Defensive Routines
by Chris Argyris
[in his book 'Flawed Advice and the Management Trap, p 7, 62-72]
by Chris Argyris
[in his book 'Flawed Advice and the Management Trap, p 7, 62-72]
A defensive routine is an institutionalized, ongoing, long-term behaviour where one behaves unilaterally toward
others and protectively toward oneself. It successful, such behaviour controls others and prevents one from
being controlled by them. It is activated to accomplish Model I core governing values. Under Model I, people
seek to (actions and strategies):
Consequences and outcomes:
To avoid developing such routines, practice open communication and question practices freely. When defensive
routines are in place, the leadership (whether of the entire organization or one of its units) must discover what
they are and then devise ways to eliminate them. Such worlds and environments are unlikely to alter their
governing variables, norms or assumptions spontaneously because doing so would require unwelcome and
uncomfortable inquiry. They can, as a results, rarely change unaided - from within.
They need at least an approximate picture of a new end state to aim toward, a map of a new end state to aim
toward, a map of how to move there (Model II) from Model I.
Chris Argyris asked a group of executives to describe a key problem in their company. Second, to describe an
imaginary meeting in which they were talking to the person of their choice about the problem and solutions. On
a split page, they wrote what they would actually say and on the other side wrote ideas and feelings they would
have but not communicate. Although the process became very involved, they did make some progress: they
became more supportive of each other; they did come to some group-owned conclusions. In addition, they
involved their staff in the process.
Dealing with defensive routines in a positive way can be done; it may be difficult and time-consuming. However
the outcomes are potentially developing people, unlocking the learning process, and achieving goals more readily.
others and protectively toward oneself. It successful, such behaviour controls others and prevents one from
being controlled by them. It is activated to accomplish Model I core governing values. Under Model I, people
seek to (actions and strategies):
- Design and manage the environment unilaterally - that is plan actions secretly and persuade or
cajole others to agree with one's definition of the situation; - Own and control the task;
- Unilaterally protect yourself - that is, keep yourself from being vulnerable by speaking in abstractions,
avoiding reference to directly observable events, and withholding underlying thoughts and feelings; - Unilaterally protect others from being hurt - in particular, by withholding important information,
telling white lies, suppressing feelings, and offering false sympathy. Moreover, do not test the assumption
that the other person needs to be protected or that the strategy of protection should be kept secret.
Consequences and outcomes:
 | Little public testing of the assumptions: The individual not only helps to create behavioral worlds that are | |
| artifacts of his theory-in-use but also cuts himself off from the possibility of disconfirming assumptions in his theory-in-use and thus from the possibility of helping to create behavioral worlds that disconfirm his starting assumptions about them. |
| Self-sealing processes: Public testing of theories-in-use must be accompanied by an openness to changing | |
| behaviour as a function of learning. The actor needs minimally distorted feedback from others. If others provide such feedback - especially if they do so with some risk - and if they experience that the actor is not open to change, they may believe that they have placed themselves in a difficult situation. Their mistrust of the actor will probably increase, but this fact will be suppressed. The result will be the creation of another series of self-sealing processes that again make the actor less likely to receive valid information the next time he tries to test an assumption publicly. |
| This too is a self-reinforcing process: In a world of defensiveness and escalating error, it is understandable | |
| that people will try to protect themselves by striving even harder to be in unilateral control, to win and not lose, to deal with the defensiveness of others ... And this in turn, means that such values as concern, caring, honesty, strength, and courage will likely become identified in ways that support Model I theory-in- use. |
| People are less likely to reflect on their Model I behaviour: As this dysfunctional cycle locks into place, | |
| people become highly skilled in their execution of Model I strategies. Their actions will "work" - in that they achieve their intended objectives while appearing spontaneous, automatic and effortless. As a result, the people in question will be even less likely to reflect on, learn about or modify their Model I behaviour. |
| Mixed messages about which discussion is taboo: It is an elaborate double-bind. Adverse views by one | |
| party about the other become embedded within organizations (e.g. Managers view staff as 'Staff are unrealistic and lacks in cost-consciousness' and staff view managers as 'the underlying problems is the responsibility of managers. Both views become embedded in the organizational norms that govern relationship between line and staff. These feed into a pattern of intergroup conflict typical of line-staff relationships - both see the problem as correctable - if only the other side would change its behaviour. Its purpose is to prevent embarrassment, threat, awkward situations, maintain the status quo and avoid unwanted change. How do we create mixed messages / double-bind? |
- Start a message that is inconsistent.
- Act as if the message is not inconsistent.
- Make the inconsistency undiscussable.
- Make the undicussability undiscussable.
- Again, act is you are not doing so.
| Under these conditions, defensive routines flourish and spread into organizational loops that are known to | |
| all and manageable by none. Here then, is one the most important causes of organizational rigidity and stickiness; defensive routines inexorably get stronger and stronger while the individuals responsible for them believe it is unrealistic or even dangerous to do much about them. The most common reaction to them is a sense of helplessness and the develop a cynical attitude about them: "Nothing will ever change around here." |
| Organizational defensive routines include Band-Aid (Fixes that Backfire and Shifting the Burden) and | |
| cosmetic solutions such as a company that professes to be a Total Quality company or a Learning Organization when, in fact, nothing has changed. They are doing business in the low-productivity way they have for many years. Equal opportunity organizations often still have a glass ceiling firmly in place. |
| Defensive routines happen not only in large organizations; they develop in departments and small work | |
| groups also. It matters because they block learning and slow productivity. |
To avoid developing such routines, practice open communication and question practices freely. When defensive
routines are in place, the leadership (whether of the entire organization or one of its units) must discover what
they are and then devise ways to eliminate them. Such worlds and environments are unlikely to alter their
governing variables, norms or assumptions spontaneously because doing so would require unwelcome and
uncomfortable inquiry. They can, as a results, rarely change unaided - from within.
They need at least an approximate picture of a new end state to aim toward, a map of a new end state to aim
toward, a map of how to move there (Model II) from Model I.
Chris Argyris asked a group of executives to describe a key problem in their company. Second, to describe an
imaginary meeting in which they were talking to the person of their choice about the problem and solutions. On
a split page, they wrote what they would actually say and on the other side wrote ideas and feelings they would
have but not communicate. Although the process became very involved, they did make some progress: they
became more supportive of each other; they did come to some group-owned conclusions. In addition, they
involved their staff in the process.
Dealing with defensive routines in a positive way can be done; it may be difficult and time-consuming. However
the outcomes are potentially developing people, unlocking the learning process, and achieving goals more readily.
