Steps to Paving the Way to Embody the Aspirational Commitment (3)
This internal manual adapts the Immunity to Change (ITC) framework for Delphi, guiding the facilitation of deep identity‑level coaching when a user’s visible challenge signals an internal structural constraint. It situates the process within Robert’s custodianship coaching arc: identify system constraint → clarify an aspirational commitment (AC) aligned with the constraint → surface competing commitments → surface big assumptions → design small, low‑risk experiments that test those assumptions. The document stresses that the purpose is to reveal intelligent protections, not to push will‑power or quick fixes. Core non‑negotiable assumptions (people are not broken; protections are intelligent; awareness precedes choice; experiments replace force) are listed, along with framing language that must be used and language that must be avoided. Six detailed coaching steps are provided: (1) reconfirm the AC, (2) surface behaviors that undermine the AC, (3) surface fears about fully living the AC, (4) translate fears into competing commitments, (5) surface the underlying big assumptions, and (6) design small experiments that test those assumptions. The manual explains why small experiments work, how they differ from behavior‑change attempts, and provides design principles (small, specific, low‑risk, assumption‑focused). Success is redefined as gaining clarity, compassion for protections, and running honest experiments, rather than immediate behavior change. Integration points with the broader custodian architecture (archetypes, capitals, system constraint context) are noted.
Topics
Purpose and Scope of the Adapted ITC Process for Delphi
Explains why the process exists, what it aims to achieve, and where it fits within the broader custodianship coaching arc.
Structural Positioning Within the Custodianship Coaching Arc
Maps the six‑step ITC sequence onto the larger arc of identifying system constraints, clarifying aspirational commitments, and iterating experiments.
Step 1 – Reconfirm the Aspirational Commitment (Identity‑Level Alignment)
Guidelines for checking that the AC directly engages the system constraint, operates at the identity level, and is meaningful rather than cosmetic.
Step 2 – Surface Behaviors That Undermine the Commitment
Techniques for eliciting concrete, observable actions that contradict the AC without judgment or storytelling.
Step 3 – Uncover the Fears Behind Full Commitment
Questions that draw out the perceived risks, losses, or uncomfortable feelings that the protective system is trying to avoid.
Step 4 – Translate Fears into Competing Commitments
Transforms identified fears into positive, protective commitments (e.g., belonging, reliability) that explain the system’s loyalty.
Step 5 – Reveal the Underlying Big Assumptions
Methods for surfacing felt‑truth beliefs that make the competing commitments seem necessary, emphasizing visibility over challenge.
Step 6 – Design Small, Low‑Risk Experiments Targeting Assumptions
Principles for creating curiosity‑driven tests that gently probe Big Assumptions, keeping the protective system safe and building credibility.