"Action science" (see, e.g., Argyris, Putnam, Smith, 1985) is a development of Lewinian "action research," focusing on how human beings design and implement action in relation to one another. Individuals design action to achieve intended consequences, and monitor themselves to learn if their actions are effective, albeit they tend to do this without much conscious intent. They make sense of their environment by constructing meanings to which they attend, and these constructions guide action. In monitoring the effectiveness of their action, they also monitor the suitability of their construction of the environment.
This effort is very complex; therefore, individuals construct a simplified representation of the environment and a manageable set of causal theories that prescribe how to achieve their intended consequences. It would be very impractical to construct such representations and theories from scratch in each situation. Rather, people learn a repertoire of concepts, schemas, and strategies - and they learn programs for drawing from their repertoire to design representations and action for specific situations. We speak of such design programs as theories of action.
THEORIES OF ACTION
The form of a theory of action proposition is, "In situation S, to achieve consequence C, do action A. For example, "If I am about to criticize someone, in order to do it without being counterattacked, first criticize myself."
There are two kinds of theories of action. Espoused theories are those that an individual claims to follow. Theories-in-use are those that can be inferred from the individual's actions. There is more to this than the well-known discrepancies between what people say and what they do. The distinction is not between theory and action, but between two different theories of action - those that people espouse and those that they use.
Being aware of both sets of our theories of action can help us make more informed decisions - and also to learn from our decisions and actions. Argyris and others are "centrally concerned with the features of theories of action that promote or inhibit learning in behavioral systems." (Ibid, p.84)
The basic concept can be represented as:
Governing variables ----> Action strategies ----> Consequences
Governing variables are values that actors seek to satisfy. Each governing variable can be thought of as a continuum with a preferred range, e.g.: we don't want anxiety to get too high (making people feel tense), or too low (leading to boredom). We live in a field of many governing variables. Typically it is necessary to trade off among governing variables, because actions that raise the value of one may lower the value of another.
Action strategies are sequences of moves by actors in particular situations to satisfy governing variables (e.g., if anxiety seems too high, inject humor) - with intended consequences (e.g., there will be verbal and body movement signs that the anxiety levels have decreased to move within my preferred range)
When the consequences of an action strategy are as the actor intends, then there is a match between intention and outcome, and the theory-in-use is confirmed. If consequences are unintended (especially if negative), there is a mismatch or error.
SINGLE-LOOP AND DOUBLE-LOOP LEARNING
When the consequences of an action strategy indicate a mismatch or error, there are two main types of responses:
Several cues by which double-loop problems can be identified in practice (identification is especially difficult since double-loop problems require dealing with the defenses of human beings):
...all these are problems that require inquiry into governing variables if they are to be solved in such a way that they remain solved.
TWO CONTRASTING THEORIES OF ACTION
Argyris and Schön have spent many years studying and working with thousands of individuals in various organizations. They have found that essentially all individuals, including highly successful professionals and leaders, use a pattern of reasoning and action that they designated as Model I. Argyris and Schön recommend a better alternative (Model II), which has different, but not opposite, governing variables (values that individuals seek to satisfy) to those of Model I. When most people are asked to describe their behavior (espoused theory), they describe Model II, not Model I. However, when these same people are observed in action (theory-in-use), they are acting in accordance with Model I, but they are unaware of this discrepancy. The two models are summarized in the following table, which is the latest version developed by me and Don Rossmoore (Mitchell & Rossmoore, 2001) from our experience, but based on the conceptualization of Argyris & Schön (e.g., 1996, p.93 & 118).
|Governing Variables||- Exercise control unilaterally over goals, decisions, tasks, resources, processes, and projects,
as well as other's actions, even thoughts and feelings
- Avoid emotional discomfort and pain
- Be rational
- Promote my interests
- Be "right" and avoid being "wrong"
|- Optimize exchange of relevant, valid information
- Optimize free & informed choice, and internal commitment to the choice plus constant monitoring of its implementation
|Action Strategies||- Exercise control in ways that exclude others from control
- Try to convince others that I am "right" and they are wrong
- Control information and communications to benefit my own interests
- Pursue my interests, even when at the expense of the group's interests
|- Discover more productive ways of working together, building trust, improving
communication, cooperation, & accountability.
- Optimize accountability & relevant, timely feedback.
- Optimize the exchange of: (a) different relevant opinions & (b) relevant facts, in ways that clearly separate facts & opinions.
|Tactics||- Confuse facts and opinions in taking in, processing and communicating information
- Discount facts and opinions that are upsetting
- Withhold information that might weaken my positions
- Search for and exploit weaknesses in others' points of view
- Bypass differences and disagreements unless there is an advantage to me
- Avoid or delay dealing with difficult issues
- Blame others, not myself
- Unilaterally "protect" others from being hurt by withholding information, censoring actions, avoiding public discussions
- Modify my actions to avoid experiencing emotional discomfort, and rationalize the modifications
- Do not question my own thinking or decisions b- Rationalize and camouflage my efforts to control and bypass, and pursue self-interests.
|- Design situations where participants can originate action and experience high causal
- Have tasks controlled jointly.
- Strive to develop strongest possible commitment of each individual to team and objectives without compromising anyone's appropriate authority.
- Strive to encourage appropriate participation and discussion of all relevant issues in ways thatoptimize the exchange of relevant facts and opinions
- Create norms and rules of good conduct that support timely relevant feedback and optimal accountability
- Establish norms where protection of self and others is shared and oriented toward growth. - When discussing my point of view, share the thinking and facts behind it
- Encourage others to challenge my thinking and facts.
- Strive to understand others' concerns, doubts, and questions about my point of view.
- Help others to articulate the thinking and facts behind their points of view.
- Share my concerns, doubts, and questions about other points of view, articulating my thinking and facts. Strive to do this in ways that minimize defensiveness without compromising clarity and completeness.
- Articulate disagreements, differences in thinking, facts, and dilemmas that must be resolved before more cooperation is possible.
- Jointly search for ways to resolve disagreements, rectify differences in thinking and facts, and resolve dilemmas.
|Perception of Others||- See others as: self-interested, misinformed, unwilling to reason or cooperate.||- See others as: striving to act with integrity, thinking in ways I don't understand, but, if I did, I might learn from.|
|Consequences for Learning & Effectiveness||- We remain unaaware of the differences between our professed intentions and our actions
(between our "talk" and our "walk")
- Our maps and perceptions of events and situations are faulty
- We avoid issues, decisions, and actions
- Our efforts to control cause resentment
- Some problems and conflicts remain unsolved
- Our learning produces marginal improvements at best.
|- Disconfirmable processes
- Double-loop learning
- Frequent public testing of theories
- Increased long-term effectiveness
The following comments about Models I and II summarize my current viewpoint, which is consonant with Argyris' ideas.
I like to think of these two theories of actions as two contrasting, but not totally different ways of conceptualizing and approaching interpersonal interactions. Model II represents a clearly better, more effective way of acting, in my opinion. I prefer to think of the two models as existing on a continuum, rather than being a discontinuous binary duality - representing distinguishably different frames of reference, with somewhat different underlying values about theories of action. However, both share many common values and assumptions about individuals (which depend somewhat on the values and underlying assumptions of the individual(s) involved), e.g., I believe both models are consistent with the following:
Some ways in which Model II is different from Model I - the latter involves or requires:
Some implications of advocating and trying to produce more Model II behavior are that it:
I like to think of Model II as a desirable path or direction, rather than as a binary contrast with Model I. It is important to avoid a "good/bad" orientation or way of relating to individuals operating far on the Model I side. It is difficult to learn to act consistently on the Model II side, especially when there are time and emotional pressures. It even may not be desirable to operate always far on the Model II side, even if this were possible.
SOME PROBLEMS WITH MANAGERIAL DECISION MAKERS
There are some interesting problems with managerial decision making even by very competent, experienced decision-makers. For example, Rossmoore (1989, p.18) reports data on 69 action research projects in which he found (cf. similar observations by Argyris & Schon, 1974, 1996; and Culbert & McDonough, 1980):
Several problems exist in producing these conditions: (a) it is difficult, (b) it is counter-intuitive and uncomfortable, (c) it requires the explicit discussion of dilemmas and errors. We tend to hide our dilemmas and withhold information on errors - the very information we need to discover our dilemmas. Two pervasive dilemmas are:
SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR DECISION MAKERS
Each of us has a potent opportunity to improve our decision making and organizational performance through incorporating the following elements into our actions, as much and as often as possible:
|Last modified June 4, 2006||Copyright 1988-2006 Rex Mitchell|