“at eye level”. Sometimes at public presentations of the company policy and success, he would “"forget” to mention the hierarchical assignment of responsibilities, so that to the outside, people increasingly got the impression that actually Eberhard was the company chief. Even internally, i.e. towards other employees, he demanded more and more a kind of vassal loyalty to his crusades, which found expression among others in the fact that he deliberately ignored management directives and agreed on other arrangements with project partners, financiers, he gave unauthorized press statements, etc. and thus repeatedly duped his superiors. Initially, these superiors attempted to clarify the resulting irritations repeatedly by means of dialog – driven by the desire to wisely continue using Eberhard systemically for the growth of the company, but this effort ultimately only led to a progression of his unauthorized acts.
In the end, the responsible supervisors put a stop to it by transferring Eberhard to an area of responsibility where he had to carry out routine tasks according to clear guidelines. This “demotion” sparked a great sense of injustice in Eberhard. “After all, I have done for this company ...” was a standard clause in his conversations with others. Even phrases like “Why are they doing this to me?” came out over and over again. However, these questions also opened doors to an accompanying self-reflection on the issues deeply-rooted in his personality that were feeding his concerns. During a coaching process, these sentences were used to resuscitate biographical memories. The question “When did you use this sentence for the first time in your life?” played an eye-opening role. In this way, his attention was drawn away from the annoying events in the here and now and focused on a transformative learning process. It was actually all about the question “How long have you been like this?” a question, whose meaning and justification Eberhard vehemently resisted initially. His pronouncements, opinions, and statements were trapped in their own certainty, whereby it was clearly evident that this certainty mattered for his emotional state, which was decisive for him in organizing his area of responsibility the way he deemed it bearable. Only very gradually did we succeed in initiating a transformative learning process, during which Eberhard gradually became aware of his preferential manner of seeing himself-in-the-world versus feeling the actual world. In the process, he developed an alternative view of the situation and was able to recognize what feelings he was accustomed to having in such circumstances.
This example shows that transformative learning is second-order learning. As such, its “subject matter” is the internal side of acquisition and it designs the learning process to a greater extent on the structure or the requirements of some external object. By giving the learner the opportunity to reflexively recognize his or her routine manner of dealing with the “real world”, they lose their “so-and-not-otherwise” certainty. Perception and recognition become tangible in the recurrent substance, whereby the possibility at least results for the learner to move away from his repetitive patterns of thinking, feeling and acting. In this way, something new is created and diversity can develop. The innovative power of transformative learning is found in this mechanism: New situations often require a different response from that which experience suggests to us. If we could stop interpreting and arranging situations in the usual way, new patterns in life could develop. This means that although the pattern develops independently of us, we can simply allow it to “occur” or not, based on our own situation. It is often necessary to move away from our set ways in order not to follow the first impulse and respond in the familiar manner; but, perhaps - at first - not to react at all or to act specifically in a different way from the familiar behavior.
In the case described above, Eberhard learned over time that it was not the intention of his superiors to “do anything to him”; rather, their action was based on completely different conditions and constraints, the meaning of which had remained largely hidden to him until then. His usual view of things had been a narcissistic distortion up till then, and he was only able to “read” or “decode” his environment almost exclusively in the light of his personal need for recognition: demands made of him were solely processed from the point of view: “What does this tell me about the recognition of my person?” As a result, he was hardly in a position to constructively deal with dissent, since his inner possibilities always made him see decisions or directives coming from above through the question “Why are you doing this to me?” - a distortion that strained the patience and flexibility of his superiors to the limit. Over the years, these superiors saw themselves confronted with a “sensitivity” and “self-glory,” as they called it, which they endured only because they were convinced of the technical competence of their colleague but otherwise rated him as “difficult.” They endured up to a certain point, before drawing the line - as I said - by transferring him to a manageable area of responsibility. During a nearly two-year self-experience and coaching process, Eberhard understood the situation his earlier, distorted perceptions had gotten him into and he also understood how it lead him to inappropriate behavior, even towards the people who only had positive intentions towards their employees. “What have I done?” That was the question he raised, almost weeping, which marked the fundamental turning point in his thinking, feeling and action. Suddenly, he saw his whole past life in a new light and, shocked, he recognized just how unjust and unfair his emotional disability led him to behave towards the basically constructive-minded executives. It was a logical consequence of this inner transformation process that he began, on his own, to think of how he could make up for damage done - even though it took place many years before. "I have to speak again with my former professor, from whom I resigned at that time out of anger!" - one of the consequences, which he himself drew from this learning process.
This example shows that people who trust themselves to try the inner path of transformative learning become increasingly capable of overcoming the constellations of their emotional lenses. They recognize that we construct our own lives through how we have learned to feel in the world. In a very subtle way, we also, on our own, create that which makes us suffer, because we “need” this suffering, since we have not really learned to live permanently trusting in love, cooperation, happiness, and security as a supportive and unthreatening feeling. Transformative learning is therefore deeply effective identity learning.
Transformative learning does not, or rarely happens through “eureka!” experiences. It is a painstaking process that involves several stages: First, it has to do with an exact reconstruction of the patterns of our own emotional experience. At this level, it is about re-experiencing situations, moods, and feelings of the past emotionally, and tracing the substance they have left behind in us. Sometimes slogans like “No one wants to see me!” or “Why not me...” come into consciousness and represent a tangible anchor that always influences the here and now. Only by recognizing such emotional certainties, - within the context of an appreciative and stabilizing guide – can we cautiously arrive at the recognition that these emotional relics of the past are still present in us, nourishing our thinking, feeling and action: “I think as I feel.” At this stage usually, the simple building blocks of their world view become shockingly clear to the participants and they can gradually begin to realize how they themselves shaped the situations in which they found themselves and nothing else: “I experience the way I think.”
The next stage is the stage of intentionally “putting differences to work” (de Shazer 1991). This requires the creativity of the facilitator and the group, because it is all about generating other interpretations of what was once experienced as harassment, including those interpretations that serve to develop other benevolent assumptions about the annoying other party and to also “substitute” the actual other party by giving him a collective name, such as “the devaluer”. This initially brings the pattern of previous experiences into focus (first transformation), and in an experimental process that can also be effectively supported by sculpting, the possibility is revealed to see the world with different eyes or through the eyes of others (second transformation). In this way, the new experience is initiated, but it still requires a whole series of other exercises before the “devaluer” is really recognized as a personal construction and the opportunity can be created to actually offer the other party the “possibility” to be viewed differently. The person who undergoes such a transformation process does not immediately “know what he should make (think) of it” but, an idea, once thought and thoroughly
