Argyris and Schon

I found the article on Argyris and Schon (http://infed.org/mobi/chris-argyris-theories-of-action-double-loop-learning-and-organizational-learning/) a very interesting read. Especially the links to other theories I have already looked at. Again, I found it easier to understand by making notes. I have come to favour this technique when studying as a tool that personally helps me take in the information. 

Chris Argyris influenced thinking about the relationship of people and organisations, organisational learning and action research.
With Donald Schon he developed single loop and double loop learning systems.
His research explored the impact of formal organisational structures on individuals and how they adapted and responded to them.
He explored the behaviour of senior executives in organisations.

"Argyris led us to see subtle patterns of reasoning which underlay our behaviour, and how these patterns got us into trouble. It became clear that with proper training I could become much more aware of my mental models and how they operated." (Senge 1990:182-3)

He explores the behaviours and beliefs that are necessary if organisations are to develop and learn. 
Argyris and Schon argue that people have mental maps with how they react in certain situations. This is in the way they plan, implement and review their actions. 

"When someone is asked how he would behave under certain circumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action for that situation. This is the theory of action he communicates to others. However, the theory that actually governs his actions is this theory-in-use." (Argyris and Schon 1974:6-7)

The words we use to convey what we do, or what we would like others to think we do, is called espoused theory.
It makes us question whether inner feelings become expressed into actions. What we say and what we do in our actions may be different. 
Espoused theory and theory in use creates a dynamic for dialogue and reflection. 
Theory in use is confirmed when there is a match between intention and outcome. They may however  not match and work against the persons values. 
Argyris and Schon suggest 2 responses to this mismatch. These can be seen in the notion of single and double loop learning. 

SINGLE LOOP LEARNING

If something goes wrong you look for another strategy. Goals and plans are operationalised rather than questioned. Strategies and goals are taken for granted. 
"Emphasis is on techniques and making techniques more efficient" (Usher and Bryant 1989:87) 

DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING

Strategies are questioned  and scrutinised. It may lead to a whole new approach and shift in strategies.

The example of the thermostat explained this to me simply. Single loop learning is like when a room gets too hot and so you simply turn the heat off. The task is easy. The thermostat can receive information and take action. Double loop learning detects the error and changes and examines underlying issues. In my mind the difference is simple. Quick fix versus sorting the problem for the long term.
Double loop learning questions the underlying and is more risky yet ideas and policies are confronted. 
Chris Argyris states that double loop learning is essential for organisations. 

I thought about this in relation to my work place. We have many different courses and programmes for students. An example would be trying to fix a course that just isn't working. Maybe the initial concept and drawing board idea hasn't translated like we thought it would. A lot of the time with classes and ideas it is trial and error. Kids can surprise you with what they engage in and what they don't. Once you have set up a class or workshop it's very difficult to admit that it just isn't working and that another way would be better. Especially if parents have paid  and teachers have planned lessons. However, it's also not productive or beneficial to continue on the same topic if it isn't engaging the kids. Some lesson plans are written a month in advance and you can tell after one lesson on a new story or topic whether the kids  are engaged or not. If they aren't then why do we feel we have to stick to the terms lesson plan. Why can't we hold our hands up and say "Ok kids, forgot what we did last week we're going to do something new!" Probably because we don't want the students or parents to think we aren't organised or in control. After all, they don't pay for trail and error. Or maybe that's what we as teachers think. Sometimes surely it is better to say "That didn't work, let's re plan and change our focus." This is how I personally can relate it to my current workplace. 

"Double loop learning is difficult and all but impossible in situations in which much is at stake. This creates a dilemma as these are the very organisational situations in which double loop learning is needed." (Edmondson and Moingeon 1999:160)

"If my behaviour is driven by my note acting to seem incompetent, this may lead to me hiding things from myself and others, in order to avoid feelings of incompetence." (Anderson 1997) 

As I have stated in a pervious blog, I think this is very true for my workplace. People aren't willing to show that they are struggling or that they may have made  an error. Everyone is super keen to impress 
all the time. This is good as it encourages a real sense of drive but it can also become unhealthy and unproductive to not share your concerns. 

There are 2 models that enhance and inhabit double loop learning. When models 1 and 2 are broken down, the characteristics that jump out as relevant to my workplace are:

MODEL 1

Discouraging inquiry. "Let's not talk about the past, that's over" when really we should talk about what went wrong in order to learn from our mistakes. 
Treating ones own views as obviously correct.
Little public testing of ideas to avoid embarrassment.

MODEL 2 

Open communication. There is definitely a lack of this in my workplace! 
Internal commitment to the company. Many people at my work think of their own benefits before the company's. 
Need to share control. 

Argyris and Schon are a contrast to Senge's systems and structures. They focus more strongly on individual and group interactions. 

I found the following quote an interesting read as I very much favoured Kolb's Cycle in Module 1.

"Unlike Kolb's learning cycle, where one had, so to speak, to make a mistake and reflect upon it - that is, learn by trial and error - it is now possible thanks to Argyris and Schon's conceptualisation, to learn by simply reflecting critically upon the theory-in-action. In other words, it is no longer 
necessary to go through the entire learning circle in order to develop the theory further. It is sufficient to readjust the theory through double loop learning." (Finger and Asun 2000:45-6)

In conclusion, surely different approaches work better for different issues? I had a problem at work last year and I used Kolb's cycle to assist my reflection. It helped enormously and in that example I needed to carry out all the steps. I do love the idea of double loop learning though as a way to get to the route of the problem. It frees things up and allows change to take place. I also understand the difficulties in doing that though in the workplace. It is something I had never heard of before this blog and something that I will definitely consider in business as I clearly see the benefits. It kind of feels like the 'I know this is what I should do' option!