User:Srh2023/sandbox

The book How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work (2001), co-authored by Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey, jettisons the theoretical framework of Kegan's earlier books The Evolving Self and In Over Our Heads and instead presents a practical method, called the immunity map, intended to help readers overcome an immunity to change. An immunity to change is the "processes of dynamic equilibrium, which, like an immune system, powerfully and mysteriously tend to keep things pretty much as they are" in people's mindsets and behavior.

The immunity map continues the general dialectical pattern of Kegan's earlier thinking but without any explicit use of the concept of "evolutionary truces" or "orders of consciousness". The immunity map primarily consists of a four-column worksheet that is gradually filled in by individuals or groups of people during a structured process of self-reflective inquiry. This involves asking questions such as: What are the changes that we think we need to make? What are we doing or not doing to prevent ourselves (immunize ourselves) from making those changes? What anxieties and big assumptions does our doing or not doing imply? How can we test those big assumptions so as to disturb our immunity to change and make possible new learning and change?

Kegan and Lahey progressively introduce each of the four columns of the immunity map in four chapters that show how to transform people's way of talking to themselves and others. In each case, the transformation in people's way of talking is a shift from a habitual and unreflective pattern to a more deliberate and self-reflective pattern. The four transformations, each of which corresponds to a column of the immunity map, are:


 * "From the language of complaint to the language of commitment"
 * "From the language of blame to the language of personal responsibility"
 * "From the language of New Year's resolutions to the language of competing commitments"
 * "From the language of big assumptions that hold us to the language of assumptions we hold"

In three subsequent chapters, Kegan and Lahey present three transformations that groups of people can make in their social behavior, again from a lesser to greater self-reflective pattern:


 * "From the language of prizes and praising to the language of ongoing regard"
 * "From the language of rules and policies to the language of public agreement"
 * "From the language of constructive criticism to the language of deconstructive criticism"

Immunity to Change (2009), the next book by Kegan and Lahey, revisits the immunity map of their previous book. The authors describe three dimensions of immunity to change: the change-preventing system (thwarting challenging aspirations), the feeling system (managing anxiety), and the knowing system (organizing reality). They further illustrate their method with a number of actual case studies from their experiences as consultants, and they connect the method to a dialectic of three mindsets, called socialized mind, self-authoring mind, and self-transforming mind. (These correspond to three of the "evolutionary truces" or "orders of consciousness" in Kegan's earlier books.) Kegan and Lahey also borrow and incorporate some frameworks and methods from other thinkers, including Ronald A. Heifetz's distinction between technical and adaptive learning, Chris Argyris's ladder of inference, and a reworded version of the four stages of competence. They also provide more detailed guidance on how to test big assumptions.

The revised immunity map worksheet in Immunity to Change has the following structure,


 * 1) Commitment (improvement) goals: The generation of ideas for a commitment goal are centered around areas of development, such as collaborating skills for the workforce or nurturing traits for homelife. Improvement goals . The focal point is outside of what needs to cease but what can be gained.
 * 2) Doing / not doing.
 * 3) Hidden competing commitment (and worry box).
 * 4) Big assumption.
 * 5) First S-M-A-R-T test: Safe, Modest, Actionable, Research stance (not a self-improvement stance), Testable.

The immunity to change framework has been cited favorably by Chris Argyris, Kenneth J. Gergen, Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries, and Tony Schwartz.

The revised immunity map worksheet in Immunity to Change has the following structure: (0) Generating ideas. (1) Commitment (improvement) goals, (2) Doing / not doing, (3) Hidden competing commitment (and worry box), (4) Big assumptions, (5) First S-M-A-R-T test: Safe, Modest, Actionable, Research stance (not a self-improvement stance), Testable


 * 1) Commitment (improvement) goals: This goal needs to focus on areas of develop, such as skills to be a more effective and efficient boss, co-worker, parent, spouse, etc. It should be focused outside of what the desired results is, but rather what skill or characteristic is needed to become better or more proficient in. Goals should focus on what needs to be gained rather than what needs to be stopped, reframe goals to ensure that they centered around action.
 * 2) Doing / not doing: This section focuses on behaviors that an individual is making or not making that hinders their ability to achieve their commitment goal. Emotions or state of being should be avoided; although, it can be behaviors that stem from emotions or state of being.
 * 3) Hidden competing commitment (and worry box):The worry box should be completed by being aware of what emotions and fears arise when thinking of doing the opposite of section 2, the doing and not doing. It should be more than surface level worries, such as not being loved, successful, valued, etc. The hidden competing commitment is the beliefs and reason why an individual is immune to change through their doing and not doing behaviors. These commitments keep an individual from experiencing what is in their worry box. The wording should focus on the commitment, even if it is presented as a double-negative.
 * 4) Big assumption: This section focuses on the big assumptions an individual has about the world or themselves, even if it is misconstrued. They are guidelines for how an individual must conduct their life and why they have the hidden competing commitments they have.
 * 5) First S-M-A-R-T test: Safe, Modest, Actionable, Research stance (not a self-improvement stance), Testable.

Templates can be found at https://extension.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2021/03/ext_immunity_map_0.pdf