THEORIES OF ACTION: THEORY-IN-USE AND ESPOUSED THEORY
Argyris and Schon (1974) argue that people have mental maps with regard to how to act insituations. This involves the way they plan, implement and review their actions. Furthermore, they
assert that it is these maps that guides 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, 1980).
Having said this, people hold two different "theories of action" about effective behaviour: the one
they espouse and the one they actually use. One way of making sense of this is to say that there is
a split between theory and action.
However, Argyris and Schon suggest that two theories of action are involved.
Why is it important to know the distinction?
Making this distinction allows us to ask questions about the extent to which behaviour fits espoused
theory; and whether inner feelings become expressed in action. In other words is there congruence
between the two?
Argyris (1980) makes the case that effectiveness results from developing congruence between
theory-in-use and espoused theory. Much of the business of supervision, where it is focused on
one's thoughts, feelings and actions, is concerned with the gulf between espoused theory and
theory-in-use or bringing the latter to the surface. This gulf is not a 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 dialogue.
A model of the processes involved in Theory-in-Use
To fully appreciate theory-in-use we require a model of the processes involved.
Single and double-loop learning
For Argyris and Schon (1978:2), learning involves the detection and correction of error.
Single-loop learning. 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 are operationalized rather than questioned. According to
Argyris and Schon (1974), this is single-loop learning. Single-loop learning seems to be present
when goals, values, frameworks, and to a certain extent, strategies are taken for granted. The
emphasis is on 'techniques and making techniques more efficient'. Any reflection is directed towards
making the strategy more effective. It involves following routines and some sort of preset plans -
and is both less risky for the individual and organization, and affords greater control.
Double-loop learning. An alternative response is to question the 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 strategies and
consequences are framed. It involves the questioning the role of framing and learning systems
which underlie actual goals and strategies. This is more creative and reflective, and involves
consideration of the notions of the good. Reflection here is more fundamental: the basic
assumptions behind ideas or policies are confronted ... hypotheses are publicly tested ... processes
are dis-conformable not self-seeking. Thus, they came to explore the nature of organizational
learning.
The focus of much of Chris Argyris' intervention research has been to explore how organizations
may increase their capacity for double-loop learning. 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 1974; 1982; 1990). As Edmondson and Moingeon (1999: 160)
put it:
Model to enhance double-loop learning
The next step that Argyris and Schon take is to setup two models that describe features of theories-
in-use that either inhibit or enhance double-loop learning. 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 enhance double-loop learning. Model II is where the governing variables associated with
theories in use enhance double-loop learning.
Model I Argyris has claimed that just about all participants in his studies operated from theories-in-
use or values consistent with Model I (Argyris et al. 1985: 89). It involves making inferences about
another person's behaviour without checking whether they are valid and advocating one's views
abstractly without explaining or illustrating one's reasoning (Edmondson and Moingeon 1999: 161).
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. As such Model I leads to often deeply entrenched defensive
routines (Argyris 1990: 1993). Exposing actions, thoughts, feelings can make people vulnerable to
the reaction of others. Yet here, it is only by interrogating and changing the governing variables,
the argument goes, is it possible to produce new action strategies that can address changing
circumstances. In Model I, the core injunctions that people strive to satisfy their actions include:
Model I - the master theory-in-use - exists in all industrialized cultures. It applies to everyone in
those cultures - men and women, the rich and poor, the well and the poorly educated, the young
and the old. It is indifferent to religious, ethnic and racial variations. It is as if Model I were wired into
the human mind. Surface behaviour may vary, but the underlying theory-in-use does not. It
remains constant - and it scales.
Model II Chris Argyris looks to move people from a Model I to Model II orientation and practice -
one that fosters double-loop learning. He suggests that most people when asked, will espouse Model
II. As Anderson (1997) has commented, Argyris offers no reason why most people espouse Model
II. The significant features of Model II include the ability to:
It looks to emphasize common goals and mutual influence, encourage open communication, and to
publicly test assumptions and beliefs, and combine advocacy with inquiry (Argyris and Schon 1996;
Bolman and Deal 1997: 147-8).
As Edmondson and Moingeon (1999, 162) comment, employing Model II in difficult interpersonal
interactions 'requires profound attentiveness and skills for human beings socialized in a Model I
world'. While they are not being asked to relinquish control altogether, they do need to share that
control.
Organizational Learning
Chris Argyris and Donald Schon suggest that each member on an organization creates his or her
own representation of image of the theory-in-use of the whole (1978:16).
With this set of moves we can see how Chris Argyris and Donald Schön connect up the individual
world of the worker and practitioner with the world of organization. Their focus is much more
strongly on individual and group interactions and defenses (dynamic complexity) than
upon systems and structures (detailed complexity).
By looking at the way that people jointly construct maps it is then possible to talk about
organizational learning (involving the detection and correction of error) and organizational theory-in-
use.
For organizational learning to occur, ‘learning agents’, discoveries, inventions, and evaluations must
be embedded in organizational memory’ (Argyris and Schön 1978: 19). If it is not encoded in the
images that individuals have, and the maps they construct with others, then ‘the individual will have
learned but the organization will not have done so’ (op. cit.).
The next step is to argue that individuals using Model I create Organizational I (O-I)
learning systems. These are characterized by ‘defensiveness, self-fulfilling prophecies, self-fuelling
processes, and escalating error’ (Argyris 1982: 8). O-I systems involve a web of feedback loops that
‘make organizational assumptions and behavioural routines self-reinforcing – inhibiting “detection
and correction of error” and giving rise to mistrust, defensiveness and self-fulfilling prophecy’
(Edmondson and Moingeon 1999:161). In other words, if individuals in an organization make use of
Model I learning the organization itself can begin to function in ways that act against its long-term
interests. Indeed, in a very real sense systems can begin to malfunction. As Argyris and Schön
(1996: 28) put it, ‘The actions we take to promote productive organizational learning actually inhibit
deeper learning’. The challenge is, then, to create a rare phenomenon – an Organizational II (O-II)
learning system.
Here we come to the focus of organizational effort – the formulation and implementation of an
intervention strategy. This, according to Argyris and Schön (1978: 220-1) involves the
‘interventionist’ in moving through six phases of work:
By running through this sequence and attending to key criteria suggested by Model II, it is argued,
organizational development is possible. The process entails looking for the maximum participation of
clients, minimizing the risks of candid participation, starting where people want to begin (often with
instrumental problems), and designing methods so that they value rationality and honesty.
 | Espoused Theory | |
| Theory-in-Use | |
| Why is it important to know the distinction | |
| A model of the process used in Theory-in-Use | |
| Single and Double-loop learning | |
| Model to enhance Doube-loop learning | |
| Model I (Unilateral Action) | |
| Model II (Mutual Action) | |
| Organizational Learning |
Argyris and Schon (1974) argue that people have mental maps with regard to how to act in
assert that it is these maps that guides 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, 1980).
Having said this, people hold two different "theories of action" about effective behaviour: the one
they espouse and the one they actually use. One way of making sense of this is to say that there is
a split between theory and action.
However, Argyris and Schon suggest that two theories of action are involved.
- Espoused Theory: The words we use to convey what we do, or what we would like others
to think we do is called espoused theory. The espoused theory of action for that situation is
the answer he usually gives when someone is asked how he would behave under certain
circumstances. This is the theory of action to which he gives allegiance, and which, upon
request, he communicates to others.
Theory-in-use: The theory that actually governs his actions is his theory-in-use. They
govern actual behaviour and tend to be tacit structures. Their relation to action, 'is like the
relation of grammar-in-use to speech'; they contain assumptions about self, others, and
environment - these assumptions constitute a microcosm of science in everyday life.
Why is it important to know the distinction?
Making this distinction allows us to ask questions about the extent to which behaviour fits espoused
theory; and whether inner feelings become expressed in action. In other words is there congruence
between the two?
Argyris (1980) makes the case that effectiveness results from developing congruence between
theory-in-use and espoused theory. Much of the business of supervision, where it is focused on
one's thoughts, feelings and actions, is concerned with the gulf between espoused theory and
theory-in-use or bringing the latter to the surface. This gulf is not a 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 dialogue.
A model of the processes involved in Theory-in-Use
To fully appreciate theory-in-use we require a model of the processes involved.
- When the consequences of the strategy used are what the person wanted, then the theory-
in-use is confirmed. 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 not be intended. They may also not match, or work against, the
person's governing values. Argyris and Schon suggest two responses to this mismatch, and
these can be seen in the notion of single and double-loop learning.
Single and double-loop learning
For Argyris and Schon (1978:2), learning involves the detection and correction of error.
Single-loop learning. 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 are operationalized rather than questioned. According to
Argyris and Schon (1974), this is single-loop learning. Single-loop learning seems to be present
when goals, values, frameworks, and to a certain extent, strategies are taken for granted. The
emphasis is on 'techniques and making techniques more efficient'. Any reflection is directed towards
making the strategy more effective. It involves following routines and some sort of preset plans -
and is both less risky for the individual and organization, and affords greater control.
Double-loop learning. An alternative response is to question the 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 strategies and
consequences are framed. It involves the questioning the role of framing and learning systems
which underlie actual goals and strategies. This is more creative and reflective, and involves
consideration of the notions of the good. Reflection here is more fundamental: the basic
assumptions behind ideas or policies are confronted ... hypotheses are publicly tested ... processes
are dis-conformable not self-seeking. Thus, they came to explore the nature of organizational
learning.
The focus of much of Chris Argyris' intervention research has been to explore how organizations
may increase their capacity for double-loop learning. 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 1974; 1982; 1990). As Edmondson and Moingeon (1999: 160)
put it:
- 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 (skilled unawareness and skilled incompetence) 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 much is at stake. This creates
a dilemma as these are the very organizational situations in which double-loop learning is most
needed.
Model to enhance double-loop learning
The next step that Argyris and Schon take is to setup two models that describe features of theories-
in-use that either inhibit or enhance double-loop learning. 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 enhance double-loop learning. Model II is where the governing variables associated with
theories in use enhance double-loop learning.
Model I Argyris has claimed that just about all participants in his studies operated from theories-in-
use or values consistent with Model I (Argyris et al. 1985: 89). It involves making inferences about
another person's behaviour without checking whether they are valid and advocating one's views
abstractly without explaining or illustrating one's reasoning (Edmondson and Moingeon 1999: 161).
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. As such Model I leads to often deeply entrenched defensive
routines (Argyris 1990: 1993). Exposing actions, thoughts, feelings can make people vulnerable to
the reaction of others. Yet here, it is only by interrogating and changing the governing variables,
the argument goes, is it possible to produce new action strategies that can address changing
circumstances. In Model I, the core injunctions that people strive to satisfy their actions include:
- Define goals and try to achieve them - that is, not try to develop, with others a mutual
definition of shared purpose - Maximize winning and minimize losing - that is treating any change in goals, once they
are decided on, as a sign of weakness. - Minimize the generation or expression of negative feelings - which would be
interpreted as showing ineptness, incompetence or lack of diplomacy. - Be rational - that is, remaining objective and intellectual and suppressing feelings.
Model I - the master theory-in-use - exists in all industrialized cultures. It applies to everyone in
those cultures - men and women, the rich and poor, the well and the poorly educated, the young
and the old. It is indifferent to religious, ethnic and racial variations. It is as if Model I were wired into
the human mind. Surface behaviour may vary, but the underlying theory-in-use does not. It
remains constant - and it scales.
Model II Chris Argyris looks to move people from a Model I to Model II orientation and practice -
one that fosters double-loop learning. He suggests that most people when asked, will espouse Model
II. As Anderson (1997) has commented, Argyris offers no reason why most people espouse Model
II. The significant features of Model II include the ability to:
- Call upon good data and to make inferences
- It looks to include the views and experiences of participants rather than seeking to impose a
view upon a situation - Theories should be made explicit and tested, positions should be reasoned and opened to
exploration - Be seen as dialogical - and more likely to be found in settings and organizations that look to
shared leadership.
It looks to emphasize common goals and mutual influence, encourage open communication, and to
publicly test assumptions and beliefs, and combine advocacy with inquiry (Argyris and Schon 1996;
Bolman and Deal 1997: 147-8).
As Edmondson and Moingeon (1999, 162) comment, employing Model II in difficult interpersonal
interactions 'requires profound attentiveness and skills for human beings socialized in a Model I
world'. While they are not being asked to relinquish control altogether, they do need to share that
control.
Organizational Learning
Chris Argyris and Donald Schon suggest that each member on an organization creates his or her
own representation of image of the theory-in-use of the whole (1978:16).
- They need to know their place in the organization, it is argued.
- Chris Argyris and Donald Schön suggest that each member of an organization constructs his
or her own representation or image of the theory-in-use of the whole (1978: 16).
- The picture is always incomplete – and people, thus, are continually working to add pieces
and to get a view of the whole. They need to know their place in the organization, it is argued.
- An organization is like an organism each of whose cells contains a particular, partial, changing
image if itself in relation to the whole. And like such an organism, the organization’s practice
stems from those very images. Organization is an artifact of individual ways of representing
organization.
- Hence, our inquiry into organizational learning must concern itself not with static entities called
organizations, but with an active process of organizing which is, at root, a cognitive
enterprise. Individual members are continually engaged in attempting to know the
organization, and to know themselves in the context of the organization. At the same time,
their continuing efforts to know and to test their knowledge represent the object of their
inquiry. Organizing is reflexive inquiry….
- [Members] require external references. There must be public representations of organizational
theory-in-use to which individuals can refer. This is the function of organizational maps. These
are the shared descriptions of the organization which individuals jointly construct and use to
guide their own inquiry….
- Organizational theory-in-use, continually constructed through individual inquiry, is encoded in
private images and in public maps. These are the media of organizational learning. (Argyris
and Schön 1978: 16-17)
With this set of moves we can see how Chris Argyris and Donald Schön connect up the individual
world of the worker and practitioner with the world of organization. Their focus is much more
strongly on individual and group interactions and defenses (dynamic complexity) than
upon systems and structures (detailed complexity).
By looking at the way that people jointly construct maps it is then possible to talk about
organizational learning (involving the detection and correction of error) and organizational theory-in-
use.
For organizational learning to occur, ‘learning agents’, discoveries, inventions, and evaluations must
be embedded in organizational memory’ (Argyris and Schön 1978: 19). If it is not encoded in the
images that individuals have, and the maps they construct with others, then ‘the individual will have
learned but the organization will not have done so’ (op. cit.).
- In this organizational schema single-loop learning is characterized as when, ‘members of the
organization respond to changes in the internal and external environment of the organization
by detecting errors which they then correct so as to maintain the central features of theory-
in-use’ (ibid.: 18).
- Double-loop learning then becomes:
- … those sorts of organizational inquiry which resolve incompatible organizational norms by
setting new priorities and weightings of norms, or by restructuring the norms themselves
together with associated strategies and assumptions. (Argyris and Schön 1978: 18)
The next step is to argue that individuals using Model I create Organizational I (O-I)
learning systems. These are characterized by ‘defensiveness, self-fulfilling prophecies, self-fuelling
processes, and escalating error’ (Argyris 1982: 8). O-I systems involve a web of feedback loops that
‘make organizational assumptions and behavioural routines self-reinforcing – inhibiting “detection
and correction of error” and giving rise to mistrust, defensiveness and self-fulfilling prophecy’
(Edmondson and Moingeon 1999:161). In other words, if individuals in an organization make use of
Model I learning the organization itself can begin to function in ways that act against its long-term
interests. Indeed, in a very real sense systems can begin to malfunction. As Argyris and Schön
(1996: 28) put it, ‘The actions we take to promote productive organizational learning actually inhibit
deeper learning’. The challenge is, then, to create a rare phenomenon – an Organizational II (O-II)
learning system.
Here we come to the focus of organizational effort – the formulation and implementation of an
intervention strategy. This, according to Argyris and Schön (1978: 220-1) involves the
‘interventionist’ in moving through six phases of work:
By running through this sequence and attending to key criteria suggested by Model II, it is argued,
organizational development is possible. The process entails looking for the maximum participation of
clients, minimizing the risks of candid participation, starting where people want to begin (often with
instrumental problems), and designing methods so that they value rationality and honesty.
Have you seen links
that show espoused
theory but has
another
theory-in-use? Drop
us the link at
info@lopn.net
that show espoused
theory but has
another
theory-in-use? Drop
us the link at
info@lopn.net
Have you seen links
that show this gap?
Drop us the link at
info@lopn.net
that show this gap?
Drop us the link at
info@lopn.net
Governing Variables
The dimensions that people
are trying to keep within
acceptable limits. Any action
is likely to impact a number
of such variables. Thus any
situation can trigger a
trade-off among governing
variables.
The dimensions that people
are trying to keep within
acceptable limits. Any action
is likely to impact a number
of such variables. Thus any
situation can trigger a
trade-off among governing
variables.
Consequences
What happens as a result of
an action. These can be
both intended - those the
actor believe will result - and
unintended. In addition,
these consequences can be
for the self and/or others.
What happens as a result of
an action. These can be
both intended - those the
actor believe will result - and
unintended. In addition,
these consequences can be
for the self and/or others.
Action Strategies
The moves and plans used
by people to keep their
governing variables within
the acceptable range
The moves and plans used
by people to keep their
governing variables within
the acceptable range
Have you seen links
that show
single-loop learning
at work? Drop us
the link at
info@lopn.net
that show
single-loop learning
at work? Drop us
the link at
info@lopn.net
Have you seen links
that show Model II
at work? Drop us
the link at
info@lopn.net
that show Model II
at work? Drop us
the link at
info@lopn.net
Click here to share your thoughts, comments and reactions |
|
Further reading and references:
Argyris, M. and Schön, D. (1974) Theory in Practice. Increasing professional effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Landmark statement of 'double-loop' learning' and distinction between espoused theory and theory-in-action.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D (1985) Action Science, Concepts, methods, and skills for research and
intervention, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [The entire book is available for download from: Action Design: http://www.
actiondesign.com/action_science/index.htm].
Argyris, C. (1993) Knowledge for Action. A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change, San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Links
An interview with Chris Argyris – includes discussion of model I and model II organizations. (from Thought Leaders)
Action Science Network – includes an outline of action science (and model I and model II) and a detailed bibliography of
Argyris’ work.
Chris Argyris – useful, short biography by Bente Elkjaer
Chris Argyris – brief biography from Harvard Business Review.
Good communication that blocks learning – article by Argyris for Harvard Business Review, 1994
Motivation Theory –article reviewing Argyris’ concern with increasing interpersonal competence.
Chris Argyris – Page from the Monitor Group (where Argyris is a director) with links to some of his publications.
How to cite this article: Smith, M. K. (2001) 'Chris Argyris: theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational
learning', the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm. Last update:
Argyris, M. and Schön, D. (1974) Theory in Practice. Increasing professional effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Landmark statement of 'double-loop' learning' and distinction between espoused theory and theory-in-action.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D (1985) Action Science, Concepts, methods, and skills for research and
intervention, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [The entire book is available for download from: Action Design: http://www.
actiondesign.com/action_science/index.htm].
Argyris, C. (1993) Knowledge for Action. A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change, San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Links
An interview with Chris Argyris – includes discussion of model I and model II organizations. (from Thought Leaders)
Action Science Network – includes an outline of action science (and model I and model II) and a detailed bibliography of
Argyris’ work.
Chris Argyris – useful, short biography by Bente Elkjaer
Chris Argyris – brief biography from Harvard Business Review.
Good communication that blocks learning – article by Argyris for Harvard Business Review, 1994
Motivation Theory –article reviewing Argyris’ concern with increasing interpersonal competence.
Chris Argyris – Page from the Monitor Group (where Argyris is a director) with links to some of his publications.
How to cite this article: Smith, M. K. (2001) 'Chris Argyris: theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational
learning', the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm. Last update: