persons to know what context they are in and the present relations.

He demonstrates this perspective with a scene from the movie, Mary Poppins, where Mrs. Corry constantly changes the context for her daughters to make them believe that they are in a specific context, just to change the context again to something entirely different. The daughters do (or are about to do) something. But to do something is to do it according to something or somebody. Thereby Bateson says that "each known context represents a specific class of responses."

This example shows, among others, how context and learning can influence the future as learning happens related to context. This specific context is linked to this specific learning. When a person finds herself in the same or very similar context, the specific experience can be activated and used.

Bateson (1972) also points out that it is impossible to understand a dialogue between persons without knowledge of the context where the communication takes place[39].

Transferred learning?

Because I see every learning process as unique among others because of the context, I operate with an understanding that the learning of one person is unique and cannot be transferred to another person.

You must experience and be part of the learning process yourself. To experience yourself, Listen Think Talk is an easy approach and tool.

The situations where learning is transferred, it will initially be one person mimicking another person. The mimicking person must try and use the transferred knowledge to gain own experience and create the possibility to evaluate and eventually memorize own unique learnings.

Finally, context also means that if someone says, "Your suggestion does not work because I have tried it before!" then it _could_ work because the context has changed. There is a new person driving the project and new persons involved, new technology, changed location, new work method, etc.

Credits: © m.mphoto (Adobe Stock) – ID 211464414

# 8 Neuroscience

This chapter introduces different neuroscientific findings linked to Listen Think Talk.

It is amazing what brain science has learned until now, and these findings provide great perspectives on how learning may happen in the human brain.

To me, the many neuroscientific discoveries support and strengthen the findings of my own experience about learning using Listen Think Talk. Further, the neuroscientific findings have proved to support some of the learning theories used in this book. And this is, of course, always nice.

But I need to stress (again) that it is not the aim of this chapter and book in general, to lay out scientific evidence to prove Listen Think Talk as a theory.

Listen Think Talk evolved from modern learning theories, which I tested thoroughly, distilled, and formulated as my own practical experience. You can say that those modern learning theories gave me a direction, but my own (meaningful) experience formed the Listen Think Talk approach. On top came the latest neuroscience findings about the human brain and supported, sharpened, and underlined my experience.

Therefore, you can say that the positions in this book _only_ represents _meaningful_ perspectives that helped me be better supporting and facilitating learning processes.

Initially, I will introduce neuroscientific findings about _perception_ which take in data and form a kind of experience. Then I will present _memory_ and especially _long-term memory_ where learning may finally be stored and recalled.

Perception

The way each person experience reality is very interesting from a learning perspective. The first function in human experiencing can be coined in the complex function, perception. This function is before the memory function as perception provides the data that memory will reject or store for a shorter or longer period.

Wikipedia explains that _perception_ is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment[40]

Neuroscience points toward the fact that we only take in _very little_ of what our senses "see." Combined with scientific evidence presented above about how our brain memory may work - especially how we may recall - it all points toward the fact that _very little of what our senses take in reach our memory_ and _that our experience of reality is in fact extremely limited and only a rough edition of "reality."_

From a learning perspective, this points toward, that it is more important to involve a person in the learning process, and that the presentation becomes the least important part of the process. This is because if you only listen to the presenter and her presentation and maybe look at a PowerPoint presentation, you only target a limited number of senses and you only invite the participants to "take in" and lack the opportunity to involve the participants to think and interact together talking about your points.

So, the neuroscientific findings are interesting because it takes the presenter's role and the presentation to another level than we are used to and prepared for.

For instance, what parts of the subject should you present and how should you present it? What you may find interesting may not be of interest to most of the audience. And even if your points did interest the audience, they may pick up several other issues or none from your presentation due to the room conditions, their mood, the relations, etc.

These findings point to a practice where I present the most important points from the subject (as I see them), and I do it using _pictures and very little text_. Text represents to many details and does not affect _emotions_ as easily as pictures do. With a picture, you can present (talk) the important points and connect them to a picture or other visuals, movement, kinetic, lights, and smell.

Look at it this way. All educational systems from child to youth to adulthood are based on the _traditional learning approach_ where you sit and activate listening and seeing as the main sensing functions in the learning process. It is not that the other senses are sleeping. The presenter is just tuned-in to feed and nurture these senses. Visuals mainly stick to words limiting or excluding other sensing possibilities like pictures/movie clips, movement, smell, or kinetics.

All educational systems and structures are built on this assumption about traditional leaning. In other words, there is a huge potential to improve learning processes in most educational institutions.

Let us look at how perception works in the human brain. Let us look at the _Sensory Cortex._

Sensory Cortex

Impressions from the five senses are turned into information in three tempi in the human brain area named Sensory Cortex[41]. The Sensory Cortex exists in three sub-areas as the Primary and Secondary Sensory Cortex and the Associative Sensory Cortex.

The Primary Sensory Cortex is where impressions arrive at first (one area for each of the five senses). Impressions are gathered, structured, packed, and analyzed. Hereafter the sensed information is passed on to the Secondary Sensory Cortex.

In the Secondary Sensory Cortex, _sense making_ happens! This is where the experience of blue is created; the sound of closing the door is created, the feeling between your hand and the fabric of the pillow is created, etc. Within the Secondary Sensory Cortex, all five senses work to make sense as a part of a final analysis.

In the Associative Sensory Cortex, all sense making information from the five senses are coordinated, combined, and gathered into a coherent experience.

Figure 4: Sensory Cortex

The seeing process in the sensory cortex

To illustrate the sensing function, I will use the function of seeing.

Seeing being the dominant sense[42] is a good example of how complex the sensing function and analysis run until the seeing experience is combined with other sensing products, and an experience is created in the human brain.

We pick up patterns through our eyes—patterns without meaning. The analysis starts when the information enters the Primary Sensory Cortex area related to the eyes. Patterns are recognized from _already perceived_ patterns. Patterns like color, movement, figures, and contrast.

Perceived pattern information is then recognized as "resemble or close to." You can say that the brain actively _guesses_ and try to connect earlier, seeing specifics to the just seen _patterns_. The brain is about to create a picture of what you have seen.

In the Secondary Sensory Cortex, the seeing patterns are finally recognized as persons or things. You can say that, in the Secondary Sensory Cortex, we continue the sense-making of what we take in of patterns through our eyes, and this is where our visual perception is created ("I see a passenger jet flying in the sky"). In the Secondary Sensory Cortex, there is a center for color, movement, shape, etc. Each of these centers delivers partial information about the seen patterns.

All bits of information are gathered, and a _history_ is made that fits the seen patterns, and it all turns out as a person seeing experience.

Histories from all senses are combined in the Associative Sensory Cortex and end up with me experiencing _the wind on my face while standing on the beach, the smell of strong cheese, or the bird moving towards me from a distance._

The total experience made from fragmented information through our five senses, compared to existing information and constructed to fit within each sense.

An experience based on the perception process points toward that _experience is created as a construction and based on guesswork_ [43].

Is that amazing (and disturbing) or what?

What happens from and between the Associative Sensory Cortex to the Explicit and Implicit Memory areas are still not exactly known. E.g., how is the analysis worked from the many areas _coordinated_ to a single seeing experience, how are analysis worked from the five senses _coordinated and gathered?_ How does the brain establish a frame for the entire experience as millions of sensing inputs burst in constantly, which puts pressure on the analysis processes in each sense and its sub-centers? And the questioning goes on. The issue is called the Binding Problem[44] , and I will not deal with this issue further in this book.

Now your brain has an experience. What should you do with it? Very square put you either reject the experience and move on, the experience may arrive in your short time memory, or it may be stored in your long-term memory.

Memory

Memory is from a neuroscience perspective divided into two main areas: Explicit memory and Implicit memory[45].

Figure 5: Memory

Implicit memory

Implicit memory is unconscious and comprises your body memory[46]. It works when you walk, drive your car, skate on your board, or balance on a high fence. The implicit memory remembers the relevant power in your right arm when you throw the handball.

You can split the implicit memory into parts, learned body movement patterns, and learned unconscious patterns of reaction and conditional reflexes. I will not go into further use or detail about the implicit memory.

Explicit memory

The explicit memory is conscious and confines what we _traditionally_ refer to as the ability to remember. Explicit memory comprises everything we can recall in words and thoughts (facts, memory, and remembrances).

The explicit memory is split into the _episodic memory_ and the _semantic memory_ [47].

The episodic memories

The episodic memories relate to memories that are remembrances, like when for you, for example, sit with your family and talk about when you did this and that. When you lived in that house and traveled to that foreign country on vacation that summer. The episodic memory is stored with data from seeing, hearing, kinetics, tasting, and smelling connected with the experienced situation.

The semantic memory

The semantic memory relates to facts, like when you, for example, recall the address of your first home, how much it cost, the roof color, or the number of inhabitants of the city you visited during your vacation last summer.

The explicit memory exists in two-time domains, the _short time memory_ and _the long-time memory_ [48].

Short time memory contains what we have experienced within the last minute. This information can either travel to the long-term memory or vanish forever.

The transport from the short time to the long time memory only happens when you are awake and have a normal functioning brain. This is, for example, why we cannot remember the moment we fall asleep[49].

The transport into and from the _long-term memory_ runs in four phases: (1) Inculcation, (2) Consolidation, (3) Storing, and (4) Recalling. I will not describe Consolidation further because the interesting parts lay in the other three phases seen from Listen Think Talk perspective.

Figure 6: Long term memory

Inculcation - limited

Collection of and instilling of information only relates to a limited amount of information that has traveled through your conscious perception function (see, hear, smell, taste, kinetic).

Collection and instilling of information are also connected to your _emotions_. You collect memories that emotionally moves you. The same goes for facts - if you have a genuine interest (a good or a warm feeling related to the subject or a huge need), they are easier to remember.

One point is that you can support increased learning if you can support someone to be _emotionally_ _moved._ To do that you can invite a person to _think_ and _talk_ about the subject. Of course, there is a possibility that the subject already interests one or more in the audience. But you cannot count on it. Therefore, you must assume that none from the audience have a genuine interest at forehand.

Thinking becomes the main entry from where may grow a genuine interest that moves the person. All that is needed is for you to ask the question.

Of course, you may be a person that generally have a positive impact on other people. This will also help to support someone to be emotionally moved. And that is great. But my point is that if you are not that type of person, you still can support learning processes by asking questions and facilitating a talk.

Storing – fragmented and uncompleted

Experiences are stored in the different parts of the brain in accordance with the specific sense. Visuals are stored in the visual cortex, and listening is stored in the auditory cortex, physical sensing is stored in the somatosensory cortex, tasting is stored in the taste cortex, and the cozy feeling of being together with someone you trust and feel safe around may be stored in gyrus cingularis.

All experiences are stored as _fragments_. _Uncompleted and fragmented_. This may be the reason why we can remember large quantities of information - we only remember incredibly few details. You can say that we only store keywords for what happened[50].

One point is that the fragmented storing process points toward the fact that two persons can never experience the same thing. This explains why it is so important to be curious about why someone thinks this and that. If the why is explained, it gives you the opportunity to figure out why she is saying this and that. If it turns out that you have two basically different positions from where you look at the question, then you can start aligning for a common ground from where to start the discussion. Or to discuss the different start positions.

But this is usually a challenge because we tend to use our energy recalling all our splendid arguments as to why we have the right answer. Suggestion. Stop thinking and listen.

Also, try remembering situations you have had with colleagues, friends, and family, where you should have aligned to gather more basic perspectives on a specific case - but did not. Most of my (constructed) memories reveal that most decisions were taken without aligning positions.

Another point is that because every person's brain is filled with memory chunks, these chunks may be activated and brought into the learning process. You just have to invite for participation in the learning process. If a memory chunk can be connected to parts of what you have communicated, there is an increased chance of learning related to your topic.

And a final point is that during the Listen phase in Listen Think Talk, you can exploit that the audience is pre-tuned towards a _story_ presented via visuals, sound, smell, taste, and kinetic. The more senses you can activate and influence, the greater possibility there is for anyone to be able to relate to what you communicate. And that is this relationship that will support the storing process to maybe keep some of your presented parts.

Recalling - a construction

If storing and inculcation was interesting, recalling is way more important. This is where you make use of your learnings.

In general, the recalling function is a _construction process_ [51]. When the brain needs to recall something, it constructs a picture of the past after what you experience as "reality."

The brain does it like this:

It collects the many different _information fragments_ and then _makes up a story_ about what happened in the past. The story is sort of an _illusion,_ but it _feels_ right to you. In some situations, you may not remember anything other than the story that works. In this case, the specific memory is a _complete illusion._

This is absolutely mind-blowing and a bit scary. Every time you recall something, it is kind of an illusion. That feels right to you. Now think about how we all at times have acted stubborn and pushing that we were right.

Yeah, you can say that, but what about situations where someone or you have provided scientific hard-core facts to support your argument? Yes, but how often do you really provide this kind of facts as part of a daily discussion? Not often. But knowledge about the human brain's recalling function should make you reconsider the way you engage in dialogues and discussions.

I would say it is difficult and requires extensive work to provide evidence for something to be objective[52]. If the object, for example, is a simple chair, black or white in the same simple and clean room and same artificial light - you should be able to stand in the same position and the same angle and look at the chair and see the almost the same as another person. Even though some will even advocate that you and the other person will not experience the same because each person looks differently at function and form and the many nuances of black and white. But when we move from simple tangible objects like a simple chair in a simple context to processes, complex objects, and abstract issues in general - the possibility of looking at a subject and talking about objectivity could seem impossible.

The idea of non-existence of objectivity has been presented for decades with, for example, constructivism[53]. It certainly challenges the use of objectivity as a concept with the neuroscience findings pointing towards a brain function that stores fragments of what is perceived and a recall function as a combination of reusing fragments and making up a story.

Another interesting point is that you have a memory function in your brain that feeds on _stories_. This may be why storytelling works so well? For you, as a presenter, the fast take is that you could prepare stories containing your points to support a better learning process.

You and every awake person on earth

To sum up, you (and every awake person on earth) constantly take in very limited data through your five senses. This data is compared to already existing data and your emotions in the process of shaping the making of an experience. After all, shaped data from your senses are combined into one experience; it "travels" to memory where it may be stored in the long-term memory, fragmented and uncompleted. If you should at some time want to recall this experience, your brain collects different _information fragments_ and then _makes up a story_ about what happened in the past. The story is sort of an _illusion,_ but it _feels_ right to you. This illusion of yours is sometimes only based on the story that feels so right to you and no other experiences. In other words, a complete illusion.

Totally amazing and frightening at the same time. And in many ways, it contradicts our beliefs about knowledge, what each of us knows, how we make decisions, and a lot more.

And from a learning perspective, this knowledge about brain processes also points towards (among others) how we can improve and support better learning. And a very simple and effective approach is through Listen Think Talk.

Credits: © Odua images (Adobe Stock) – ID 130877359

# 9 Learning model

The aim of this chapter is to present a learning model to help you go _further_ than Listen Think Talk. The model represents dimensions you could take into consideration when planning and facilitating a learning process.

In this chapter, I also compare modern learning to traditional learning to show how grounded we all are in traditional learning. This to support awareness about how most of us are still using traditional learning as our standard learning approach. Understanding what these concepts comprise will help you identify the basic assumptions of every learning setup and context.

Finally, before I start this chapter, it is important to keep in mind that Listen Think Talk focus on adult learning and how easy it is to use Listen Think Talk to improve the results end efficiency of any learning process.

First, a very short introduction to the definition of learning.

The definition of Learning

To define the learning concept, I have chosen the book Læring (learning) (2004) by the Danish scientist and professor of lifelong learning, Knud Illeris[54]. I have chosen this book because Illeris develops his own learning model comprising learning theories from 29 famous theorists and comprises different perspectives in his model, like interactions with the surroundings and other persons and the related brain processes.

Illeris initially broadens the concept of learning from four perspectives[55],

(1) _The_ _relative continuous change of behavior as a result of experience and practice._ The results of the learning processes which take place in the individual. It could be learning of words and other symbols, acquisition of sensorimotor skills, the dedication of knowledge, the beginning of positions, and emotional reactions to specific phenomenon.

(2) _Mental processes_ that take place in the individual and may lead to changes or results like mentioned above (1).

(3) _Interaction_ between the individual and the material (physical) surroundings and social relations (my own translation: Context). The context influences indirectly or directly the individual learning process.

(4) _The overall setting_ : The word "learning" and "learning process" is often used in daily language as a synonym for education or lecture, also in other situations where there is no lecture. Thereby learning is defined as the overall setting where learning is supposed to take place, and the presented supposed to be memorized.

Illeris points out that the overall setting (4) is inappropriate because the aim of a learning process is more than memorizing the presented. Further, that interaction (3) in a learning process is combined with mental processes (2) where none are controllable. There can be problems between the presenter and the participant, which hinders that points never arrive in the mind of the participant. The psychic process that takes place as the received information arrive, runs in many ways and with different emotions involved[56].

One interesting point is Illeris is mentioning of emotions. For you, it points to that the _emotions_ within which a person can interfere or support a learning process. As you cannot control the emotions of another person, being aware of the perspective can explain bad learning outcomes, or you could work on the way you act or how you can support interactions and relations between participants.

If you act harsh or unfriendly, you could trigger negative emotions in your participants, which could lead to decreased learning. If there is a positive relationship between the participants, it can increase the learning process and results.

Figure 7: Illeris' definition of learning

Illeris concludes that he defines the learning concept as,

(1) _Interactions_ between the person and his surroundings like interaction with another person or a media (book, webpage, an audio file, etc.).

(2) The _individual psychic acquisition and processing processes_ that lead to a learning result.

I see Illeris definition as very useful, but I need a model that, more precisely, can guide you or me as a presenter or responsible for initiating a change process.

Learning model

That is why I have built my own learning model on top of Illeris (among others), influenced heavily by the latest knowledge within the neuroscience area.

Figure 8: Learning model - dimensions to consider when planning and facilitating a learning process.

This model represents dimensions you could take into consideration when planning and facilitating a learning process.

The model can be valuable if you decide to move on from using Listen Think Talk as a basic but efficient approach as part of your daily work. Be aware that dimensions interact and influence each other.

I have presented all dimensions in the previous chapters and list the content of each in the table below.

Behaviorism and traditional learning

Traditional learning theory, approach, and culture came from the United States of America and was developed by Burrhus Frederic Skinner (March 20, 1904 – August 18, 1990), commonly known as _B. F. Skinner_. He was an American psychologist, behaviorist, author, inventor, and social philosopher[57].

B.F. Skinner

Skinner wrote and published the book, _Behavior of Organisms_ in 1938[58] and introduced, what I see as, the beginning of the Behavioristic era (Behaviorism[59]). An era that still dominates our approach to learning globally.

Today Behaviorism strongly influences generations about learning processes in educational institutions, governmental structures, and private companies. I experience that, on a broad scale, Behaviorism dictates how we communicate and run learning processes. I will return to the characteristics below, but before that, look at this picture.

Credits: © bonnontawat (Adobe Stock) – ID 121690205

The picture of a lecture (and a learning process) represents the epitome of a traditional learning setup. With only a few adjustments in educational technology, it could be a situation from the early 1900 or from today. The remarkable about the situation in the picture is that today, very little has changed if you visit a school or attend a presentation in an enterprise. We still sit at desks, in rows and facing towards some kind of board. A teacher, a lecturer, or a manager stands before us and _pours_ knowledge into our heads.

In my opinion, we have not sufficiently developed the learning approach in our schools and, therefore, we are all still growing up in a system that teaches us how to approach learning processes "Behavioristic style." Basically, we know no other approach. So, when we move from school life to job life, we bring along the Behavioristic approach because this is what we have experienced. This is what we know. And this leads to inefficient and not effective learning approaches to handle problems and challenges of our time.

Of course, the behavioristic approach has been ratified through the decades where, among others, private companies have specialized in training programs on how to memorize better and faster.

Behaviorism on the shoulders of Positivism

Before Behaviorism emerged, the Positivistic[60] approach (18th century and forward) dominated science, education, and thinking. It is not like Behaviorism invented the way a school situation looked like. But Behaviorism was the first scientific approach to learning and influenced both educational institutions and private firms in America before the II World War and with increased force going forward.

Behaviorism gave attention to how we learn and to achieve learning. But Behaviorism emerged on the shoulders of the Positivistic tradition; a tradition with an emphasis that information is derived from sensory experience, interpreted through reason and logic, and forming the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge. Positivism holds that valid knowledge (certitude or truth) is found only in this derived knowledge[61].

I see a nice fit between positivistic thinking and behaviorism theory as both theories can be viewed as linear and focused on human sensory experience.

The looks of Behaviorism

But what is the practical visualization of Behaviorism? What does it look like? I think you know it already.

It looks like the classroom picture above. We have a _presenter_ and a group of _participants_ and the roles and responsibility are like this:

The presenter,

• Holds the right _knowledge_ about the subject and has the authority to present this.

• Knows what is important to know about the subject.

• Will literally speak, _pour_ his or her knowledge about the subject into the participants' minds.

The participants,

• Have no or little _knowledge_ about the subject.

• Will primarily listen and take notes to help memorize exactly what the presenter communicates.

• If you have any questions about the subject, feel free to ask, and the presenter will give the _right_ answer.

This visualization of the setup and the roles and responsibility is found everywhere in our daily life, from school situations to work situations at work.

What is the problem?

First, you cannot _pour_ knowledge into other people's minds. Autopoiesis points toward that every person can be seen as a closed and self-referring system. So, every person decides for themselves. Further, neuroscience has shown that humans experience situations as fragments and not coherent linear passages of information. And, imitation is not always the learning objective \- especially at work where you often need to adjust your learning to fit the customer or a specific context to be meaningful.

Second, what is the right knowledge? Every subject area and branch evolve faster and faster. What is _relevant_ knowledge today may be obsolete in a month. Maybe we have moved from _right_ to _relevant_ knowledge. Modern learning acknowledges that the presenter, the participants, and electronic media can contribute to form a sum of combined knowledge about the subject, right there at the moment of the learning process. Contextual. Tomorrow with another setup and different people and use of electronic media, they will form a slightly different pool of knowledge about the same subject.

Third, everyone who participates (presenter or traditionally participants) in a learning process has the role and responsibility to contribute to the relevant pool of _experience_ needed to answer a question, solve a problem or build a product.

Note that I used experience instead of knowledge. The reason is that knowledge is a very simple way to look at what is needed to solve problems and take on challenges. You often also need physical skills and a specific attitude. Knowledge, skills, and attitude can be comprised in one word, _experience_ [62].

In the following, I will address experience as the link between competence and learning.

Competence and learning

In this chapter, I also find it useful to talk about competence linked to learning because the competence concept is now widely used in enterprises. This is to express what specific skills, knowledge, and attitudes (experience) are needed to solve a specific task or job. This way, the competence concept becomes a way of measuring and planning development and leaning initiatives with competence goals for employees and groups of employees.

I often use experience as competence or vice versa. I see both comprising knowledge, skills, and attitude. But to me, experience is more retrospective based on what I have obtained, e.g., I have experience with this and that. I use competence to underline the connection to a specific work context. In other words, I can bring experience as an important foundation to acquire very closely related competencies.

Of course, you can also use competence as I have competencies in this and that. My point is that I use experience to help myself remember that the word comprises knowledge, skills, and attitude. And I use competence to help myself remember the importance of work context.

Competence

So, learning is invariably connected to competence.

The reason is that learning, at least, is one of two preconditions to become competent. The other being that the competence is sought after by someone[63]. In this case, by an enterprise.

The latter normally refers to the _work context_. From an enterprise perspective, there is a continuous demand for specific competencies to solve specific tasks and challenges now and in the future. Thereby, competence is strongly and uniquely linked to work context.

The former points to the need for you to engage in a learning process to develop specific competencies. These learning initiatives need to be efficient and effective. Continuously. This means that _the learning process will run in the actual work context_ (or as close to as possible).

Qualification vs. competence

The competence concept is split into various subgenres, the most common being _personal_ and _professional_ competencies. But competence is also linked to the _qualifications_ concept. And they are not the same.

I use the qualification concept to address learnings required through formal and completed education initiatives like high school, university, craftsman schools, courses, etc. Formal meaning education initiatives not related to a specific work context or enterprise.

A common picture of the two concepts is when you acquire your driver's license, it is a qualification. As you start driving your car, you _develop_ the competence to drive this specific car in these specific surroundings. I write _develop_ because competencies evolve over time. Competence is fluid, whereas qualification is static. For good measure, I will just mention that the qualification concept can be split into numerous sub-genres, but it is not relevant to go further in details to support my points.

This distinction between qualification and competence can be of good use when you plan competence development. The point is that focusing on acquiring a specific qualification through a course or formal education does not bring the competence you need to solve a specific problem, task, or challenge. But, the qualification can, in some instances, be the foundation on which you develop the needed competence.

# 10 The End...

I took a couple of byways writing this book. At first, they were scattered all over, but the proofreading showed the need to streamline my main points and perspectives. So, I ended up with a couple of short stories related to learning and nowhere to place them, so I decided to put them here in this last chapter.

I could have killed them, and I did kill some, but the leftovers will follow shortly.

The End is a basket filled with various messages, perspectives, and provocative pieces.

First, I will talk about change labeled as Implementation or Bottom up. Then Keep it simple on how Listen Think Talk can be the base of all known learning and change approaches. Then a provocative piece about "We are all good managers" and finally short about Incremental progress.

Implementation and bottom up

Because this book deals with learning in a job context, I also think it is meaningful to address a common way to talk about organizational change. This because learning is closely linked to change, and change is how we normally talk about learning in organizations.

An organizational change can put squarely, either be "pushed down over the employees," or the employees can initiate change themselves. These two different approaches to change are labeled,

• Top down/Implementation

• Bottom up[64]

When someone needs to implement a change, the use of the word implementation kind of fixes the brain as if the change can be pushed down over the group of employees. Well, it can, and it usually does. But when I combine the learning perspective from Listen Think Talk with an implementation initiative, I am guided to consider how to increase the learning process for a better result.

Implementation

Top-down, or _implementation_ is a very common expression used to symbolize when someone in the organization "press" a system of behavior down on employees and managers.

You have most likely heard the expression implementation many times when a manager or a project owner speak about running a process which leads to employees will change a procedure and apply specific behavior patterns to do something differently. Or maybe you use implementation daily to communicate your intention to insert a new way of doing things in your team or group. You will implement this, or we will implement that. Words like implement and implementation have become a natural part of change management language.

What many forget, though, is that " _implementation_ of something" is closely linked to change and learning processes. The point here is that by acknowledging that this _is_ a learning process - you will more likely be aware of how to plan and run the process, instead of seeing implementation as something that "will happen eventually."

Change processes as implementation are the rules in most companies. The reason is that managers are faced with the need to change someone or something almost on an everyday basis. It requires both rapid action, short and long-running learning processes to change procedures, organization, develop competencies, use new technology, or start solving new tasks.

It is my experience that managers see the challenges ahead and sometimes decide what to do without input from their employees. The change ideas are formed at the manager level, occasionally supported by specialists like HR, business controllers, etc. The point being that ideas about the need for change are born, formulated, and implemented from manager level with very little or no involvement from lower levels.

Bottom up

This happens when an employee engages in a change or learning process by own initiative. It can also happen at the lower levels in an organization where the need for change is identified long before corporate level identifies and accept the need to change.

The bottom up changes or learning process is very powerful and is driven by dedicated and motivated employees. They see the meaning and can often visualize the possible end-state.

Large scale bottom up processes are seldom because employees are busy fulfilling their area of responsibility. They have little spare time to do other, to organize the need for change, or they do not have the formal (or informal) power to initiate the change process. But. Employees are the ones closest to the key work in the organization. Nobody is closer to the core processes and has the necessary knowledge than the employees. Locally. Therefore, they often have lots of ideas on how to improve a procedure, a better way to organize or an idea to a totally new product or service.

You just have to ask. And if you do, you will ignite motivation, engagement, and just as important - you will increase the use of your employees' brains. So, have the courage manager and lose control. Reverse the organizational chart – upside down...

The model below shows that all change processes comprise both implementation and bottom up processes.

If you implement something, there is always a bottom up part because the employees need to engage in the process at some point to find out how they can perform the expected new behavior, use the new technology or maybe build new relations with newcomers in the organization linked to their specific job context.

The degree of bottom ups is among others, dependent on how specific the new behavior must be.

If the new corporate procedure requires that the employee moves or speaks in a very detailed and specific way - the learning process will focus on the employee _imitating_ precisely in accordance with the written instruction. The change will mostly comprise an implementation approach.

If the new corporate procedure is given as a broad frame to work inside, the employee needs to find his or her own way. This also calls for a bottom up approach.

Both examples require that the employee take on the challenge. Both examples require that the employee engages in a learning process where the new system is absorbed and translated to fit the employee's experience, including mental and physical preferences.

Is a split 50/50 between implementation and bottom up then the perfect process then? Well, it depends, among others, on the subject, task, context, time, and resources available.

But it is my experience that if you invite employees to participate in the planning and running of change processes (even if it takes more time), they will be motivated and increase the amount of bottom up participation as dedication rise. Bottom up processes reduce resistance against change and anchor the change deeper. Further, the quality of the change increases because it comprises the influence of more views and, thereby, more experiences.

We are all good change managers...

Warning, the next piece might upset you and be more than a bit challenging...

Manager skills to plan and conduct changes or learning processes are often labeled change-management competencies. But what I experience is that change-management skills seldom comprise acknowledgment about how to facilitate learning processes to increase the learning quality.

The organizational evaluation of your change management skills is often based on whether you can change someone or something without specific regards to the effect, the efficiency of the learning process, or the wellbeing of the people involved. Put squarely, if you have implemented a new work procedure and everybody can see employees start showing a changed behavior, then you must clearly have change-management competencies. Great. Congrats.

This is not how I see it.

First, this way of evaluating change-management competencies, (no surprise) makes it easy to be labeled change management expert.

Because anyone can implement anything if the approach is like (warning: a bit caricatured), "All. Listen up and pay attention. You just use an apple slicer and end up with six slices. It is very simple: You take the apple with one hand and the slicer in the other hand. Then, press the slicer on top and down. Maybe the apple is hard, and the slicer not super sharp. Then you just press harder, and eventually, you are through. All the slices tumble all over the table. So, you pick them up one by one and put them in a bowl."—no big deal. Anyone can do it.

Everything like, I am the manager. I have myself thought this through. Planned everything. I know what is best for you and how to do it. Like other things I have implemented, I can order you to answer the company's phone in a specific way and ask the same three questions. I have the formal authoritative power. And you shall as my employee do as I say (if my delegation of tasks is legal and makes sense within the business context).

When this is the approach to change management, it is very simple to implement change and be "good" at change management. Then everyone can be a good change manager.

From my point of view, change-management competencies need to comprise an understanding about learning processes and communication. The reasons are many.

One is that you must preserve and retain your employees. If you force change after change down on your employees – with no involvement – you will create waves of anger, irritation, and frustration and ware out your group of employees. Worst case, they will leave you or get sick with stress.

Further, you need to make use of every employee's full potential to increase the _quality_ of the change. This is not done through a force changing marathon. Sometimes, I have had the experience that focuses on quality that was nowhere to be found. The change was all about being able to show action getting a change implemented. Put a checkmark on the status keynote.

Another point is that badly run change processes can be costly. If you force changes again and again, you will produce resistance, lack of motivation, and inefficient workflows that can lead to an increase in costs and bad quality.

And very important, often, it is imperative to involve your employees because the subject is complex, and the learning must be suited to specific job contexts and customers. Again, it is about quality.

Finally, badly run change processes can end up with bad results because you never succeeded to make use of your employee's experience and competencies. You never invited anyone to participate. You set the goal, laid out the plan, and ran the entire change process way to authoritarian.

Listen Think Talk supports important acknowledgments about applied learning in individuals, between persons and inside the organization.

Keep it simple

No matter what change model (or no model) you use or have chosen to apply, Kotter[65], Theory U[66], Design Thinking[67] \- to name few but very different – Listen Think Talk can be your base. And can be used as basic knowledge about human learning processes.

Listen Think Talk is very simple and intuitive to use. You do not have to take a course in learning theory, didactics, pedagogics, neuroscience, or learning psychology. Listen Think Talk is easy to start using, and, in time, this modern learning approach will improve your competence to facilitate learning processes and increase the output of your change initiatives.

Listen Think Talk can be used in many situations where change or learning is needed. For example, as part of a conversation, an instruction, a presentation, a workshop, a meeting, a lecture, if you need to coach, supervise or mentor a person or a group, if you need to improve the effectiveness of your communication plan, to support your project process and change initiatives in general.

You can use Listen Think Talk in many different situations. And, the more you use this learning approach, the more it becomes a way of thinking.

For example. I believe[68] in the theory about Autopoiesis[69]. Therefore, I use it whenever I communicate. In accordance with the concept of Autopoiesis, I expect that nobody will take in any part of my communication if they do not want to. I cannot force any acknowledgment or meaning into the mind of another person. I cannot control how the parts taken in are understood. And I cannot control how the understood parts are eventually used.

You can, though, control if your employees can imitate or not. But make no mistake. If imitation is not the learning goal, you will never control any learning process or output.

So, I do not expect my communication to have any effect before the listeners have had a chance to reflect, try it themselves, and become involved. And this usually takes some time (maybe they must sleep on it). Therefore, I just start a process. And then maybe only parts will have been absorbed. What parts I will not know until my listeners act or speak out. Because of Autopoiesis, I will make space and time for reflection and participation.

Learning as incremental steps

When I facilitate learning, it helps tremendously to look at it as a process and secondly see the process as small steps moving forward. In short, I see all learning as incremental steps.

What it means is that I do not try to support the entire learning objective at once but sees different steps as small steps toward the objective. It gives me the vision and very important, expectations, that change will take time, and that small changes eventually will lead to bigger changes, hopefully, close to the initial learning objective. Because of this approach, I will automatically look for the small changes. When I see them, I know we are moving forward.

If you do the same, you will have tuned your own expectations to a level where you feel some sort of control and overview. I think it is about accepting small milestones, accepting drawbacks, and acknowledge time is your friend. Plan the time and room to affect and invite participants again and again to support the learning process.

The conception, that I can demand a change and then it will happen, is unreal. But some managers and change owners sometimes act as if they could. I have often witnessed this approach at all levels in the organizations where I have worked.

You cannot control the way your employees think. All you can do is check that they can imitate correctly. But that does not mean you know what they think. And are you sure that they will behave like you want them to when you are not present?

# Acknowledgment

In my many jobs as a manager, I have occasionally pressured, pushed, and challenged my employees or fellow managers as I have tested theories about individual, group, and organizational learning and a lot of other ideas.

I am truly grateful to have had these opportunities. Even if I often took the initiative myself without asking management levels above.

Therefore, a big thank you to all employees, colleagues, and fellow managers through the many years for giving me these opportunities (even if you did not always have the choice). Thank you for the resistance and honest feedback. You gave me the opportunity to learn exquisitely.

You should all know that a lot of these opportunities and hard-earned learnings are the reason for me being able to write this book. And evolve to be a better leader and manager. Thanks.

Also, a big thank you to Christian Bruun Aarhus, army officer, colleague, veteran, and study buddy with whom I worked hard to improve our course back in the days. We tested ourselves and a ton of learning theory and didactics to improve our impact on the many officers that participated. Thanks for the sparring and collaborative thinking that paved the road towards this book.

A big thank you to Jesper Knudsen, former army officer, colleague, veteran, and study buddy who took the time to proofread this book from a professional learning perspective.

A special thank you to my mother in law Ingelise and my father in law Tonny (deceased) – both of you took me in from the very beginning and supported me, Maria and our lovely daughters.

Forever thank you to my lovely wife and soulmate, Maria, for loving me and always giving me the space and time to explore things and spend evenings (not planned), whenever I get a great idea about... anything.

Finally, a big thank you to my wonderful daughters, Emilie and Sofie, for always backing me up, loving me for the person I am, and very important – keeping me on the ground.

Anders Christian Hansen, Kalundborg, Denmark 30. June 2020

# Selected Bibliography

The list below presents the books that are either part of the endnotes or relevant input on my journey toward Listen Think Talk.

Anton Obholzer & Vega Zagier Roberts (red.), The Unconscious at Work – Individual and Organizational Stress in the Human Services (Danish version) (2003).

B.F. Skinner, Behavior of Organisms (1938).

Bent Ølgaard. Kommunikation og Økomentale Systemer (2004).

Bjarne Wahlgren et al., Refleksion og læring - kompetenceudvikling i arbejdslivet (2002).

C.G. Jung, Psychological types (Danish edition) (1994).

Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence – Why it can matter more than IQ (2005).

Daniel Goleman, Social Intelligence (2006).

Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011).

David Hardman, Judgement and Decision Making – Psychological Perspectives (2009).

Donald G. Reinertsen, The Principles of Product Development - Flow – Second Generation LEAN Product Development (2009).

Flemming Andersen, Selvledelse (2008).

Gregory Bateson, Steps to an Echology of Mind (1972).

Hans Otto Scharmer, Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges 2nd Edition (2016).

Irving L. Janis, Groupthink – Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (1982).

J.P. Kotter, Leading Change (2012).

Jeff Sutherland, Scrum – The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time (2014).

Katrine Nørgaard, Stefan Ring Thorbjørnsen og Vilhelm Holsting, Militær etik og ledelse i praksis (2008).

Kaufmann og Kaufmann, Psykologi i Organisasjon og Ledelse (1996).

Knud Illeris, Læring – aktuel læringsteori i spændingsfeltet mellem Piaget, Freud og Marx (2004).

Knud Illeris og Signe Berri (red.), Tekster om voksenlæring (2005).

Koester and Frandsen, Introduktion til psykologi (2003).

Nicole Forsgren, Jez Humble and Gene Kim, Accelerate – Building and Scaling High Performing Technology Organizations (2018).

Pedro Domingos, The Master Algorithm – How the quest for the ultimate learning machine will remake our world (2017).

Peter Lund Madsen, Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012).

Reinhard Stelter (red.), Coaching – læring og udvikling (2002).

Stephen D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner, Freakonomics (2015).

Svend Brinkmann, Gå Glip – om begrænsningens kunst i en grænseløs tid (2017).

Svend Brinkmann, Stå fast – et opgør med tidens udviklingstvang (2017).

Thorkil Molly-Søholm, Jacob Storch, Andreas Juhl, Kristian Dahl og Asbjørn Molly, Ledelsesbaseret Coaching (2006)2.

Thorkil Molly-Søholm, Nikolaj Stegeager og Søren Willert (red.), Systemisk Ledelse – Teori og Praksis (2015).

Torben Heinskou & Steen Visholm, Psykodynamisk Organisationspsykologi – på arbejde under overfladen (2004).

Yuval Noah Harari, Homo Deus – A Brief History of Tomorrow (2016).

Yuval Noah Harari, Homo Sapiens – A Brief History of Humankind (2015).

Zygmunt Bauman, Community – Seeking Safety in an Insecure World (Danish version) (2001).

# End Notes

[1] Introduktion til psykologi (2003) by Koester and Frandsen. Page 64 ff.

[2] Homo Sapiens – a brief history of humankind and Homo Deus – a brief history of tomorrow, both splendid books by Yuval Noah Harari.

[3] Refleksion og læring - kompetenceudvikling i arbejdslivet (2002) af Wahlgren et al. Page 144

[4] Stå fast. Et opgør med tidens udviklingstvang (2017) af Svend Brinkmann.

[5] Work Life Balance (WLB) (page 10 ff)  https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/28945/8/08_chapter%202.pdf

[6] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 212.

[7] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 210.

[8] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 225.

[9] Social Intelligence (2006) by Daniel Goleman.

[10] Social Intelligence (2006). Daniel Goleman. Page 88.

[11] Selvledelse (2008). Flemming Andersen. Page 62: Refers to Rogers (1963) page 33.

[12] Selvledelse (2008). Flemming Andersen. Page 62.

[13] Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011). Daniel Kahneman. Page 28.

[14] Refleksion og læring - Kompetenceudvikling i arbejdslivet (2002). Wahlgren et al. Page 162 ff.

[15] Refleksion og læring - Kompetenceudvikling i arbejdslivet (2002). Wahlgren et al. Page 164.

[16] Refleksion og læring - Kompetenceudvikling i arbejdslivet (2002). Wahlgren et al. Page 158.

[17] Refleksion og læring - Kompetenceudvikling i arbejdslivet (2002). Wahlgren et al. Page 143.

[18] Refleksion og læring - Kompetenceudvikling i arbejdslivet (2002). Wahlgren et al. Page 147.

[19] Refleksion og læring - Kompetenceudvikling i arbejdslivet (2002). Wahlgren et al. Page 145.

[20] Karl Tomms question model can be found many places on www. This link is therefore just one of many:  http://www.agile42.com/en/blog/2013/10/07/your-strategy-asking-powerful-questions/

[21] Karl Tomm original article from 1988:  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1988.00001.x

[22] Refleksion og læring - Kompetenceudvikling i arbejdslivet (2002). Wahlgren et al. Page 163.

[23] I am aware that the use of the term _theory_ in this case presumably do not fulfill the standardized requirement seen from a scientific point of view, but to me they represent theories because it makes sense as a label or a system of thoughts. See Wikipedias definition about theory: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory>.

[24] Samspilsprocesser, social læring og socialisering. Kapitel 7 i bogen, Læring - aktuel læringsteori i spændingsfeltet mellem Piaget, Freud og Marx. 2001 (2004). Knud Illeris.

[25] Sapir-Whorf hypothesis <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity>

[26] Social Constructionism: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism>

[27] Selvledelse - selvet på arbejde (2006). Fleming Andersen. Page 116.

[28] Collaborative Man ® : https://collaborativeman.wordpress.com

[29] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 422.

[30] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 424-426.

[31] Psychological types (1994). C.G. Jung. Danish edition. Carl Gustav Jung (26 July 1875 – 6 June 1961), often referred to as C. G. Jung, was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychotherapist who founded analytical psychology. Jungs theory about Psychological Types has laid the ground for analysis tools like Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Jungians Type Index (JTI) and Keirsey Temperament Sorter (KTS).

[32] Psychological types (1994). C.G. Jung. Danish edition. Pages 138-148.

[33] <http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/>

[34] Humberto Maturana <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberto_Maturana>

[35] Autopoiesis <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis>

[36] Selvledelse - selves på arbejde. 2006. Flemming Andersen. Page 111 ff.

[37] Gregory Bateson <https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson>

[38] Kommunikation og Økomentale Systemer. 2004. Bent Ølgaard.

[39] Steps to an Echology of Mind. 1972. Gregory Bateson.

[40] Perception: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception>

[41] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 240 ff.

[42] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 242.

[43] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 248

[44] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 248

[45] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 336 ff.

[46] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 345.

[47] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 337.

[48] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 339.

[49] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 339.

[50] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 343.

[51] Dr. Zukaroffs testamente (2012). Peter Lund Madsen. Page 343 ff.

[52] Objectivity (science): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science>)

[53] Constructivism and objectivity:  http://www.davidlewisphd.com/publications/Objectivism_vs_Constructivism.htm

[54] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud_Illeris>

[55] Læring (2004). Knud Illeris. P. 14-15.

[56] Læring (2004). Knud Illeris. P. 16.

[57] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#cite_note-29

[58] Behavior of Organisms (1938). Skinner, B.F. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts

[59] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism>

[60] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism>

[61] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism>

[62] Experience: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience>

[63] Competence: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competence_(human_resources>)

[64] Implementation and Bottom Up: Innovation Excellence Blog  https://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2019/03/17/top-down-or-bottom-up-how-do-you-start-building-an-innovative-culture/

[65] Leading Change (2012) by J.P. Kotter.

[66] Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges 2nd Edition (2016) by Hans Otto Scharmer.

[67] Design Thinking books are many. On this site a few recommendations:  https://peerinsight.com/blog/5-more-must-read-books-on-design-thinking/

[68] Believe, because I have tested and found the theory useful.

[69] Autopoiesis <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis>
