The reading on Chris Argyris’ theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational learning’ was a lot to take in, but still very interesting. Chris Argyris developed several models with Donald Schon, some of which I had no knowledge of before reading this reading. In his early research, Argyris explored the impact of formal organizational structures, control systems, and management on individuals. In his later years as a teacher, he employs his research and utilizes it in his classes, thus making the students pay more attention to what he is saying, and concentrate more on their own mental models. Argyris essentially practices what he engages with the students and displays the sorts of behaviors and beliefs which are necessary if organisations are to learn and develop.

Each individual has mental maps which tells them how to act in various situations, or so Argyris and Schon argue. These maps outline their approach and how they will execute their actions in regards to a given situation. Argyris and Schon believe that ‘it is these maps that guide people’s actions rather than the theories they explicitly espouse.’

So what does this mean?

There is a split between theory and action, and Argyris and Schon believe that two theories of action are involved. The distinction made between the two contrasting theories of action is between those theories that are implicit in what we do as practitioners and managers, and those on which we call to speak of our actions to others. This is the distinction:

Theories in use:  govern behavior; what we actually do in a situation. Espoused theory: words we use to convey what we do or what we would like others to think we do in a situation.

So how much does our behavior really stay true to the espoused theory? First thing that comes to mind: ‘I wont eat another slice of cake.’ *Eats cake*… relevant example? Wasn’t too sure, so I kept reading.

Argyris makes the point that the most desirable outcome comes from limited inconsistencies between the two theories. If there are differences, this is not a bad thing provided that the gap doesn’t grow too big. There are three elements which Argyris and Schon evaluated to fully appreciate theory-in-use:

• governing variables
• action strategies
• consequences

Theory-in-use is confirmed to be used if the consequences of the strategy is what the user intended i.e. a close match between intention and outcome. If this match doesn’t exist and the consequences did not result as intended, then Argyris and Schon suggest two responses in this instance: single and double-loop learning.

http://www.selfleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/AL-2.jpg

I’m a visual learner –> the diagram is necessary. When I was reading the reading I had to look this up so I could visualize it in my head, coz all I had in there were hula hoops for some weird reason. But basically, to learn, we just direct and correct the errors we make. If, after making an error, all we do is correct it, then this is single-loop learning. If the error is corrected employing the use of modification of an ‘organization’s underlying norms, policies and objectives’ then this is double-loop learning. The emphasis with single-loop learning is on techniques and making them more efficient, however, double-loop learning takes into consideration the framework and questions it. Double-loop learning is more difficult than single-loop learning, for sure, and its all about how much effort we are willing to put in to go that extra mile.