Image by Paola Galimberti via Unsplash
I have a confession.
I was a stellar student. On paper.
Image courtesy of Paramount Pictures. Election, 1999.
I excelled at some subjects. They excited me. They energized me. They drew me in to understand more.
But there were other subjects I just... couldn't... grasp. So I developed a work-around. When I didn't understand the subject matter—I just memorized the details needed to pass the test. (Sound familiar?)
Of course, this meant I quickly forgot what I "learned" as soon as we moved to the next chapter. In this way, I pulled As and Bs without true comprehension. The end result was harmonious. I was happy, my teachers were happy, but… was that enough to replace the lost learning? What keeps us from raising our hands when we don’t understand something? What makes simple memorization easier than actual synthesis and creative thought?
We can understand this by examining the process of learning, growing, and eventually... disrupting far beyond our school years.
Bloom's Taxonomy describes the different levels of learning and comprehension. (Niall McNulty wrote an excellent explanation of this topic in late 2019.) Although the definitions have evolved since its original development in 1956—the concept of breaking the learning process into six different levels remains the same.
Image courtesy of Niall McNulty.
As I was reading about this framework, something sparked in me.
There are certain aspects of our jobs where we operate in the inner circles.
We memorize, report, classify, operate, schedule, and solve. These actions are executional in nature and their repetition allows us to become more efficient and precise each time. This can become very comfortable because we know exactly what to expect and how to execute. Often, we can do our jobs while never leaving these inner circles.
But certain aspects ask us to push outside those inner circles of learning—and outside our comfort zone.
In fact, it can get pretty uncomfortable when you can't predict how much time or effort something will take. You don't know the operating procedure and because you're creating something new, you literally make it up as you go. Despite this difficulty, this is how the work evolves.
Now consider those you work with. Can you think of someone who is always trying to buck the established process? To disrupt what's expected to invent something new? Maybe that's you? Regardless of who it is, it can be very frustrating for some. Change and newness are uncomfortable—and that causes friction.
For some people, it doesn't matter. Tension doesn't bother them. For myself, a lifelong empath with a drive to build team harmony, this disruption is very uncomfortable. While I clearly see the opportunities that exist in the outer circles of creation and analysis, they have too often been side-lined because of the frustrations it caused.
I wasn't comfortable disrupting the standard operating procedure.
After learning about Bloom's Taxonomy though, it hit me. I have to be okay with pissing off the inner circles. I have to be okay being the only one in the room pushing us out of what's comfortable. If we don't evolve, we won't survive. The frustration my team may feel is temporary and surface level. Anyone would get grumbly about getting off the well-worn track because it takes more effort to off-road.
Process and efficiency are good. In fact, I might love them too much sometimes. But understanding more about how people learn and why new thinking is uncomfortable helped me understand where the friction is coming from and that it's only temporary.