01 Reading – Chris Argyris

Chris Argyris: theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational learning

To be honest, I’ve never really given much thought to my own learning. I mean, sure, when I was at Primary School, we were given a range of strict categories and told to place ourselves in one of them (I picked kinesthetic, because nobody knew what it meant, and I wanted to impress a girl. Very little has changed), but I generally just go with the tried and true method of throwing a whole lot of information at my brain and hoping something important sticks. However, Argyris’s initial argument seems to be that we have “mental maps” in regards to our actions, and few of us are aware of what these maps or theories actually are.

There’s an examination of the differences between “espoused theory” and “theory-in-use”, which I think I can grasp. When I explain my actions to others, or give an explanation of what I think I might do – this is an espoused theory. However, the true theory that governs my actions is the theory-in-use. So, if I suddenly leave a conversation with an acquaintance at a party, my espoused theory might be that I had an urgent need to use the bathroom, while my theory-in-use was really that they were incredibly uninteresting. Something like that, anyway. What’s interesting is that we lie to ourselves about our actions, but can use the process of reflection to uncover the true theory-in-use.

Single and double-loop learning is confusing me, but as far as I understand it, single-loop learning is when we detect an error, address it, and carry on with our lives as if nothing happened. Or, in my (no doubt severely wrong) analogy, when we trip over a crack in the pavement, steady ourselves, and keep walking. Double-loop learning, on the other hand, requires a total rethink of “the learning systems” involved when we come across that error. So, if we tripped over a crack in the pavement, and then tore that pavement up and built a new street. Yeah, that’s definitely it.

Argyris claims that everyone involved in his studies operated from theories-in-use consistent with Model I. Apparently, Model I theories-in-use utilise “entrenched defence routines” and aim to avoid embarrassment. Considering that most of my life seems to be a series of attempts (and failures) to avoid embarrassment, I would say that I’m part of the guilty party here. Even though most of us espouse Model II, very few of us actually use it.

Interesting stuff, though I’m sure I didn’t understand most of it, and misinterpreted the rest. I’m assuming that the less restricted nature of Networked Media is encouraging Model II approaches to learning, and I’m all for that. It’s definitely a departure from the norm.

Chris Argyris reading