Changing a Procedural Operation to an Expository Operation
As I have already noted, we tend to go through life operating primarily through our procedural system. In a highly complex world, it is fully adaptive to assume that our habitual behavior is appropriate. Daniel Kahneman (2011) describes this as a proclivity to engage in fast thinking. We hold a set of procedural rules (heuristics) that guide most of our behaviors. However, these procedural rules aren’t always effective. They can lead us in the wrong direction. Fortunately, there often are signals indicating that we are veering off course. Micro-coaching can be engaged to help our clients acknowledge these signals and determine what to do in response to the signals. As Kahneman recommends, we must slow down our thinking. We must shift from our procedural operations to an expository mode of thinking.
A clear example of this shift from procedural to expository is to be found in the role played by Speed Limit signs—especially those that are blinking. We are often “unaware” of our speed when engaging our procedural brain. The speed limit sign promotes a shift on our part to an expository readjustment in the control of our speed. When we are made aware of the speed limit, then we shift from procedural/habitual behavior to expository/conscious behavior. We are aware of our speed and adjust our driving behavior. Awareness leads to adaptation. We reduce pressure on the accelerator, look more often at our speedometer, and “pay more attention” to our driving. It is interesting to note that many cars now being manufactured actually capture an image of the Speed Limit sign and display it on the dashboard. All of this is on behalf of the shift from procedural to expository operations.
What about procedural behavior we engage when “driving” the operations of an organization that we lead, or attempting to navigate the route taken by our children? Are there signs and signals in these domains of our life that encourage (even force) us to pay attention, reexamine our assumptions about “correct” behavior, and perhaps change our behavior? Micro-coaching can be of value in this regard. As micro-coaches, we can help our clients either acknowledge “speed limit signs” that are already available or build these signs if they are unavailable. We can also encourage our clients to review what they might do if the sign says they are going too fast or too slow, are going in the wrong direction, or have never actually left home.
I find that the reflective practices, portrayed by Chris Argyris and Don Schön many years ago (Argyris and Schön, 1974), are particularly valuable in moving from a habitual/procedural approach based on espoused theory to a critical/expository approach based on surfacing theory-in-use. Their left and right column exercise proves to be an excellent micro-coaching tool. I also find that Daniel Kahneman’s (2011) description of specific heuristics to be of great value in surfacing the habitual/procedural processes that are most likely to lead to erroneous assessment of and predictions regarding the problems being faced during a coaching session. Finally, I find that the distinction drawn between Noise and Bias by Kahneman and two of his colleagues (Kahneman, Sibony and Sunstein, 2021) to be a source of micro-coaching insight regarding the potential errors to be found in group problem-solving, with Noise resulting from diffuse viewpoints regarding the problem, and Bias resulting from a unified, but incorrect, viewpoint.
Changing A Random Event into an Expository Source for Reflection
When engaged in procedural operations, we often “take the world for granted.” We discover a change in the environment where we are operating and simply adjust to the change. Not much thought (expository system) is given to this change. At some level, we simply accept the world we face as a given. We might even consider our current condition to be God-given or produced by other external forces over which we have little control. Such a perspective often leads us to believe that nothing is really random and that we must simply accept what appears before us.
The noted psychologist and psychotherapist, Carl Jung, suggested later in his life that this is an accurate assessment of the world in which we operate. It is not just a matter of us being tired and unwilling to fight back, nor is it a matter of believing in some all-controlling deity. In fact, nothing might be random. As Jung (1931) proposed, everything might be connected. Jung’s highly controversial perspective is called Synchronicity. While one does not have to believe in this non-randomness, this assumption can be valuable in engaging a micro-coaching strategy associated with fortunate telling and other “non-scientific” interventions.
Download Article
