Deep behavioral change needs a transformative learning paradigm

Most training programs focus only on knowledge, skills and techniques. They rarely change how people think, how they engage in complex situations, or how citizens experience the system. That is why training alone rarely produces real transformation.

A deep behavioral change program needs a transformative learning paradigm. While a superficial behavioral change program may be done through a skilling paradigm.

What is a transformative learning paradigm?

A transformative learning paradigm seeks to change our thinking, mindsets and behaviour. On the other hand, a skilling paradigm focusses on acquiring specific capabilities to accomplish specific tasks.

Transformative learning includes within its scope the acquisition of specific skills and capabilities. But, when we seek to build intrinsic motivation to serve, or an expanded vision of one’s role, or when one is trying to change the way one interacts with citizens, a skilling paradigm is not enough. Such deep behavioral changes need a transformative learning paradigm.

What kind of outcomes are met in a transformative learning paradigm?

Four kinds of outcomes that you should check for:

1. Learning outcomes. The focus should be on ‘understanding’.

There are several types of learning outcomes. Examples include acquiring knowledge, understanding concepts, learning specific skills, etc. Most traditional training programs stop at learning outcomes.

2. Cognitive outcomes. The focus should be on ‘change in thinking’.

This is applicable to outcomes like changing my thinking, my beliefs, my mental models of the world around me, or the mental tools that I use for engaging with the world.

While ‘tools for thinking’ may be learnt through a skilling paradigm, the deeper mental model shifts need transformative learning.

3. Dynamic response outcomes. The focus should be on ‘how I respond and engage with life/ stakeholders on a real-time basis’.

To engage dynamically, I need to change my modes of engagement, for example, becoming proactive, and moving from being a victim of circumstance to a creator of my destiny.

It is only through a dynamic response capability that I will be able to effectively handle citizen flashpoints, respond to difficult situations, and interact positively with citizens in real-time.

While certain types of scenario-based dynamic response capabilities can be built through skilling, changing one’s modes of engagement requires transformative learning.

4. Citizen/ customer trust outcomes. The focus should be on ‘sustaining positive contributions to the lives of citizens/ customers’.

Closure reflection:

The transformative learning paradigm helps in crossing the bridge from knowing to doing.

Thus, a good training program for deep behaviour change must help learners cross the bridge from knowledge to action. Otherwise, it is not sustainable in the long run.

Illumine’s experience in deep behavioral change

Over the last 2 decades, Illumine has carried out deep behavioral change interventions in over 5 million people.

These interventions span diverse contexts ranging from oil & gas, banking and financial services, FMCG retailing, capital projects, manufacturing, citizen services like policing, postal, railways, school & higher education, and community transformation.

In an age when everything is being disrupted the notion of “sustainable change” becomes important.

To understand this, let us understand change better using 3 reflections.

Reflection 1: What is the nature of change?

• Change can be gradual or fast (pace of change)

• Change can be marginal or fundamental (scope of change)

• Change can be short term or long term in its effects (effects of change)

• Change can be imposed from outside or driven form within (cause of change)

• Change can be at a business level, at an environmental level, at a product level, or at a human level (unit of change)

Q: Can you use this framework to understand the nature of change your organization is facing?

Reflection 2: How does an organization deal with change?

1. Does it deal with change on a “case to case” basis i.e. identify the change and respond to it? (reactive approach)

2. Does it deal with change on a “comprehensive rethink” basis to identify a cluster of changes and design a holistic response to deal with the entire cluster of changes? (proactive approach)

3. Does it deal with change on a “continuous basis”, i.e. the organization is architected to absorb and handle this continuous change, i.e change no longer is the exception, it is the rule based on which the organization behaves? (sense-respond approach)

In today’s environment it appears that continuous change and architecting organizations to deal with continuous change on a day-to-day basis seems to be the only way organizations can truly thrive/ sustain, i.e. organizations need to deal with change on an ongoing basis in a sense-respond manner.

Q: What is your strategy for change? Is it reactive? Proactive? Or Sense-Respond?

Reflection 3: What does it mean to deal with change using this sense-respond approach?

It means:

• Dealing with change in a sustained manner, i.e. all the time without stress building up in the system, and

• Dealing with change on a sustainable basis, i.e. the organization’s design takes into account the non-stable nature of markets, customers, production systems, people composition, etc. i.e. all variables are changing, yet outcomes are maintained on a sustained basis.

This is “sustainable change” – being able to maintain key organizational and business outcomes as per design, while retaining flexibility and responding appropriately, in all structural, process, and human dimensions.

Q: What are the non-negotiable business outcomes you really want in your organization - not for today alone, but for the years to come (despite all changes inside & outside your organization)?

A set of levers were identified. In this issue we explore the first lever: Creating an organization-wide alignment to strategy.

Why does alignment repeatedly fail? Illumine’s research highlights the factors that hamper alignment. Here is a quick map of the 4 factors with illustrative examples:

1: Disconnect with the ‘why’ of the strategy

It is the ‘why’ that gives meaning and purpose to work. It creates ownership. It also improves collaboration and inter-team engagement. Aligning with the ‘why’ is a magic elixir for leaders, especially those driving large systems.

2: Strategic vision gets reduced to targets

In the FMCG sector, a boardroom strategy to increase sachet distribution based on complex market data is translated for a delivery person as simply ‘sell these 5 boxes’. Without the strategic logic, the employee lacks buy-in and performs the task only because ‘the boss said so’.

3: Short-term vs. long-term misalignment to business goals

Leadership prioritizes quarterly wins, like showing low production costs. A manager mines only the high-grade limestone to hit immediate targets, but the plant’s long-term viability suffers.

4: Macro vision doesn’t fractalize into role visions

In large banks, a Managing Director discusses billions in profits over a quarterly call. For a local teller, this macro vision is meaningless. This information has no relevance to the teller because the macro vision has not been translated into logic that is understandable in the context of their specific role.

The Illumine experience:

Alignment can be done at any level of scale. For example, Illumine successfully completed one of the largest alignment exercises undertaken by a Government, where it enabled 1 million central government employees across 500 institutions align with the larger strategy of Viksit Bharat 2047. This was the Rashtriya Karmayogi Jan Seva Program, organized by the Capacity Building Commission of India. Illumine was the Knowledge Partner for this intervention.

They are able to conceive of, design, and communicate the larger purpose, goals, vision, strategy, etc. to their entire organization.

This is the Big Foot.

But they soon realize that people in the organization pay lip service to the Big Foot and are continuing to keep moving in their own directions.

This is what happens:

Now, their deeper and more challenging goal is to get every ‘small foot’ aligned to the larger goal.

But that cannot happen through diktat and memos. Even incentives and punishments have their limitations.

The small feet will align with the big foot only if they choose to do so, i.e. use their agency and commit to the larger foot.

If this can be done, then the organization looks like this:

How is this state of alignment to be achieved? The big foot is top down. The small feet are bottom up. The alignment is the thread that keeps it all together.

Alignment means mass-individualized change, i.e. change is not ‘driven’ in the organization, it is discovered and accepted by each individual.

The challenge is to achieve alignment at scale, speed, measurability, and reasonable cost, so that organizations can re-calibrate quickly to a changing world.

One example from our work:

A Fortune 500 company wanted to introduce new business and operating models to unleash the potential of its ecosystem of dealers & partners. This needed ‘buy-in’ and ‘commitment’ from the members of the ecosystem.

A ‘vivid-visioning’ exercise, scaled across thousands of ecosystem members, enabled each individual business to discover the value of the model, ‘vivid vision’ how it would transform the business, and commit their time & resources to the new initiative.

The initiative not only scaled up but also accomplished sustainable outcomes.

Growth in AI capabilities is beyond the control of most leaders. It is driven on a global scale and is fast accelerating. The only thing we can do is seek to learn & “understand” what is going on.

Growth in “capacity to leverage AI” is in our hands. It is driven, not by AI skills (which are easily learnt) but the deeper metacognitive skills needed to leverage AI (the way we think, the way our thought models are constructed, the way we translate information overload into meaningful action, etc.)

Now consider 3 scenarios:

Scenario 1:

If AI capabilities far exceed the metacognitive capacity of a group of people, they will not just underuse AI, they will also be swept away by change.

Scenario 2:

Organizations that build their metacognitive capacity will build “organization-wide intelligence”, i.e. a collective capacity to radically improve efficiencies, create innovative new products & models, and radically rethink business models.

Scenario 3:

The few, rare, high collective intelligence systems which have “generative metacognitive capacities” will lead how others think about the world. They are the radical disruptors.

The challenge before us:

1. How to avoid Scenario 1?
   Build core metacognitive capacities across the organization

2. How to sustainably operate in Scenario 2?
   Build at least a group of people who are constantly evolving in their “capacity to think” (i.e. evolutionary meta-cognitive capacities)

3. Can we work in Scenario 3?
   Extremely high metacognitive capacity means that as an organization or a leadership team you are fundamentally “inside-out”, i.e. you understand that your sensemaking can reshape the world you live in. As a result, you will be able to build radically new models in which AI will play a part. Ensure that at least the top leadership operates in Scenario 3.