When I hear that a few people within Leverage ended up with serious negative consequences because of charting, it’s unclear for me from the outside what that means.
It’s my understanding that Leverage did a lot of experiments. It could be that some experiments ended messing up some of the participants. It could also be that “normal charting” without doing any experiments messed the people up.
I would offer that “normal charting” as offered to external clients was being done in a different incentive landscape than “normal charting” as conducted on trainees within the organization. I mean both incentives on the trainer, and incentives on the trainee.
Concretely, incentives-wise:
The organization has an interest in ensuring that the trainee updates their mind and beliefs to accord with what the organization thinks is right/good/true, what the organization thinks makes a person “effective”, and what the organization needs from the member.
The trainee may reasonably believe they could be de-funded, or at least reduced in status/power in the org, if they do not go along.
When I hear that a few people within Leverage ended up with serious negative consequences because of charting, it’s unclear for me from the outside what that means.
It’s my understanding that Leverage did a lot of experiments. It could be that some experiments ended messing up some of the participants. It could also be that “normal charting” without doing any experiments messed the people up.
I would offer that “normal charting” as offered to external clients was being done in a different incentive landscape than “normal charting” as conducted on trainees within the organization. I mean both incentives on the trainer, and incentives on the trainee.
Concretely, incentives-wise:
The organization has an interest in ensuring that the trainee updates their mind and beliefs to accord with what the organization thinks is right/good/true, what the organization thinks makes a person “effective”, and what the organization needs from the member.
The trainee may reasonably believe they could be de-funded, or at least reduced in status/power in the org, if they do not go along.