Designing for Depth: Insights from Four Approaches to Professional Development
Leadership Coaching & Development Series #2
Recent advancements in cognitive science have revolutionized our understanding of how we think and learn. This field reveals that cognition is not just a mental process confined to our heads but is embodied, embedded, extended, and enacted. In other words, our thinking is deeply connected to our physical experiences, the external world, interactions with others, and active engagement with our environment.
Building on this foundation, my friend and mentor Geoff Marlow added more layers of meaning to the concept of mindset. An individual’s mindset represents the cognitive stance they adopt in different contexts and encompasses more than just explicit thinking. It involves three progressively more tacit layers: doing, seeing, and being. These layers together shape how we process information and respond to various situations.
Understanding the deeper layers of cognition and mindsets — doing, seeing, and being — can greatly influence how we design and hold space for professional development. By incorporating the embodied, interactive, and enacted dimensions of learning, we can craft development experiences that go beyond mere theoretical knowledge. This approach emphasizes real-world application, authentic interaction, and active engagement, making the learning process more impactful and transformative.
In the paragraphs that follow, I will share insights from four professional development courses I recently attended. These examples illustrate different focuses and approaches aligned with Geoff’s “modes of knowing” table above. The purpose is not to determine which is superior, but to highlight the importance of aligning the design of professional development spaces with their intended focus. Each story offers valuable lessons on how to create environments that truly foster growth and learning.
Thinking and Beliefs
I joined the eight-session course Working in Complexity Inside & Out with high expectations of gaining field tested practices for navigating complexity, which is both my field of study and practice. I have long admired Chris Corrigan’s commitment to participatory work in complex environments and was drawn to the course’s aim to “increase your resourcefulness to support your work with humans in complex environments.”
However, the course did not entirely meet my expectations. It was heavily content-focused, with long presentations, leaving little room for Q&A, practice or contextual application. Many participants, lacking familiarity with complexity science, found the dense conceptual content overwhelming, often expressing sentiments like, “My head is hurting.” I found myself recommending the Santa Fe Institute’s MOOC platform, Complexity Explorer, to several participants who found the content overwhelming, in order to supplement their conceptual knowledge of complexity. Without a basic understanding of the evolutionary trajectory of this body of knowledge, jumping straight into applications in social systems can be mind-bending.
While the tools presented were valuable, the limited opportunity to engage with them in our own contexts was a significant drawback. Several times after the course, I found myself thinking about the tools taught and wishing there had been more class time dedicated to practicing them, building greater competency for independent application. What resonated with me most was a fellow participant’s comment expressing a desire for more practical application tailored to individual contexts. Instead of serving as a “translator” of concepts into practice, the course’s focus on theory overshadowed the opportunity for personal relevance and application. The emphasis on introducing more tools, rather than making them accessible to participants’ individual contexts, made the tools feel like nice collections on the wall rather than useful items on our tool bench.
If the instructors had focused more on their practical work in “complex situations to support leadership, nudge cultures towards more life-giving contexts, and strengthen people and communities to live with and thrive in uncertainty”, as stated in their course announcement, the impact would have been much stronger. Sharing stories of how the concepts have shifted their perspectives and experiences of how the tools have enabled them to create different experiences for their clients would have been both helpful and welcome.
In summary, most workshop participants likely experienced a shift in their thinking and beliefs about how complexity departs from business-as-usual approaches. However, I’m uncertain how effectively they will be able to apply the concepts and tools in their contexts. This raises the question of whether the experience justified the cost compared to self-study through books.
A simple question to consider is, “How much of the workshop time will be dedicated to presentations?” In the three examples that follow, very little time was spent on presenting from prepared slides. Instead, the content was neatly packed into handouts for participants to refer to at their convenience. Over-reliance on presentations often indicates a focus on conveying concepts and beliefs rather than developing skills or creating experiences. This is an important point to keep in mind as I explore future professional development opportunities.
Doing and Skills
I stumbled upon the Co-Active Fundamentals of Coaching course by chance, yet it turned out to be exactly what I needed at that moment. I first heard the term “co-active coaching” from a Chinese colleague I met in Germany while attending a summer school organized by the Presencing Institute. This casual conversation planted a seed that sprouted when I won a scholarship from my employer, Colorado State University, to attend the training. I enjoyed the training so much that I returned as an assistant within a month of completing the course to experience it again.
The entire course was designed around building skills. It was so effective that it inspired me to start my coaching practice immediately after the fundamental training, even though there are still four more intermediary courses and a six-month certification process to complete.
A few features of the course are worth highlighting:
- Center on Practice: During the 2.5-day training, we began practicing skills by the end of the first half-day. Practices varied from small breakout rooms with pairs, plenary sessions doing “group coaching,” to practice coaching with a partner not in the class. Some practices focused on creating the best experiences for the coachee, while others provided learning opportunities for the coach to stretch beyond their comfort zone. Each practice session was preceded by light explanations of concepts, followed by demonstrations from the workshop leaders, and concluded with long periods of reflection and Q&A. The workshop leaders were not full time teachers; they all had active coaching practices, modeling learning by doing.
- Contain the Rational Mind: One of my most respected mentors taught me that “understanding can get in the way of knowing.” Understanding is primarily the function of the rational mind, yet knowing involves the whole being. A NASA scientist once demonstrated this concept by throwing a beach ball and asking the audience member who caught it if they had perfectly understood aerodynamics and calculated the speed precisely to catch it. The confused audience member would typically reply that they simply caught the ball. This illustrates that we have more embodied knowing than the rational mind comprehends. During the co-active course, questions not immediately relevant to the practice were captured in a “parking lot” and addressed together before the lunch break on the last day. This allowed participants to shift back into practice mode after lunch and realize that many questions had been answered through their experiences. The workshop leaders explained: You are closer to the answer than you know, and your practice will bring you even closer. Yes, when you lean into the wisdom of embodied knowing, understanding will take care of itself.
- Real Play, Not Role Play: This foundational approach supports the first two points. All practice cases were real, with coaches bringing their authentic selves to respond to the real challenges presented by the coachees. I saw tears from workshop leaders after their coaching sessions, sighs of relief from my practice partner, and significant shifts in the issues I brought as cases to be coached. Through “real play,” the course created a safe and courageous space for change, enabling participants to access their “knowing” beyond their rational brain.
However, I did feel a yearning to understand the theories, principles, and mechanisms behind the co-active model beyond what was taught in the course. The experience was so powerful that I was motivated to read and discover more, and the subsequent assisting experience helped me connect many dots as well.
“If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.”
-Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Overall, I found the co-active learning experience far more powerful than the complexity experience mentioned earlier. Perhaps the quote by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, the author of “The Little Prince,” captures this difference well: “If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.” The greatest impact of the co-active learning was inspiring in me a deep longing for creating safe and courageous spaces for change and learning, motivating me to take on the necessary work to make that happen. The same principle applies to the next two experiences I will briefly touch upon.
Seeing and Experience
I came to know Joan Lurie through the DD community and really admired her work. When she first offered the Orgonomics Foundations course last June, I seized the opportunity without hesitation. It was a treat. In the first session, Joan introduced Orgonomics as “a new pair of glasses,” a fitting analogy for the fresh perspectives I gained from the course.
We had a beautifully designed handout for each of the four sessions, but we didn’t spend more than half an hour reviewing the materials. Most of the time was spent “chatting”: long check-ins at the beginning of each session where participants shared their observations with these new “glasses,” and Joan responded with both understanding and compassion; storytelling from Joan about how the principles in the handout played out in her consulting practice and personal life, and more importantly, how things went wrong when those principles were violated; and breakout pairs to further explore these concepts and principles.
One magical aspect of the course was that every interaction with Joan invited more interactions, perhaps due to the power of her presence. I could almost see the dance of ideas as time flew by, with everyone marveling at the new sights through their new “glasses.” Time indeed flew by, with everyone deeply engaged. The experience felt immersive, like being in a lubricant liquid, rather than being force-fed dry materials.
The course left a deep impression on me. The concept that leadership involves designing role relations systemically, beyond individual competency and smooth interpersonal interactions, is foundational to my understanding of leadership. It has been very effective in helping me diagnose the leadership challenges I encounter. Every time I ask my clients, “You may know how your role works, but do you know how your role stands in relationship to others on this project?” I think of Joan and the course. This course truly enabled me to see leadership through a new pair of glasses, thanks to the deep learning experiences it created.
Being and Identity
Jim Dethmer’s course, Transforming Teams, came to me through a Coaches Rising newsletter that a friend forwarded. I found myself with time to attend the free master class, a marketing strategy designed to attract participants, and I was immediately captivated by Jim’s presence and the relevance of the content to my work. With nearly 400 participants, it was the largest course I’ve ever been part of, and I cherished every minute, often revisiting the recordings. I told friends, “I hung on to every word Jim said.”
The course offered practical frameworks and tools such as the 15 Commitments, the Drama Triangle, and Clearing Conversations. It included all the successful elements of an online course: an attentive host managing logistics and moderating conversations, well-designed handouts, and thoughtfully planned sessions that balanced plenary discussions with breakout groups. Yet, what stood out most was Jim’s quality of being.
At the core of conscious leadership are four states of consciousness:
- To Me (Victim Consciousness): Individuals perceive life as happening to them and see themselves as victims of external circumstances. They often blame others and fail to take personal responsibility.
- By Me (Creator Consciousness): Individuals take responsibility for their lives and view themselves as creators of their own experiences. They adopt a proactive approach to problem-solving and goal achievement, marked by ownership and empowerment.
- Through Me (Channel Consciousness): Individuals see themselves as instruments through which life flows, aligning with a greater purpose. Their actions are guided by intuition and inspiration, characterized by trust and flow.
- As Me (Unity Consciousness): Individuals experience oneness with all life, feeling no separation between self, others, or the universe. This state is defined by profound peace, compassion, and operating from unconditional love and interconnectedness.
While the 15 Commitments focus on shifting from “To Me” to “By Me” consciousness, Jim embodied “Through Me” and “As Me” consciousness so profoundly that it felt as if I was enveloped in his presence. The most magical moments occurred when he would “throw you into the deep end,” addressing questions from a “To Me” perspective with insights from “By Me,” “Through Me,” and even “As Me” consciousness. This elevated the entire audience’s consciousness, creating a unified, resonant energy.
This course was transformative because Jim taught from the depth of his being. It significantly helped me develop fluency in shifting from a victim to a creator consciousness and provided powerful insights to further explore “Through Me” and “As Me” consciousness, which has long been my pursuit. I also found great success applying tools like the Drama Triangle, Emotional Intelligence in various settings. The course demonstrated that doing and being are mutually reinforcing, and Jim’s presence enhanced both my learning and that of the other participants.
Key Takeaways
With renewed enthusiasm for workshop-based leadership development, as highlighted in my previous post, Coming Full Circle, I now deeply appreciate the insights I’ve gained about holding effective professional development spaces from recent courses I’ve taken.
A key takeaway for me is the importance of anchoring in real practice and prioritizing the development of new skills, creation of new experiences, and expansion of identities over mere conceptual understanding. This means minimizing the use of slides and focusing instead on interactive, real-life scenarios. Courses like Co-Active Coaching, Transforming Teams, and Orgonomics Foundations excelled in this by engaging participants in authentic experiences and real-world challenges, fostering deeper learning and confidence. Embracing “real play” rather than theoretical exercises ensures that learning is rooted in practical application and meaningful experience. This approach challenges instructors to step out of their comfort zones of theoretical teaching, which is common in formal education, and dive into the messiness of real-world practices.
Another critical insight is the impact of the instructor’s emotional tone. A dynamic and engaging delivery enhances participation and retention, while a flat or dull tone can hinder engagement and patience. Striking the right balance between maintaining energy and enthusiasm without overwhelming participants is essential for an effective learning environment.
What are your key takeaways?
