How we fail to stop planetary decline

Despite scientific knowledge and a widely accepted consensus that we have crossed six out of nine planetary tipping points, there is a notable absence of evidence that this has translated into collective rational behaviour.  Conversely, in the majority of developed economies, a considerable demographic, predominantly aligned with ultra-conservative and right-wing ideologies, advocate for the postponement or even abandonment of the transformative twin transformation of digital and ecological change, which are vital for humanity’s survival. This naturally gives rise to the question of what is preventing people from rational action despite the availability of advanced technology and evidence-based knowledge.

Also see the role of mindsets and deeply-held beliefs.

We seem to know it all – and yet we don’t progress

The underlying premise of our approach is that we have not yet developed effective collective learning processes to facilitate socio-cultural transformation within organisations and businesses. The concept of self-replicating systems, as postulated by Luhmann, is exemplified by his notion of autopoiesis, which suggests that systems in general are resistant to change. It is corporate business models and powerful social groups and their representatives that determine how technologies are deployed and how social practice is directed, either in favour of or against the concept of our planet, nature and the rights of others as a common good.

This is how Social Learning Design (SLD) deals predominantly with phenomena at the group and system levels. The objective is to facilitate the co-creation of sustainable, desired futures by intrinsically motivated, self-organised teams. In this context, focusing on teams was a logical decision, as teams represent the pivotal link between individuals and the organisation, which interacts with society and the world at large.

Entering the social value-creation chain

The underlying assumption is that individuals who are empowered to work in teams can yield the greatest impact on a learning organisation. It is optimal if the individual’s inclination towards the team outweighs any centrifugal factors, provided that the team is facilitated professionally and the organisation is founded upon an innovative culture of failure. This is how psychological safety (Amy C. Edmondson, Timothy R. Clark) plays a central role in SLD.

Causation is straightforward and comprehensible: In an organisational setting where individuals, teams and the wider organisation are aligned and facilitate powerful formative feedback loops, the overall social impact is significant. In a system where individuals do not feel a sense of ownership over the project conducted by the team, or where teams feel that their work is not relevant to the organisation, the world at large, lacks the famous ‘why’, or feels unappreciated, the efficacy of the value-creating chain is significantly diminished.

The outcome of SLD is social impact, which can be quantified in three ways: (a) at the behavioural level through the introduction of new practices, (b) at the material level by the implementation of new technologies and their effect on target groups, and (c) at the conceptual level through the creation of shared and scalable models for best practice.

As is the case with all learning processes, measurements are conducted prior to and following the intervention (pre-post), with supporting documentation and evidence provided.

The term ‘design’ in SLD suggests the creation and implementation of novel, transformative methodologies at the team level. The methodologies that we have employed to date are based on established techniques, as well as modified versions derived from the work of the MindLab in Denmark and Liberating Structures (McCanless & Lipmanowicz) in the United States.

The importance of teams

Structurally, teams are the link between the individual and the organisation. Teams are the interface between management and employees. Psychologically, teams offer inclusion and acceptance, making people feel that they have literally become ‘part of the team’. Only teams can say: We are happy to have you with us!
Most importantly, teams can offer purpose and identity. Beyond taking on formal team roles such as researcher, problem-solver or team-leader, it is important that people can identify with the position they are offered, that they can take pride in the work they do every day.
In terms of impact, teams are the only social sphere that offers a comprehensive multi-perspective assessment of the team’s project- or transformation protocol at eye level. Inclusive teams are the space where individuals are given a voice, counterbalancing any type of group-think or collective bias. And as we know only too well, when it comes to avoiding mistakes and bad decisions, voice is mission-critical (Edmondson).

A conceptual model

1. Inside the organization

In a simplified mathematical model, we can, analogous to the Gino-Coefficient, work with a range of ‘0’ for no efficacy and ‘1’ for maximum efficacy. The model serves, for now, only for the sake of concept, not to be misunderstood as an empirical description.

These variables describe effects within an organisation:

D (for ‘Design’) = Our SLD effectiveness (0-1) This coefficient describes the effectiveness of our learning design for social impact (SI), which is the variable that is central to our business model.

P = Personal growth and gain (0-1) describes the personal growth of individuals (e.g., by their learning experiences in certain roles within the team’s dynamic) and their satisfaction with the participation in a project. Usually, reflected final team assessments at the end of a project are a suitable measurement point.

T = Team efficacy (0-1) describes the efficiency and performance of a team by internal and external assessments.

O = Organisational outcomes (0-1), as mentioned in (a), (b) and (c) describe the factual results and the outcomes of organisational value creation.

I = Internal impact = ((P + T + O) / 3) ^ (1/2) This impact describes the combined effect of all three levels within an organisation. Please note that this is a theoretical construct that needs to be supported by appropriate empirical measures for the context in situ. The point is that the effectiveness of workshops and other L&D events is never arbitrary, since social impact is an aggregate of delicate social value creation chains. Much of it is based on the ability to reflect and on empathic understanding.

Below: The value-creation across social spheres (Bronfenbrenner) depends on their integration level.

2. Outside the organization

The following variables describe effects outside the organisation on third parties:

R = Reach (0-1) denotes reach and refers quantitatively to the number of all people and the environment that can be attributed to organisational decisions (O).

De = Depth (0-1) denotes depth and refers to the qualitative dimensions of SI

S = Sustainability (0-1) denotes the sustainability of SI interventions in the time dimension.

S = Scale = (R * De * S) ^ (1/3) is the aggregation of the external group

There is nothing surprising about it since we simply measure qualitative and quantitative effects over time.

An additional factor on internal factors: a unique coefficient to SLD is Effectiveness.

E = Effectiveness = (D * A) ^ (1/2). Effectiveness combines the design quality with an alignment of personal, team-based and organisational levels as described in the introduction.

The alignment coefficient ‘A’ (0-1) moderates coherent versus incoherent learning process levels: Consistent alignment is rewarded, inconsistent alignment is downgraded. For example: What good are great teams if they have little impact on the organisation? What is the point of team success if individual team members remain personally discouraged? Learning, open organisations therefore achieve a higher SI-index than organisations in which barriers exist between employees, teams and the organisation.

This differentiated representation of SI enables all variables to be summarised in the formula

SI = (E * I * S) ^ (1/3) or SI = ∛ (E * I * S)

The basis of the concept is the fundamental empirical measurability of all variables, for example through observable changes in behaviour, surveys, interviews or organisational decisions or documented, verifiable systemic changes. We have thus described the framework for the basic determination of an SI index for SLD.

Picture below: We are hypersocial beings who need each other to evoke systemic change.

Outside-In, Inside-Out: DIY

There are workshops and there are workshops. In our experience, one-off workshops are relatively ineffective because organisational learning processes typically involve multiple stakeholders, such as management and employees, who embark on longer-term transformational journeys.

We have found that dedicated workshop sets, supported by additional agile coaching programmes, are the most effective intervention format. Ideally, L&D departments learn how to design workshops themselves, at least in part, without the need to bring in external workshop experts.

Experts, like facilitators, should help and support self-organisation. They can offer methodological advice, but should not impose their pet workshop ideas onto teams. At least now, we can calculate why.

In closing

In order to effectively navigate the complexities of twin transformation, businesses and organisations are advised to establish dedicated innovation spaces, ideally within their L&D departments. This suggests that transformative methods need to be formalised as a shared language so that they can be incorporated into the organisational repertoire for managing change.

What is new in SLD compared to traditional learning theories is that we understand organisational learning across social value chains. For the individual/team interface, inclusion safety and learner safety are vital. For the team/organisation interface, contributor safety and innovation safety are critical.

We argue that processes should be owned by those who execute them, and that the ownership of methods should reside with stakeholders. People, processes and places belong together as we see the boundaries between learning and working disappear. By considering the entire social value creation chain, we argue that stakeholders can contribute to the development of more meaningful and sustainable workshops and methods with SLD.

Social Learning Design is developed by

Postscript:

Worked examples for effectiveness:

1. Low social impact

D = 0.6 (Design effectiveness)

P = 0.8 (High personal gain)

T = 0.3 (Low team efficacy)

O = 0.4 (Low organisational results)

A = 0.3 (Low alignment due to discrepancies)

SI = [0.6 * (0.8 + 0.3 + 0.4) / 3 * 0.3] ^ (1/3)

SI = [0.6 * 0.5 * 0.3] ^ (1/3)

SI ≈ 0.3684

In this scenario, there is a significant discrepancy between high personal gain and low team efficiency and organisational results. This leads to a low alignment coefficient and consequently a low social impact.

2. Medium social impact

D = 0.7 (Medium-high design effectiveness)

P = 0.6 (Medium personal gain)

T = 0.7 (Medium-high team efficacy)

O = 0.5 (Medium organisational results)

A = 0.6 (Medium alignment due to more balanced factors)

SI = [0.7 * (0.6 + 0.7 + 0.5) / 3 * 0.6] ^ (1/3)

SI = [0.7 * 0.6 * 0.6] ^ (1/3)

SI ≈ 0.5646

This example shows a better alignment between personal, team and organisational outcomes, resulting in a medium alignment coefficient and a medium social impact.

3. Design effectiveness

Last, but not least, the design effectiveness as an unknown variable
Our formula can be solved for D as follows if D is the unknown variable:
SI = [D * (P + T + O) / 3 * A] ^ (1/3)
We can isolate D
SI ^ 3 = D * (P + T + O) / 3 * A
Multiply both sides by 3:
3 * SI ^ 3 = D * (P + T + O) * A
Divide both sides by [(P + T + O) * A]:
D = [3 * SI ^ 3] / [(P + T + O) * A]

Where:
D = Design Effectiveness (0-1), SI = Social Impact (0-1), P = Personal Gain (0-1), T = Team Efficacy (0-1)
O = Organisational results (0-1), A = Alignment coefficient (0-1) Using this formula, we can calculate the design effectiveness (D) if we know the social impact (SI) and the other variables (P, T, O and A).

This significantly raises the bar for workshop quality, as we want to know about the expected social impact, as well as the alignment and integration of individual-, team- and organisational perspectives.