RULES AS FRAMES
From the responses that came in from last week’s post to the Coaches Egroup, it seems that among us, the word “rule” or “rules” still operates as a semantically loaded word that can evoke a strong reaction in some people!
From the responses that came in from last week’s post to the Coaches Egroup, it seems that among us, the word “rule” or “rules” still operates as a semantically loaded word that can evoke a strong reaction in some people! Yet, what is a “rule?”
1) Some rules are the internal structure of a process. Consequently, when we model, the modeling identifies the rules which make up the inner processes of that experience. For example, the rules for playing a violin or driving a car or effective coaching are the critical success factors for being able to perform those actions. Call them rules, call them factors, call them mechanisms, call them frames— when you make them explicit, then if you want to model that excellence, you have to follow those rules.
Ah yes, “have to follow” those internal processes, constraints, or rules! This is great! Now we know what we “must” do in order to step up to excellence. But of course, some people hear these modal operators (have to, must) and have semantic reactions.
“Why do I have to do it that way?”