Chris Argyris: theories of action, double- loop learning and organizational learningcontents: introduction . On this page we examine the significance of the models he developed with Donald Sch. During the Second World War he joined the Signal Corps in the U. S. Army eventually becoming a Second Lieutenant (Elkjaer 2. He went to university at Clark, where he came into contact with Kurt Lewin (Lewin had begun the Research Center for Group Dynamics at M. I. T.). He graduated with a degree in Psychology (1. He went on to gain an MA in Psychology and Economics from Kansas University (1. Ph. D. In a distinguished career Chris Argyris has been a faculty member at Yale University (1. Beach Professor of Administrative Science and Chairperson of the department; and the James Bryant Conant Professor of Education and Organizational Behavior at Harvard University (1. As well as making a significant contribution to the literature Chris Argyris was known as a dedicated and committed teacher. Argyris was also a director of the Monitor Company in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Chris Argyris enjoyed the outdoors – and, in particular hiking (especially in the mountains of New Hampshire and across New England). He is reported as saying that his best thinking was done while taking long walks (which he did daily upto a year before his death). He died peacefully surrounded by his family, on Saturday, November 1. Boston Globe 2. 01. Chris Argyris’ early research explored the impact of formal organizational structures, control systems, and management on individuals (and how they responded and adapted to them). This research resulted in the books Personality and Organization (1. Integrating the Individual and the Organization (1. He then shifted his focus to organizational change, in particular exploring the behaviour of senior executives in organizations (Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness, 1. Organization and Innovation, 1. From there he moved onto a particularly fruitful inquiry into the role of the social scientist as both researcher and actor (Intervention Theory and Method, 1. Inner Contradictions of Rigorous Research, 1. Action Science, 1. Robert Putnam and Diana Mc. Lain Smith). Much of the focus on this page lies with his fourth major area of research and theorizing – in significant part undertaken with Donald Sch. Here the interest lies in the extent to which human reasoning, not just behaviour, can become the basis for diagnosis and action (Theory in Practice, 1. Organizational Learning, 1. Organizational Learning II, 1. Physical Science Concepts In Action Workbook Answer Key. 20-10-2016 2/2 Physical Science Concepts In Action Workbook Answer Key. Other Files Available to Download. Sign in now to see your channels and recommendations! Bibliography of writings, articles and books by Chris Argyris, by Action Science Network, dedicated to understanding and applying action science, a general strategy. Action Sensitive Knowledge for a Reflective Pedagogy. Human Science as Action Research; VII. Balancing the Research Context, Parts and Whole. Donald Sch. He has also developed this thinking in Overcoming Organizational Defenses (1. Knowledge for Action (1. As well as writing and researching, Chris Argyris has been an influential teacher. This is how Peter Senge (1. Argyris as a teacher. Despite having read much of his writing, I was unprepared for what I learned when I first saw Chris Argyris practice his approach in an informal workshop. Within a matter of minutes, I watched the level of alertness and . As the afternoon moved on, all of us were led to see (sometimes for he first time in our lives) subtle patterns of reasoning which underlay our behaviour; and how those patterns continually got us into trouble. I had never had such a dramatic demonstration of own mental models in action. Defines action research in terms of science education, delineates the process, provides the rationale for research into practice, and gives an example of putting this. Browse and Read Action Websters Timeline History 2004 N Z. Title Type simians websters timeline history 1745 - 2007 PDF pensions websters timeline history 1981 - 2003 PDF. This was exciting. The ability, demonstrated here, to engage with others, to make links with the general and the particular, and to explore basic orientations and values is just what Argyris talks about when exploring the sorts of behaviours and beliefs that are necessary if organizations are to learn and develop. Theories of action: theory in use and espoused theory. Our starting point is Argyris and Sch. This involves the way they plan, implement and review their actions. Furthermore, they assert that it is these maps that guide people’s actions rather than the theories they explicitly espouse. What is more, fewer people are aware of the maps or theories they do use (Argyris, 1. One way of making sense of this is to say that there is split between theory and action. However, Argyris and Sch. A theory of action is first a theory: . 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. The former can be described as theories- in- use. They govern actual behaviour and tend to be tacit structures. Their relation to action . The words we use to convey what we, do or what we would like others to think we do, can then be called espoused theory. 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 to which he gives allegiance, and which, upon request, he communicates to others. However, the theory that actually governs his actions is this theory- in- use. In other words, is there congruence between the two? Argyris (1. 98. 0) makes the case that effectiveness results from developing congruence between theory- in- use and espoused theory. For example, in explaining our actions to a colleague we may call upon some convenient piece of theory. We might explain our sudden rush out of the office to others, or even to ourselves at some level, by saying that a . The theory- in- use might be quite different. We may have become bored and tired by the paper work or meeting and felt that a quick trip out to an apparently difficult situation would bring welcome relief. A key role of reflection, we could argue, is to reveal the theory- in- use and to explore the nature of the . Much of the business of supervision, where it is focused on the practitioner’s thoughts, feelings and actions, is concerned with the gulf between espoused theory and theory- in- use or in bringing the later to the surface. This gulf is no bad thing. If it gets too wide then there is clearly a difficulty. But provided the two remain connected then the gap creates a dynamic for reflection and for dialogue. To fully appreciate theory- in- use we require a model of the processes involved. To this end Argyris and Sch. Any action is likely to impact upon a number of such variables – thus any situation can trigger a trade- off among governing variables. Action strategies: the moves and plans used by people to keep their governing values within the acceptable range. Consequences: what happens as a result of an action. These can be both intended – those actor believe will result – and unintended. In addition those consequences can be for the self, and/or for others. This is because there is a match between intention and outcome. There may be a mismatch between intention and outcome. In other words, the consequences may be unintended. They may also not match, or work against, the person’s governing values. Where something goes wrong, it is suggested, an initial port of call for many people is to look for another strategy that will address and work within the governing variables. In other words, given or chosen goals, values, plans and rules are operationalized rather than questioned. According to Argyris and Sch. An alternative response is to question to governing variables themselves, to subject them to critical scrutiny. This they describe as double- loop learning. Such learning may then lead to an alteration in the governing variables and, thus, a shift in the way in which strategies and consequences are framed. Thus, when they came to explore the nature of organizational learning. This is how Argyris and Sch. Single- loop learning is like a thermostat that learns when it is too hot or too cold and turns the heat on or off. The thermostat can perform this task because it can receive information (the temperature of the room) and take corrective action. Double- loop learning occurs when error is detected and corrected in ways that involve the modification of an organization’s underlying norms, policies and objectives. Single- loop learning seems to be present when goals, values, frameworks and, to a significant extent, strategies are taken for granted. Double- loop learning, in contrast, . In many respects the distinction at work here is the one used by Aristotle, when exploringtechnical andpractical thought. The former involves following routines and some sort of preset plan – and is both less risky for the individual and the organization, and affords greater control. The latter is more creative and reflexive, and involves consideration notions of the good. Reflection here is more fundamental: the basic assumptions behind ideas or policies are confronted. He argues that double- loop learning is necessary if practitioners and organizations are to make informed decisions in rapidly changing and often uncertain contexts (Argyris 1. As Edmondson and Moingeon (1. The underlying theory, supported by years of empirical research, is that the reasoning processes employed by individuals in organizations inhibit the exchange of relevant information in ways that make double- loop learning difficult – and all but impossible in situations in which much is at stake. This creates a dilemma as these are the very organizational situations in which double- loop learning is most needed. The next step that Argyris and Sch. The belief is that all people utilize a common theory- in- use in problematic situations. This they describe as Model I – and it can be said to inhibit double- loop learning. Model II is where the governing values associated with theories- in- use enhance double- loop learning. Model I and Model IIArgyris has claimed that just about all the participants in his studies operated from theories- in- use or values consistent with Model I (Argyris et al. The theories- in- use are shaped by an implicit disposition to winning (and to avoid embarrassment). The primary action strategy looks to the unilateral control of the environment and task plus the unilateral protection of self and others.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |