Post Weberian Development

Classical Theories vs Neoclassical Theories

2(f) Chester Barnard Function Of Executive

2(g)Herbert Simon Decision Making Theory

2(h)Argyris Summary

Psychologist Chris Argyris and philosopher Donald Schön's intervention research focused on exploring the ways organisations can increase their capacity for double-loop learning. They argued that double-loop learning is necessary if organisations and its members are to manage problems effectively that originate in rapidly changing and uncertain contexts.

Argyris and Schön distinguished three levels of learning in organisations.

1. SINGLE-LOOP learning

"Adaptive learning" focuses on incremental change. This type of learning solves problems but ignores the question of why the problem arose in the first place.

2. DOUBLE-LOOP learning

Generative learning focuses on transformational change that changes the status quo. Double loop learning uses feedback from past actions to question assumptions underlying current views. When considering feedback, managers and professionals need to ask not only the reasons for their current actions, but what to do next and even more importantly, why alternative actions are not to be implemented.

3. DEUTERO-learning

Learning how to learn better by seeking to improve both single- and double-loop learning.

People's tacit mental maps provide guidance on acting in situations: planning, implementing and reviewing their actions. Learning is based on the detection and correction of errors given a current set of norms, the applied action strategy and the realised outcome.

Argyris and Schön regarded individuals as the key to organisational learning. People constructing and sharing mental maps make the development of organisational memory and learning possible.

The theory-in-action concept of the two researchers substantiated that a gap exists between what individuals say they want to do (espoused theory) and what they actually do (theory in use). People always behave consistently with their mental models (theory-in-use) even though they often do not act in accordance with what they say (espoused theory). This concept is useful in understanding organisational behaviour and change processes.

Top management issuing orders, memos and directives alone is insufficient to change employees' behaviour. Single-loop learning often leads to organisational malaise resulting in symptoms such as defensiveness, cynicism, hopelessness, evasion, distancing, blaming, and rivalry.

In order to effectively come to grips with new situations, the espoused theories need to be aligned with the theories in use. Double-loop learning techniques help the organisation members learn together and the organisation change.

 

pros:

The model helps conceptualise organisational learning by overcoming the taken-for-granted aspects of organisations and by detecting and solving structural problems.

Double loop learning emphasised that ideas, even from valued experts, should never be accepted at face value. Experience of employees within and specific to the organisation, creates real change.

cons:

Organisational change occurs when behavioural defences by individuals and groups are overcome and new interactions take place. This perspective overlooks the role systems and structures play in change processes.

2(h) Argyris Single and Double Loop Learning

These conceptual frameworks have implications for our learning processes.  As mentioned previously, the consequences of an action may be intended or unintended.  When the consequences of the strategy employed are as the person intends, then there is a match between intention and outcome.  Therefore the theory-in-use is confirmed.  However, the consequences may be unintended, and more particularly they may be counterproductive to satisfying their governing values.  In this case there is a mismatch between intention and outcome.  Argyris and Schon suggest that there are two possible responses to this mismatch, and these are represented in the concept of single and double-loop learning.

Single-loop and Double-loop learning

It is suggested (Argyris, Putnam & McLain Smith, 1985) that the first response to this mismatch between intention and outcome is to search for another strategy which will satisfy the governing variables.

For example a new strategy in order to suppress conflict might be to reprimand the other people involved for wasting time, and suggest they get on with the task at hand.  This may suppress the conflict and allow feelings of competence as the fault has been laid at the feet of the other party for wasting time.  In such a case the new action strategy is used in order to satisfy the existing governing variable.  The change is in the action only, not in the governing variable itself.  Such a process is called single-loop learning.  See Figure 3.

Another possible response would be to examine and change the governing values themselves.  For example, the person might choose to critically examine the governing value of suppressing conflict.  This may lead to discarding this value and substituting a new value such as open inquiry.  The associated action strategy might be to discuss the issue openly.  Therefore in this case both the governing variable and the action strategy have changed.  This would constitute double-loop learning.  See Figure 3.

---

Figure 3.  Single and double-loop learning

---

In this sense single and double-loop learning bear close resemblance to what Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch (1974) call First and Second Order Change.  First Order Change exists when the norms of the system remain the same and changes are made within the existing norms.  Second Order Change describes a situation where the norms of the system themselves are challenged and changed.

Double-loop learning is seen as the more effective way of making informed decisions about the way we design and implement action (Argyris, 1974).

Consequently, Argyris and Schon's approach is to focus on double-loop learning.  To this end, they developed a model that describes features of theories-in-use which either inhibit or enhance double-loop learning.  Interestingly, Argyris suggests that there is a large variability in Espoused theories and Action strategies, but almost no variability in Theories-in-use.  He suggests people may espouse a large number and variety of theories or values which they suggest guide their action.  However Argyris believes that the theories which can be deduced from peoples' action (theories-in-use) seem to fall into two categories which he labels Model I and Model II.

The governing values associated with theories-in-use can be grouped into those which inhibit double-loop learning (Model I) and those which enhance it (Model II).

Models I and II

Model I is the group which has been identified as inhibiting double-loop learning.  It has been described as being predominantly competitive and defensive (Dick & Dalmau, 1990).  The defining characteristics of Model I are summarised in Table 1.

Argyris claimed that virtually all individuals in his studies operated from theories-in-use or values consistent with Model I (Argyris et al.  1985, p.  89).  Argyris also suggests most of our social systems are Model I.  This assumption implies predictions about the kinds of strategies people will employ, and about the resulting consequences.  These predictions have been tested repeatedly by Argyris and not been disconfirmed (Argyris, 1982, Chap.  3), though I am unaware of studies by anyone other than Argyris which have tested these predictions.

---

Table 1.  Model I theory-in-use characteristics The governing Values of Model I are:

• Achieve the purpose as the actor defines it
• Win, do not lose
• Suppress negative feelings
• Emphasise rationality

Primary Strategies are:

• Control environment and task unilaterally
• Protect self and others unilaterally

Usually operationalised by:

• Unillustrated attributions and evaluations eg.  "You seem unmotivated"
• Advocating courses of action which discourage inquiry eg.  "Lets not talk about the past, that's over."
• Treating ones' own views as obviously correct
• Making covert attributions and evaluations
• Face-saving moves such as leaving potentially embarrassing facts unstated

Consequences include:

• Defensive relationships
• Low freedom of choice
• Reduced production of valid information
• Little public testing of ideas

_____

Taken from Argyris, Putnam & McLain Smith (1985, p.  89).

---

The Model I world view is a theory of single loop learning according to Argyris and Schon.  Therefore Model I has the effect of restricting a person to single-loop learning.  Being unaware of what is driving one's behaviour may seriously inhibit the likelihood of increased effectiveness in the long-term.

Argyris (1980) suggests that (as mentioned previously) the primary action strategy of Model I is: unilateral control of the environment and task, and unilateral protection of self and others.  The underlying strategy is control over others.  Such control inhibits communication and can produce defensiveness.  Defensiveness is a mechanism used in order to protect the individual.  Model I theory-in-use informs individuals how to design and use defences unilaterally, whether to protect themselves or others, eg.  "I couldn't tell him the truth, it would hurt him too much".

In order to protect themselves individuals must distort reality.  Such distortion is usually coupled with defences which are designed to keep themselves and others unaware of their defensive reaction (Argyris, 1980).  The more people expose their thoughts and feelings the more vulnerable they become to the reactions of others.  This is particularly true if these others are programmed with Model I theory-in-use and are seeking to maximise winning.

The assertion that Model I is predominantly defensive has another ramification.  Acting defensively can be viewed as moving away from something, usually some truth about ourselves.  If our actions are driven by moving away from something then our actions are controlled and defined by whatever it is we are moving away from, not by us and what we would like to be moving towards.  Therefore our potential for growth and learning is seriously impaired.  If my behaviour is driven by my not wanting to be seen as incompetent, this may lead me to hide things from myself and others, in order to avoid feelings of incompetence.  For example, if my behaviour is driven by wanting to be competent, honest evaluation of my behaviour by myself and others would be welcome and useful.

In summary, Model I has been identified as a grouping of characteristics which inhibit double-loop learning.  Model I is seen as being predominantly defensive and competitive, and therefore unlikely to allow an honest evaluation of the actor's motives and strategies, and less likely to lead to growth.  Defensiveness protects individuals from discovering embarrassing truths about their incongruent or less-than-perfect behaviour and intentions.  The actor further protects herself by reinforcing conditions such as ambiguity and inconsistency which help to further mask their incongruence from themselves and others.  Becoming aware of this incongruence is difficult, as is doing something about it.  According to Argyris and Schon (1974) this is due to the strength of the socialisation to Model I, and the fact that the prevailing culture in most systems is Model I.  An added complication is that anyone trying to inform them of the incongruence is likely to use Model I behaviour to do so, and therefore trigger a defensive reaction (Dick and Dalmau, 1990).

Therefore, Model I theories-in-use are likely to inhibit double-loop learning for the following reasons.  Model I is characterised by unilateral control and protection, and maximising winning.  In order to maintain these, the actor is often involved in distortion of the facts, attributions and evaluations, and face-saving.  Doing such things is not something we would readily admit we involve ourselves in.  Therefore, in order to live with ourselves we put in place defences which hamper our discovery of the truth about ourselves.  If we are unwilling to admit to our motives and intentions we are hardly in a position to evaluate them.  As evaluating our governing values (which may be equated with intentions) is what characterises double-loop learning, Model I theories-in-use may be seen as inhibiting this process.

Despite all the evidence which suggests that peoples' theory-in-use is consistent with Model I, Argyris has found that most people hold espoused theories which are inconsistent with Model I.  Most people in fact, espouse Model II, according to Argyris.  The defining characteristics of Model II are summarised in Table 2.

---

Table 2.  Model II The governing values of Model II include:

• "Valid information
• Free and informed choice
• Internal commitment

Strategies include:

• Sharing control
• Participation in design and implementation of action

Operationalised by:

• Attribution and evaluation illustrated with relatively directly observable data
• Surfacing conflicting views
• encouraging public testing of evaluations

Consequences should include:

• Minimally defensive relationships
• high freedom of choice
• increased likelihood of double-loop learning"

---

No reason is offered for why most people espouse Model II, however it seems reasonable to assume that this is because Model II values are the more palatable in terms of the way we like to see our (Western) society.  Freedom of Information Acts, the Constitution, America's bill of Rights, all seem to be drawing heavily from Model II values.  Dick and Dalmau (1990) suggest that people often show a mix of Model I and Model II espoused theories.  This seems probable, as most people will readily admit to being driven to win at least in some situations.  Some professions in fact, are based almost entirely around the concept of winning and not losing, such as Law, sport and sales.

The behaviour required to satisfy the governing values of Model II though, are not opposite to that of Model I.  For instance, the opposite of being highly controlling would be to relinquish control altogether.  This is not Model II behaviour because Model II suggest bilateral control.  Relinquishing control is still unilateral, but in the other direction.  Model II combines articulateness about one's goals and advocacy of one's own position, with an invitation to others to confront one's views.  It therefore produces an outcome which is based on the most complete and valid information possible.  Therefore,

"Every significant Model II action is evaluated in terms of the degree to which it helps the individuals involved generate valid and useful information (including relevant feelings), solve the problem in a way that it remains solved, and do so without reducing the present level of problem solving effectiveness." (Argyris, 1976, p21-22)

If we go back to the information chain model put forward by Dick and Dalmau (Figure 2), valid information has to do with expressing our beliefs, feelings, and intentions (the highlighted area in Figure 2).

Given the above considerations, the consequences for learning should be an emphasis on double-loop learning, in which the basic assumptions behind views are confronted, hypotheses are tested publicly, and processes are disconfirmable, not self-sealing.  The end result should be increased effectiveness.

Important Links

http://www.westbrookstevens.com/Researchers.htm
https://www.provenmodels.com/41/technology-typology/charles-b.-perrow
http://www.aral.com.au/resources/argyris.html