Chris Argyris’ Action Science

Argyris’ Action Science begins with the study of how human beings design their actions in difficult situations. Human actions are designed to achieve intended consequences and governed by a set of environment variables. How those governing variables are treated in designing actions are the key differences between single loop learning and double loop learning. When actions are designed to achieve the intended consequences and to suppress conflict about the governing variables, a single loop learning cycle usually ensues. On the other hand, when actions are taken, not only to achieve the intended consequences, but also to openly inquire about conflict and to possibly transform the governing variables, both single loop and double loop learning cycles usually ensue. (Argyris applies single loop and double loop learning concepts not only to personal behaviors but also to organizational behaviors in his models.)


Model 1 illustrates how single loop learning affect human actions. Model 2 describes how double loop learning affects human actions. The following Model 1 and Model 2 tables introduce these ideas (tables are from Argyris, Putnam & Smith, 1985, Ch. 3.) Other key books conveying Argyris’ approach include Argyris & Schon, 1974 and Argyris, 1970, 1980, 1994).


Table 1 Model 1 Theory-In-Use
{|class="wikitable"
|
!width=”60”|Governing Variables
!width=”60”|Action Strategies
!width=”60”|Consequences for the Behavioral World
!width=”60”|Consequences for Learning
!width=”60”|Effectiveness
|-
|Define goals and try to achieve them
|Design and manage the environment unilaterally (be persuasive, appeal to larger goals)
|Actor seen as defensive, inconsistent, incongruent, competitive, controlling, fearful of being vulnerable3, manipulative, withholding of feelings, overly concerned about self and others or under concerned about others
|Self-sealing
|Decreased effectiveness
|-
|Maximize wining and minimize losing
|Own and control the task (claim ownership of the task, be guardian of definition and execution of task)
|Defensive interpersonal and group relationship (dependence upon actor, little additivity, little helping of others)
|Single-loop learning
|
|-
|Minimize generating or expressing negative feelings
|Unilterally protect your self (speak with infeered categories accompanied by little or no directly observable behavior, be blink to impact on others and to the incongruity between rhetoric and behavior, reduce incongruity by defensive actions such as blaming, stereotyping, suppressing feelings, intellectualizing)
|Defensive norms (mistrust, lack of risk taking, conformitment, emphasis on diplomacy, power-centered competition, and rivalry)
|Little testing of theories publicly, much testing of theories privately
|
|-
|Be rational
|Unilaterally protest others from being hurt (withhold information, create rules to censor information and behavior, hold private meetings)
|Little freedom of choice, internal commitment, or risk taking
|
|}


Table 2 Model 2 Theory-In-Use

{|class="wikitable"
|
!width=”60”|Governing Variables
!width=”60”|Action Strategies
!width=”60”|Consequences for the Behavioral World
!width=”60”|Consequences for Learning
!width="60"|Consequences for Quality of Life
!width=”60”|Effectiveness
|-
|Valid information
|Design situations or environments where participants can be origins and can experience high personal causation (psychological success, confirmation, essentiality)
|Actor experienced as minimally defensive (facilitator, collaborator, choice creator)
|Disconfirmable processes
|Quality of life will be more positive than negative (high authenticity and high freedom of choice)
|
|-
|Free and informed choice
|tasks are controlled jointly
|Minimally defensive interpersonal relations and group dynamics
|Double-loop learning
|rowspan=”2”|effectiveness of problem solving and decision making will be great, especially for difficult problems
|Increase long-run effectiveness
|-
|Internal commitment to the choice and constrant monitoring of its implementation
|Protection of self is a joint enterprise and oriented toward growth (speck in directly observable categoies, seek to reduce blindness about own inconsistency and incongruity)
|Learning-oriented norms (trust, individuality, open confrontation on difficult issues)
|Public testing of theories
|
|
|-
|
|Bilateral protection of others
|
|
|
|}

References

General sources for action research

* Reason & Bradbury, Handbook of Action Research. London: Sage, 2001.

* Sherman & Torbert, Transforming Social Inquiry, Transforming Social Action: New paradigms for crossing the theory/practice divide in universities and communities. Boston, Kluwer, 2000.

* Woodman & Pasmore, Research in Organizational Change & Development series. Greenwich CT: Jai Press

* Addison-Wesley Series in Organization Development

Scholarly Journals

* Action Research

* Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

* Journal of Organizational Change Management

* Management Learning

Philosophical sources of action research

* Abram, D. 1996. The Spell of the Sensuous. New York: Vintage.

* Argyris, C. Putnam, R. & Smith, D. 1985. Action Science: Concepts, methods and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

* Gadamer, H. 1982. Truth and Method. New York: Crossroad.

* Habermas, J. 1984/1987. The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol.s I & II. Boston:Beacon.

* Hallward, P. 2003. Badiou: A subject to truth. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

** Malin, S. 2001. Nature Loves to Hide: Quantum physics and the nature of reality, a