Let's look at the difference between should versus could,
and their impact on learning by lifting the hood
on single and double loop learning theory,
and how each of its focus affects our query
Single loop learning comes from aim for perfection,
with a focus on rules, with no room for flection.
Learning focuses on fixing errors and gaps,
through processes, checklists, and scripts perhaps.
From this, mistakes, we learn to avoid,
the mentality of should is mostly employed.
Our thinking closes down, we do not take risks,
collaboration with others, barely exists.
No thinking is new, no ideas flow.
Change is hard and it's slow to break status quo.
Quite converse to this is double loop learning,
with work designed to get those cogs turning.
Learning comes from greater discernment,
of systemic causes of which we're observant.
From this, mistakes are a valuable asset,
to opportune change we have not seen yet.
The question of could is front of mind,
knowing a solution is what we'll always find.
We take risks, experiment, easily adapt.
Change is quick, so to find, opportunities untapped.
So the lesson here is there's two ways to learn.
One holds you back, while the other will return,
motivation for all and discretionary deeds,
to progress the biz forward at a great speed.
For this to occur, don't command and control,
rather, consider other
ways you can achieve your goal.
Comments