Chris argyris[1]


Published on

Work about Chris Argyris.

Published in: Business, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Chris argyris[1]

  1. 1. “concentrar la atención en las personas no porque dejen de interesarnos las organizaciones, sino porque son las personas quienes crean y mantienen las organizaciones”.
  2. 2. CHRIS ARGYRIS’ LIFE  Born in Newark, New Jersey on July 16, 1923 and grew up in Irvington.  During 2nd World War he joined the Signal Corps in the U.S. Army  He went to University at Clark, where He met Kurt Lewin.  Degree in Psychology (1947), and Ph D. in Organizational Behaviror from Cornell University .  Faculty memeber of Yeal University (1951-1971) and Harvard University. Currently director of the Monitor Company in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  3. 3. IDEOLOGY AND PUBLICATIONS  Early research explored the impact of formal organizational structures, control systems, and management on individuals: “Personality and Organizations”(1957), “Integrating the individual and Organizations” (1964).  Focus on organizational change, exploring the behavior of senior executive in organizations: “Interpersonal competence and Organizational Effectiveness”(1962), “Organization and Innovation” (1965)  Role of the social scientist as researcher and actor: “Intervention Theory and Method”(1970), “Action Science” (1985) [With Robert Ptman and Diana McLain]  His fourth major area: individual and organizational thinking.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, 1974 ; Organizational Learning, 1978; Organizational Learning II, 1996 – all with Donald Schön). He has also developed this thinking in Overcoming Organizational Defenses (1990), Knowledge for Action (1993).
  4. 4. HIS MODELS AND THEORIES  Argyris and Schon (1974) assert that people hold maps in their heads about how to plan, implement and review their actions. They further assert that few people are aware that the maps they use to take action are not the theories they explicitly espouse. Also, even fewer people are aware of the maps or theories they do use (Argyris, 1980).  Argyris and Schon suggest that there is a theory consistent with what people say and a theory consistent with what they do.
  5. 5. ARGYRIS AND SCHON’S THEORY ON CONGRUENCE AND LEARNING. Hence…the concepts Espoused theory and Theory-in-use: -Espoused theory: The world view and values people believe their behaviour is based on -Theory-in-use :The world view and values implied by their behaviour, or the maps they use to take action To reiterate they are suggesting that people are unaware that their theories-in-use are often not the same as their espoused theories, and that people are often unaware of their theories-in-use. These theories of action determine all deliberate human behaviour.
  6. 6. *  If People are unaware of the theories that drive their action (Theories-in-use), then how can they effectively manage their behaviour? Argyris (1980) suggests that effectiveness results from developing congruence between Theory-in-use and Espoused theory.  They have developed models which seek to explain the processes which create and maintain people's theory-in-use.
  7. 7. Models of theories-in-use There are a number of elements to Argyris and Schon's model which help explain how we link our thoughts and actions. These elements are:  Governing Variables (or values)  Action Strategies  Intended and unintended Consequences for self  Intended and unintended Consequences for others  Action strategy effectiveness.
  8. 8. THEORIES IN USE  The consequences of an action may be intended or unintended. When the consequences of the strategy employed are as the person intends, then there is a match between intention and outcome. Therefore the theory-in-use is confirmed. However, the consequences may be unintended, and more particularly they may be counterproductive to satisfying their governing values. In this case there is a dismatch between intention and outcome. Argyris and Schon suggest that there are two possible responses to this mismatch, and these are represented in the concept of single and double-loop learning.
  9. 9. SINGLE-LOOP AND DOBLE-LOOP  The change is in the action only, not in the governing variable itself. Such a process is called single-loop learning: A PROCESS OF SOLVING A PROBLEM BY ALTERING A SITUATION TO MATCH THE OWN EXPECTATIONS  When both, the governing variable and the action strategy have changed, this would constitute double- loop learning. In other words: BEING ABLE OF EXAMINE THE OWN PERCEPTIONS OF THE SITUATION AND ALTER THEM TO ACHIEVE A MORE DESIRABLE OUTCOME  VIDEO: tch? v=wuMQWslvExA&feature= player_embedded#at=264
  10. 10. MODEL I & MODEL II Model I is the group which has been identified as inhibiting double-loop learning. It has been described as being predominantly competitive and defensive (Dick & Dalmau, 1990). The governing Values of Model I are:  Achieve the purpose as the actor defines it  Win, do not lose  Suppress negative feelings  Emphasise rationality Primary Strategies are:  Control environment and task unilaterally  Protect self and others unilaterally Usually operationalised by:  Unillustrated attributions and evaluations eg. "You seem unmotivated"  Advocating courses of action which discourage inquiry eg. "Lets not talk about the past, that's over."  Treating ones' own views as obviously correct  Making covert attributions and evaluations  Face-saving moves such as leaving potentially embarrassing facts unstated Consequences include:  Defensive relationships  Low freedom of choice  Reduced production of valid information  Little public testing of ideas
  11. 11. MODEL I AND MODEL II Most people in fact, espouse Model II, according to Argyris. The governing values of Model II include:  "Valid information  Free and informed choice  Internal commitment Strategies include:  Sharing control  Participation in design and implementation of action Operationalised by:  Attribution and evaluation illustrated with relatively directly observable data  Surfacing conflicting views  encouraging public testing of evaluations Consequences should include:  Minimally defensive relationships  high freedom of choice  increased likelihood of double-loop learning"
  12. 12. MODEL I AND MODEL II:  No reason is offered for why most people espouse Model II, however it seems reasonable to assume that this is because Model II values are the more palatable in terms of the way we like to see our (Western) society. Freedom of Information Acts, the Constitution, America's bill of Rights, all seem to be drawing heavily from Model II values. Dick and Dalmau (1990) suggest that people often show a mix of Model I and Model II espoused theories. This seems probable, as most people will readily admit to being driven to win at least in some situations. Some professions in fact, are based almost entirely around the concept of winning and not losing, such as Law, sport and sales.
  13. 13. ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 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 . 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)
  14. 14. ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 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:  Phase 1 Mapping the problem as clients see it. This includes the factors and relationships that define the problem, and the relationship with the living systems of the organization.  Phase 2 The internalization of the map by clients. Through inquiry and confrontation the interventionists work with clients to develop a map for which clients can accept responsibility. However, it also needs to be comprehensive.  Phase 3 Test the model. This involves looking at what ‘testable predictions’ can be derived from the map – and looking to practice and history to see if the predictions stand up. If they do not, the map has to be modified.  Phase 4 Invent solutions to the problem and simulate them to explore their possible impact.  Phase 5 Produce the intervention.  Phase 6 Study the impact. This allows for the correction of errors as well as generating knowledge for future designs. If things work well under the conditions specified by the model, then the map is not disconfirmed.
  15. 15. ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING  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  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….