In this article, I am going to introduce the concept of double-loop learning, which I was taught by Damian Hughes during the Barefoot Coaching course. I hope to be able to bring it to life using a couple of examples – one in a personal and one in an organisational context.
Why do you need to know this?
Because if you want to understand how to deliver sustainable change – you need to understand double-loop learning.
Single and Double-Loop Learning
We all have a ‘model’ for how we view the world. This ‘model’ is typically the result of our experience, which creates certain rules for how we view the world.
Let me explain with an example.
When I was at school, I was told by my parents to ‘work hard’. This was seen as a value and a behaviour to be rewarded because if I worked hard, success would eventually come. I suspect that this is largely because they worked hard and it led them to be successful. It informed the way in which they view the world and because one thing leads to the other – becomes a rule for how to behave. This is an example of single-loop learning.
Put simply – If I work hard, I will be successful.
But what do you do if you do work hard and are not successful? Do you work harder? Perhaps. But can you guarantee that the outcome will be different – probably not – not if you have worked hard in the first place.
There are some problems or challenges that cannot be overcome simply by working harder. Working hard only delivers success if you work on the right things.
Sounds simple but it really isn’t.
I am working hard to build my own business. I could spend 20hrs a day working on it – building better connections, improving my website, spending more time networking. If I believe the rule that working hard leads to success – all I have to do is work hard.
But working hard isn’t enough. Being efficient isn’t enough.
I have to be effective and that requires me to work hard on the right things in the right order.
Another example.
Many people struggle with weight loss, they find it difficult to lose weight and keep it off. There are a number of reasons for this but one of them is connected to the fact that we don’t really understand how our bodies work.
When people want to lose weight, typically, they will try and eat less and exercise more in a bid to create a calorie deficit.
We’re told a person should eat 2,500 calories per day but there is no real science behind this assumption. People are different – larger people will burn more calories simply by having more muscle mass. What you eat is more important than how many calories you take on board. A chicken breast and a chocolate bar may have the same number of calories but the effects that they have on the body are completely different.
Double-loop learning is when you ‘challenge the underlying assumptions’ – you ask yourself whether calories are the right thing to be measuring? Is ‘everything in moderation’ really a good rule to live by?
The result dictates whether or not you need to consider double-loop learning.
Are you getting the outcome that you want?
If not, then perhaps you might want to consider the underlying assumptions on which you’re basing your behaviour.
Individuals tend to be better at this than organisations.
As individuals we don’t have to deal with ‘group-think’. If we understand this concept and are willing to experiment, we can do something different and try for a different outcome. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again – but that is how a lot of people live their lives. Look at anyone that is struggling to change and you will find examples of single-loop learning.
The reason for this is that double-loop learning requires you to unlearn things. It requires you to challenge your view of how the world works – and this takes five times more energy than single-loop learning.
I can think of one example where an organisation has successfully demonstrated double-loop learning.
When I joined the Royal Marines in 2005, we were taught to shoot out to a distance of 300m. This is the effective range of the SA-80 Assault Rifle. It was designed following second World War and was based on the average range that allied soldiers were engaging the enemy. We were tested annually at ranges from 100-600m.
As I was going through training, the Iraq insurgency was in full swing. British and American troops were being ambushed and attacked in close-quarter urban environments. The enemy didn’t want to fight us in the open where we could use our cold war weapon systems – they wanted to fight in the towns and cities where we couldn’t use them.
A tank can’t really be used in a city because it can’t easily manoeuvre its weapon systems. If it fires its main gun, it might destroy half a building causing many civilian casualties – often leading to a win for the enemy. It is also extremely vulnerable to an insurgent with an RPG – and the urban environment gives them plenty of places to hide.
In the urban war, our troops were not being engaged at distances of up to 300m – we were being engaged at distances of 10-30m, sometimes even closer.
The environment had changed and we had to learn how to engage an enemy at close range rather than at distance.
It became necessary for us to double-loop learn.
We started to get taught how to clear rooms properly. Principles for fighting in the urban environment that had traditionally been reserved for Special Forces started to filter down to infantry units.
Speed became more important than accuracy.
The first round counts.
We started to learn how to use secondary weapons – finding out that the Browning Hi-Power that we’d used since the war was actually pretty inferior to the Sig Sauer and Glocks that other nations were using. It became necessary for us to buy new pistols.
Double-loop learning is difficult because you have to accept that your underlying assumptions – your model for how you view the world is no longer relevant.
This means that you have to cast away what you believed to be important and adopt new practices and techniques.
During my seven year career in the Corps, I saw how we evolved from engaging an enemy that was 300m away to engaging one in the room. I went from having a vague idea of how to clear a room – to being able to do it as professionally as my Marines… well, I like to think so!
My drills with weapon became faster as I started to sacrifice accuracy for speed.
I’m not quite ‘Instructor Zero’ but we used him as an example of ‘what is possible’ and ‘what good looks like’.
War is the ultimate form of competition – it makes it absolutely necessary to improve performance.
When sportsmen lose – they go home disappointed.
When Soldiers and Marines lose – they don’t go home.
The key message that I want to relay is that if you are not having the desired effect you want to have – challenge the underlying assumptions that you are making.
Are you single-loop learning – do you need to double loop?
Don’t just work harder – you’re probably doing that already.
How can you work smarter?
How can you improve the outcome by challenging the underlying assumptions on which you base your behaviour?
I hope that you found this thought-provoking and challenging. I write because I want to challenge the way people think and relay valuable concepts that I have been taught. My business is dependent upon the value that I can offer so I constantly looking for new concepts to learn. If you’ve found this useful – please feel free to share it with your network using the buttons below – I will be very grateful!
Also – click the following links for more information on Damian Hughes or Barefoot Coaching