KCG Shared Glossary¶
Sourcing
Canonical home (since 2026-05-07). This page is the single source of truth for KCG vocabulary across the methodology. Originally mirrored from ~/Desktop/kcg-course-materials/kcg-course-materials-archive/_archive/_glossary.md during Phase 1; the archive path has fallen out of use.
Phase 2 additions. Four categories were added on 2026-05-07 — Structural clarity, Rights and accommodation, Neurodivergent communication and leadership, Calibration and evidence systems — drawn from courses 05–08. Pending author review.
Status: DRAFT — needs author review before lessons reference it.
Created: 2026-04-27
Purpose: Single source of truth for terms that recur across Courses 01–08. Lessons reference this list when wrapping a .glossary-term tooltip or building a .glossary-page-list end-of-lesson section.
Authoring rule: if a term is defined here, lessons should not redefine it inline — they should link to or quote this entry. If a course needs a different definition, flag the conflict here so it gets resolved deliberately rather than drifting.
How to use this file:
- For inline tooltips in a lesson, copy the term + definition into a
.glossary-termelement. - For end-of-lesson glossary sections, list every term used in that lesson.
- When adding a new term, place it under the closest existing category. Add a new category only when 3+ related terms exist.
Category: Naming the engagement¶
(Course 02 — titled Overview of Coaching in the source repo. KCG umbrella name: Naming the Engagement.)
Coaching¶
A working relationship focused on here-and-now skill-building for goal achievement. Distinct from therapy (clinical work for diagnosable conditions), legal advice, financial advice, and medical care. See therapy, scope.
Clarity¶
Naming what is true, what is possible, what matters, and what comes next. In KCG practice, clarity is treated as a form of care: vagueness creates misaligned expectations, and misaligned expectations create disappointment.
Reflection (in coaching)¶
Questions that help a client see a situation from a different angle. Distinct from advice: reflection helps the client access their own wisdom rather than receive an external prescription.
Naming¶
Stating directly and kindly what is happening — patterns, constraints, power dynamics — without blame. Naming is one of three things a KCG client can expect (with reflection and clarity); advice is not.
Week-over-week performance feedback¶
Direct, regular observation of whether agreed-upon changes are actually happening. Given as data about what is occurring, without blame.
Scope¶
What this engagement covers and what it does not. KCG coaching is explicit about scope: it is not therapy, not crisis support, not legal advice, not financial advice, and not medical advice.
Constraints¶
The actual conditions a client is working in: time, budget, energy, authority, commitments. Real coaching designs outcomes that fit constraints rather than ignoring them.
Capacity¶
The amount a client can realistically take on right now. Distinct from theoretical ability — capacity reflects current load, energy, and competing commitments.
Pre-Coaching Assessment¶
A worksheet completed before the first session asking: biggest professional challenge, what's been tried, what success would look like (specific and measurable), what's stopping you, what you need from this engagement.
Partnership (coaching)¶
A working relationship in which the coach provides the platform, frameworks, facilitation, and direct feedback; the client provides preparation, implementation, data backup, and open communication. "You will get out what you put in."
Category: Systems thinking¶
System (organizational)¶
A set of interrelated parts (people, processes, incentives, information flows) that produce outcomes. Outcomes are properties of the system, not of any one part.
Systems thinking¶
The discipline of looking at how parts interact rather than at any single part in isolation. Asks: what structure is creating this outcome? Who has power here? What pattern keeps repeating?
Pattern (in systems)¶
A repeating sequence of events or behaviors. Patterns indicate structural causes; one-off events do not.
Power dynamic¶
Who has formal or informal authority to decide, allocate resources, set priorities, or block change in a given situation. Naming power dynamics is part of root cause work.
Psychological safety¶
The condition under which people feel safe surfacing risks, mistakes, and disagreements without fear of being labeled or punished. Established by research as a primary predictor of team learning. (Edmondson, 1999.)
Iceberg model¶
A visualization that contrasts the small visible portion of a situation (events, behaviors) with the much larger hidden portion (assumptions, structures, beliefs, incentives). Used in root cause analysis to move the conversation from symptoms to causes.
Feedback loop¶
A circular cause-and-effect chain where outputs of a system feed back as inputs. Reinforcing loops amplify; balancing loops stabilize.
Time delay¶
The gap between a cause and its observable effect. Long delays make root cause analysis harder because the symptom appears far from the source.
Leverage point¶
A place in a system where a small intervention produces a large change in outcome. Not all parts of a system have equal leverage.
Emergence¶
A property of the whole system that cannot be predicted from the parts alone. Emergent outcomes are why "fixing" individual components often fails.
Unintended consequence¶
An outcome of an intervention that was not planned. Common in complex systems; reduced by piloting and iterating before scaling.
Organizational archetype¶
A recurring structural pattern across organizations (e.g., shifting the burden, tragedy of the commons, escalation). Recognizing an archetype short-cuts diagnosis.
Category: Naming the cause¶
(Course 03 — titled Root Cause Analysis in the source repo. KCG framework name: Naming the Cause.)
Root cause¶
The underlying structural condition that produces a problem. Distinct from a symptom (the visible event) and a contributing factor (one of several inputs).
Surface symptom¶
The visible event or outcome. Symptoms are what people react to; causes are what produce them. Treating the symptom relieves the pressure; solving the cause prevents recurrence.
Causal chain¶
A sequence of events leading from an upstream condition to an observable problem. Mapping the chain backward reveals where intervention is possible.
Sequence mapping¶
The practice of working backward from an observable problem, asking "what had to happen for that to be true" until the intervention point is reached.
Five Whys¶
A diagnostic technique that asks "why" repeatedly to move from symptom toward cause. Has known failure modes (anchoring, premature stopping, single-chain bias) covered in Course 03 Module 4.
Fishbone diagram¶
A cause-and-effect diagram that branches contributing factors into categories (e.g., people, process, tools, environment). Originated by Kaoru Ishikawa in quality-control work.
Diagnostic muscle¶
The acquired skill of pausing before solving — gathering information about the cause before designing an intervention. Strengthens with deliberate practice.
Reactive cycle¶
The sequence: problem surfaces → quick fix → temporary relief → same problem returns → bigger fix → resources consumed → burnout. The default operating mode in most workplaces.
Diagnostic approach¶
The sequence: problem surfaces → pause and investigate → identify root cause → design structural fix → problem resolved at source → capacity freed up. The alternative to the reactive cycle.
Attribution (theory)¶
The framework explaining how individuals assign causality to events. Workplace blame defaults to individual fault rather than structural conditions; root cause analysis works against this default. (Heider, 1958.)
Intervention point¶
The place in a causal chain where a change can be made that prevents the downstream problem. Not always at the symptom, and rarely at the most visible link.
Category: Naming the objective¶
(Course 04 — titled Strategic Problem Solving in the source repo. KCG framework name: Naming the Objective.)
Objective¶
A specific, measurable target with an explicit definition of done. Distinct from a goal (directional) or aspiration (vague).
Done (definition of)¶
The complete set of conditions under which a problem stays solved. Often includes the immediate fix plus the systems that prevent recurrence (training, monitoring, feedback loops).
Real constraint¶
A condition that genuinely cannot be moved within the engagement (e.g., legal requirement, immovable budget, fixed deadline tied to external party).
Perceived constraint¶
A condition believed to be fixed but actually movable on inspection. Reclaiming perceived constraints expands the solution space.
Hybrid approach¶
A solution that combines elements from multiple options rather than picking one. Often outperforms any single option when no option dominates.
Decision criteria¶
The explicit factors used to evaluate options against an objective. Should be defined before evaluating, not derived from the option you already prefer.
Weighted decision matrix¶
A grid that scores options against weighted criteria. Forces explicit trade-offs and produces a defensible record of how the choice was made.
Reversible vs. irreversible decision¶
A reversible decision can be unwound at low cost; an irreversible one cannot. Speed-of-decision should match reversibility: move fast on reversible, slowly on irreversible.
Roadmap¶
A time-sequenced view of work, milestones, and dependencies. Distinguishes "what we're doing now," "what comes next," and "what's later."
Risk register¶
A structured list of identified risks with probability, impact, owner, mitigation, and trigger. Reviewed on cadence, not just at project start.
Accountability (without blame)¶
A practice of clearly tracking who owns what and what was committed, while treating misses as data rather than character failures. Pairs with root cause thinking.
Iteration¶
Doing a small version, learning from the result, and adjusting. Distinct from planning (front-loaded) and improvisation (no learning loop).
Course correction¶
A planned adjustment based on observed results, made before the original plan finishes. Required when conditions change or assumptions prove wrong.
Category: Portal / operational¶
Magic link¶
A single-use sign-in URL sent to a verified email address. Avoids password entry while maintaining authentication.
Two-factor authentication (2FA)¶
Sign-in that requires both a password (or magic link) and a second factor, typically a code from an authenticator app. Recommended for all KCG portal accounts.
Encryption in transit¶
Data is encrypted while moving between the user's device and the server. Protects against interception on the network.
Encryption at rest¶
Data is encrypted while stored on the server. Protects against unauthorized access to the underlying storage.
Data ownership (KCG)¶
"Your data belongs to you." Reflections, goals, session notes, and coursework are the client's property. The coach has access to support the work; no third parties have access unless required by law.
Data backup responsibility¶
Clients are responsible for exporting and saving anything they want to keep long-term. The portal supports the work but is not a permanent archive.
Category: Naming the structure¶
(Course 05 — titled Structural Clarity in the source repo. KCG umbrella name: Naming the Structure.)
Structural misfit¶
The gap between a system's design assumptions — who it was built for, what behaviors it rewards — and the actual person operating within it. The person does not fail; the design fails to account for them. (Course 05 Module 1.)
Cost transfer¶
What happens when a system's unexamined design assumptions shift the cost of the misfit onto the person rather than naming the system gap. Common forms: extra labor, masking, adjustment, recovery. The transfer is rarely named explicitly. High performers absorb the most because the same drive that makes them effective leads them to compensate rather than name the problem. (Course 05 Module 1.)
Structural clarity (the posture)¶
The practice of distinguishing between what a system interprets and what a system measures. A diagnostic posture, not a political position — refuses to accept optics as data. Framing question: Is this accurate, or is this how it feels? (Course 05 Module 2.)
Four-lever framework¶
The set of structural responses available once the diagnostic returns "this is about the structure, not the person": Recalibrate, Rebuild, Relocate, Refuse. The first two require organizational authority; the last two do not. (Course 05 Module 3.)
Recalibrate¶
Lever 1 of the four-lever framework: change how a system measures, evaluates, or interprets. Requires standing inside the system to adjust its dials. (Course 05 Module 3.)
Rebuild¶
Lever 2 of the four-lever framework: change the system's design itself. Requires authority to redesign. (Course 05 Module 3.)
Relocate¶
Lever 3 of the four-lever framework: exit the structure as the structurally accurate response when Recalibrate has been attempted long enough to produce a direction signal and the cost is compounding past recovery. Not a failure mode — a structural decision made with the same clarity as Recalibrate or Rebuild. The test is two questions: has Recalibrate produced a direction signal? Is the cost recoverable on the current trajectory? (Course 05 Module 3.)
Refuse¶
Lever 4 of the four-lever framework: decline to absorb the cost a system creates, without changing position. Operates at the level of specific asks — refuse to translate, refuse to over-explain, refuse to manage others' discomfort with one's clarity, refuse to volunteer unpaid structural work. Withdraws translation, not output, which distinguishes it from quiet quitting. (Course 05 Module 3.)
Category: Naming the right¶
(Course 06 — titled Beyond Accommodation in the source repo. KCG umbrella name: Naming the Right.)
Rights frame¶
The standard for measuring accommodation: rights established by external instruments — UDHR Articles 1 and 23, CRPD Articles 1 and 2 — not best-practices benchmarks. Measuring against best practices lowers the bar; measuring against rights raises it and makes the defect visible. Under CRPD Article 2, denial of reasonable accommodation is legally defined as discrimination. (Course 06 Module 1.)
Name-only accommodation¶
Accommodation that exists in the handbook but not in the room. Not a gap between policy and practice — a gap between a stated right and a lived right. (Course 06 Module 1.)
Three-layer diagnostic¶
The framework for locating where an accommodation gap actually lives: systems (processes, forms, intake, escalation paths), culture (what is rewarded, what is unspoken, what gets coached out), or leadership development (how leaders are taught to read and respond to accommodation requests). Each layer requires a different intervention. (Course 06 Module 2.)
Layer mismatch¶
A common failure mode of accommodation work: designing a fix at one layer when the gap actually lives at a different layer. Example: a new performance review form (systems) will not close a gap that lives in the definition of "senior-ready" (culture). The diagnostic identifies the layer; the design must match. (Course 06 Module 2.)
Three-phase roadmap¶
The fixed-order sequence for accommodation work: Diagnostic → Design → Implementation. Each phase produces something the next requires. Compression — typically of Design under timeline pressure — is the most common cause of accommodation work that fails to close the gap. (Course 06 Module 3.)
Rights delivery¶
The implementation-phase metric that replaces accommodation volume, policy compliance, and training completion. The question is whether the right is being delivered to the person it was supposed to reach, in the room it was supposed to reach them in. The ramp was built; was the door at the top of the ramp light enough to open? (Course 06 Module 3.)
Category: Naming the signal¶
(Course 07 — titled Leadership for Different Minds in the source repo. KCG umbrella name: Naming the Signal.)
Cognitive trap¶
The autopilot pattern in which a leader assigns emotion and intent from delivery before checking the content of what was said. Produces three downstream failures in the same conversation: competence is downgraded, emotional labor is outsourced to the neurodivergent person, the advantage is lost. (Course 07 Module 1.)
Information density¶
The property of neurodivergent communication that strips the social scaffolding — softening, team affirmation, emotional hedging — that neurotypical communication uses to package information. The scaffolding is the wrapper, not the information; its absence does not signal absence of intent. (Course 07 Module 2.)
Translation key¶
A three-column diagnostic — What They Say / What They Mean / What Leaders Hear — used in real time when something a neurodivergent team member said felt pointed, difficult, or "off." Most misfires are misalignments between columns one and three because column two (the analytic content) was never reached. (Course 07 Module 2.)
Four Stops¶
Four leadership moves that produce the cognitive trap, paired with their inquiry-based replacements: stop assuming emotion or intent from delivery alone; stop penalizing risk awareness and pattern recognition; stop outsourcing emotional translation and sense-making; stop dismissing foresight as inability to see the vision. The shared rhythm is pause, ask, separate, address. (Course 07 Module 2.)
Translation tax¶
The uncompensated cognitive labor a neurodivergent team member spends repackaging their contributions to make them palatable to systems calibrated for the dominant communication norm. Capacity spent on packaging is capacity not spent on the work. Closely related to masking tax, which names the same phenomenon at the individual cost level. (Course 07; see also Masking tax.)
Category: Naming the calibration¶
(Course 05 Module 2 + Course 08 — titled Psychological Safety in the source repo. KCG umbrella name: Naming the Calibration. These terms cross-cut the Naming the Structure and Naming the Calibration umbrellas.)
Perception-as-evidence drift¶
The three-move sequence by which interpretation becomes governance: it sounds protective → it becomes embedded → it becomes invisible. By move three, calibration has become culture and culture is self-reinforcing. Named in Course 05 Module 2 and developed across Course 08 Module 1.
Misclassification (in psychological safety)¶
The systemic pattern of reading directness as aggression, pattern recognition as negativity, risk identification as pessimism, and discomfort as threat. The common move is asking How does this feel? in place of Is this accurate? (Courses 05 Module 2 and 08 Module 2.)
Masking tax¶
The cost an organization generates and absorbs without measuring it: sustained, real-time performance of a non-native communication style by people whose native communication has been penalized. Runs in parallel with the actual work as four loops — tone monitoring, micro-expression scanning, real-time editing, post-interaction auditing. Compounds over time into burnout or exit. (Course 08 Module 2.)
Self-gaslighting (system-induced)¶
The deepest cost of sustained masking: the system's misclassification becomes the person's internal narrative. The person stops trusting their own signal. Distinct from interpersonal gaslighting because no single bad actor is required — the gaslighting arrives in the language of development ("we want to help you grow," "this is feedback to help you succeed"). (Course 08 Module 2.)
Calibration question¶
The diagnostic question for any leadership system: Is this system calibrated to protect contribution, or to protect familiarity? A system protecting contribution asks whether the work is accurate, useful, and important. A system protecting familiarity asks whether the person communicates the way the system expects, and attributes friction to the person rather than to the calibration. (Course 08 Module 3.)
Evidence-based system (psychological safety)¶
A leadership system that meets four structural commitments: defined metrics (observable independent of the observer's impression), transparent thresholds (visible to those being evaluated), separation of interpretation from information, willingness to examine calibration. The alternative to a system that protects familiarity. (Course 08 Module 3.)
Open questions for author review¶
- Scope: is this list complete, or are there other recurring terms used in Courses 05–08 (Structural Clarity, Beyond Accommodation, Leadership for Different Minds, Psychological Safety) that should be added now to avoid drift later?
- Definition style: are these definitions written at the right level (concise, neutral, factual) or should they be more voice-aligned with the existing course prose?
- Citations: the entries that touch academic concepts (psychological safety, attribution theory, fishbone) cite their originators. Should every term cite a source, or only ones derived from external research?
- Versioning: when a definition changes, do we want a changelog at the bottom of this file?