Where the story continues
From Marianne’s Notebook
While reading Aangehaakt, you may notice small moments that make you pause. A sentence, a question, something that feels familiar, but not yet clear. This page holds my notes behind the story.
When something catches my attention, I look it up. I read, I connect ideas, I write things down, not as final answers, but as thoughts that help me understand what I am seeing and doing.
Some notes lead to a short video. Some to an exercise or a model. Others to research or ideas I want to come back to later. These notes grow over time. Sometimes a chapter in the book changes. The insight that triggered it usually stays here. You do not have to read everything. You do not have to agree with it either.
Use this notebook as I do: to explore, to reflect, and to find words for what you already sense in your own work, team, or daily practice. Take what helps. Leave the rest for another moment.
The Culture Scan
When I first worked with the Culture Scan, I mainly followed the process and watched what happened. What caught my attention came later.
When teams do the scan together, almost everyone wants to move in the same direction. To the right, more trust, more collaboration, more shared responsibility. That part is easy.
What is harder, I have learned, is actually making that move. Looking up the background I came across the work of Bob Marshall and his Rightshifting model. It gave me words for something I already felt in practice.
You cannot move to the right by simply letting go of the left. Some structure is still needed. Some clarity. Some forms of control. Not to restrict people, but to create stability.
The scan makes this visible. By limiting the number of statements teams can choose, the conversation shifts. Less about what sounds good, more about what we really recognise and what we are willing to work toward together.
Later, I learned that this was also connected to Lean thinking. Especially the balance between People, Process and Purpose. Whenever one of these dominates, teams seem to lose their footing. When all three are present, movement feels calmer and more sustainable.
My note to self:
Wanting to move right is easy. Moving right takes balance.
Learned Helplessness
While reading more about learned helplessness, I realised how easily I recognise it.
Not only in teams, but also in myself.
I started with the early work of Martin Seligman. His experiments describe how repeated experiences of having no influence can lead to passivity. Not because people do not care, but because they stop expecting that their actions will matter.
What stayed with me most, though, was not the problem, but where Seligman went next. He did not stop at learned helplessness. He moved on to ideas like learned optimism and later learned happiness. The shift is subtle but important: from explaining why people give up, to exploring how they regain agency.
That resonates with what I see in practice. Passivity is rarely a lack of motivation. More often it is the result of too little room to try, fail, and learn. Too much solving for others. Too little experienced influence.
I found many articles and perspectives. Some focus on the brain, others on depression or organisations. I did not try to hold them all. For now, I chose the ones that help me see this more clearly: helplessness is learned — and so is hope.
My note to self:
If helplessness can be learned, then so can confidence, agency, and trust.
Early Neurological Stimulation (ENS)
While reading about the early weeks of the pups, I came across Early Neurological Stimulation (ENS).
The work of Carmen Battaglia helped me understand why those first days matter so much.
ENS consists of five small exercises, done briefly between day 3 and day 16 after birth. They introduce mild, controlled stimuli to the nervous system. Nothing intense. Nothing long. Just enough to gently wake up the system.
What struck me most was not the list of exercises, but the restraint behind them. More is not better. Overdoing it works against the effect. And if a litter has already experienced stress, for example during birth, it is better not to apply ENS at all.
Research shows many possible long-term benefits: better stress tolerance, improved learning ability, and more flexibility later in life. But the key seems to be timing and moderation.
My takeaway is simple.
Early experiences shape the system, but only when they are offered with care.
My note to self:
Small impulses, at the right moment, can make a lasting difference.
Early Scent Introduction (ESI)
When I read about Early Scent Introduction (ESI), it immediately made sense to me.
In the first days after birth, when eyes and ears are still closed, the nose is already wide awake.
ESI was developed by Gayle Watkins as part of the Avidog approach. Between day 3 and day 16, each pup is briefly introduced to one new scent per day. Nothing long. Nothing intense. Just enough to gently invite the brain to notice and explore.
What I appreciate most is how careful the protocol is. The pup is always leading. If it turns away, the scent does not follow. If the pup wants to sniff, it gets a little more time. And if a litter has already experienced stress early on, ESI is simply not done.
I found the research behind it convincing, but not spectacular in a flashy way. Over generations, dogs exposed to ESI showed stronger scent awareness, more flexibility in new situations, and more confidence later in life. Especially striking: dogs trained in scent-related work often reached higher levels earlier.
For me, the value is not about creating “better dogs,” but about using a small window of opportunity with care. Early experiences matter, but only when they are offered lightly and with respect for the system.
My note to self:
Let curiosity lead. Stop before it becomes too much.
Learning is more then words
I kept noticing the same thing.
People understand more when they do more than just listen.
At first, I thought this was mainly about making learning more engaging. But when I started reading recent research, I realised it goes much deeper than that. Learning that involves multiple senses does not just feel better — it actually changes how the brain organises itself.
Recent studies show that when learning combines seeing, hearing, moving, and sometimes touching, different brain networks start working together. Attention improves. Memory becomes stronger. What is learned is easier to recall later, even when only part of the original situation is present.
What struck me most is that this is not about adding “fun elements.” It is about how the brain naturally works. It is built to integrate information across senses. When learning stays in words alone, much of that potential remains unused.
This also explains why experiences tend to stay with us longer than explanations. When the body is involved, learning seems to settle more deeply. Not louder. Not faster. Just more connected.
My note to self:
If learning should last, it needs more than words.
Floor plates
People often ask me which model this is. Tuckman. Forming, storming, norming, performing. Yes, sometimes. But that is not what stays with me.
What stays with me is what happens when people move. When they step onto the floor instead of staying in their chairs, the conversation shifts. Standing somewhere makes things tangible. You stop explaining and start noticing. Where am I standing? Why here? Why not there?
Using the Tuckman model on the floor helps. It gives language and helps teams recognise patterns. But it could just as well be another model, another timeline, another set of perspectives. The model is not the point. The floor plates are just a way to bring the body into the conversation.
Once movement is involved, the quality of the dialogue changes. Less debate. More curiosity. Better questions.
My note to self:
Every work format is just a means. The real work happens in what people start to say.
What you work on
I keep noticing how easily we focus on what we do not want.
Less mistakes. Less noise. Less resistance.
As if naming the problem will automatically show the way forward.
Recent research makes me pause. Again and again it shows the same pattern: working with what you do want is more effective than correcting what you do not want. Not softer. Just clearer.
In dog training, studies show that reward-based methods lead to better learning outcomes and less stress than aversive approaches like shouting or physical correction. Dogs trained by reinforcing desired behaviour learn faster, show fewer avoidance behaviours, and build a stronger bond with their owner. Focusing on what works turns out to be more precise than constantly correcting what does not.
I see the same logic returning in work contexts. Research shows that contingent rewards and positive feedback increase engagement, which in turn improves performance. Punishment, on the other hand, has little direct effect. At best it leads to short-term compliance. At worst it reduces initiative and learning.
What strikes me is that this is not about being nice or optimistic. It is about how learning works. Attention strengthens pathways. Repetition builds confidence. Ignoring unwanted behaviour is often more powerful than fighting it head-on.
This helps me make a conscious choice.
Where do I want people to go?
And what behaviour do I want to see more of?
My note to self:
What I focus on becomes clearer. What becomes clearer, grows.
Brainplasticity
I keep noticing how easily we focus on what we do not want.
Less mistakes. Less noise. Less resistance.
As if naming the problem will automatically show the way forward.
Recent research makes me pause. Again and again it shows the same pattern: working with what you do want is more effective than correcting what you do not want. Not softer. Just clearer.
In dog training, studies show that reward-based methods lead to better learning outcomes and less stress than aversive approaches like shouting or physical correction. Dogs trained by reinforcing desired behaviour learn faster, show fewer avoidance behaviours, and build a stronger bond with their owner. Focusing on what works turns out to be more precise than constantly correcting what does not.
I see the same logic returning in work contexts. Research shows that contingent rewards and positive feedback increase engagement, which in turn improves performance. Punishment, on the other hand, has little direct effect. At best it leads to short-term compliance. At worst it reduces initiative and learning.
What strikes me is that this is not about being nice or optimistic. It is about how learning works. Attention strengthens pathways. Repetition builds confidence. Ignoring unwanted behaviour is often more powerful than fighting it head-on.
This helps me make a conscious choice.
Where do I want people to go?
And what behaviour do I want to see more of?
My note to self:
What I focus on becomes clearer. What becomes clearer, grows.
Horizons
Accelerate!
I came across the idea behind Accelerate while looking for language that fits what I already see happening in organisations.
Not everything needs to change at once.
And not everything should.
What resonates with me is the image of two systems next to each other. One that provides stability, structure, continuity. And another that creates movement, experimentation and learning. Not a replacement. A coexistence.
This helps me make sense of a tension I often notice. People want more autonomy and speed, but also clarity and safety. Accelerate does not force a choice. It accepts that both are needed, at the same time.
What matters is not the model itself, but the shift in thinking. Change does not have to fight the existing organisation. It can grow alongside it, step by step, where energy and initiative already exist.
My note to self:
Acceleration works best when it builds on what already holds.
Brainplasticity
When I first heard about a puppy test, I thought it was about predicting the future.
Which pup will become what.
That is not how I see it anymore.
A puppy test is a snapshot. A careful moment in time where you observe how a pup responds to different situations, stimuli and forms of contact. Not to label, but to understand tendencies. What comes easily. What needs support. Where flexibility already shows, and where it is still developing.
What I appreciate in the approach from Avidog is the restraint. The test is not about passing or failing. It is about gathering information, so you can make better choices later on. For the pup. And for the human who will guide it.
A puppy is not finished.
And neither is the story.
The test does not decide who the dog will become. It helps us start with more awareness, and a bit more respect for what is already there.
My note to self:
Observation is not judgement. It is the beginning of good guidance.
Brainplasticity
When I first heard about a puppy test, I thought it was about predicting the future.
Which pup will become what.
That is not how I see it anymore.
A puppy test is a snapshot. A careful moment in time where you observe how a pup responds to different situations, stimuli and forms of contact. Not to label, but to understand tendencies. What comes easily. What needs support. Where flexibility already shows, and where it is still developing.
What I appreciate in the approach from Avidog is the restraint. The test is not about passing or failing. It is about gathering information, so you can make better choices later on. For the pup. And for the human who will guide it.
A puppy is not finished.
And neither is the story.
The test does not decide who the dog will become. It helps us start with more awareness, and a bit more respect for what is already there.
My note to self:
Observation is not judgement. It is the beginning of good guidance.
Brainplasticity
When I first heard about a puppy test, I thought it was about predicting the future.
Which pup will become what.
That is not how I see it anymore.
A puppy test is a snapshot. A careful moment in time where you observe how a pup responds to different situations, stimuli and forms of contact. Not to label, but to understand tendencies. What comes easily. What needs support. Where flexibility already shows, and where it is still developing.
What I appreciate in the approach from Avidog is the restraint. The test is not about passing or failing. It is about gathering information, so you can make better choices later on. For the pup. And for the human who will guide it.
A puppy is not finished.
And neither is the story.
The test does not decide who the dog will become. It helps us start with more awareness, and a bit more respect for what is already there.
My note to self:
Observation is not judgement. It is the beginning of good guidance.
Puppytest
When I first heard about a puppy test, I thought it was about predicting the future.
Which pup will become what.
That is not how I see it anymore.
A puppy test is a snapshot. A careful moment in time where you observe how a pup responds to different situations, stimuli and forms of contact. Not to label, but to understand tendencies. What comes easily. What needs support. Where flexibility already shows, and where it is still developing.
What I appreciate in the approach from Avidog is the restraint. The test is not about passing or failing. It is about gathering information, so you can make better choices later on. For the pup. And for the human who will guide it.
A puppy is not finished.
And neither is the story.
The test does not decide who the dog will become. It helps us start with more awareness, and a bit more respect for what is already there.
My note to self:
Observation is not judgement. It is the beginning of good guidance.
EN 
NL 
DE 
FR 