Chris Argyris was a behavioral scientist born in 1923 who received degrees in psychology, economics, and organization behavior. He was a professor at Yale and Harvard, consulting for companies like IBM and DuPont. Argyris contributed theories of action regarding espoused theories versus theories-in-use, and single-loop versus double-loop learning. His work showed that people's actual behaviors often contradict their stated beliefs, and that double-loop learning, questioning underlying policies and objectives, allows organizations to learn from errors and uncover truths.
Chester Barnard The Functions of ExecutveFenil Sadaiya
Chester Barnard is best known as the author of The Functions of the Executive, perhaps the 20th century’s most influential book on management and leadership.
Entire book is classified into 4 sections:
1. Preliminary Considerations concerning Cooperative Systems
2. The Theory and Structure of Formal Organization
3. The Elements of Formal Organization
4. The Functions of Organizations in Cooperative systems
His theory is also known as Contribution- Satisfaction Equilibrium (Barnard’s Theory of Motivation)
Chester Barnard The Functions of ExecutveFenil Sadaiya
Chester Barnard is best known as the author of The Functions of the Executive, perhaps the 20th century’s most influential book on management and leadership.
Entire book is classified into 4 sections:
1. Preliminary Considerations concerning Cooperative Systems
2. The Theory and Structure of Formal Organization
3. The Elements of Formal Organization
4. The Functions of Organizations in Cooperative systems
His theory is also known as Contribution- Satisfaction Equilibrium (Barnard’s Theory of Motivation)
Peter F Drucker and His Contribution in ManagementNikhil Vyas
In this power point presentation, I try to collect all the main and important contribution made by Peter F Drucker and also gives the name of some of his publications etc.
A brief description on Michael Porter and his contributions to management. The value chain model, five force model and two key generic strategy are shown. A brief description about the life and career of Michael porter is also mentioned.
Peter F Drucker and His Contribution in ManagementNikhil Vyas
In this power point presentation, I try to collect all the main and important contribution made by Peter F Drucker and also gives the name of some of his publications etc.
A brief description on Michael Porter and his contributions to management. The value chain model, five force model and two key generic strategy are shown. A brief description about the life and career of Michael porter is also mentioned.
En esta presentación se da a conocer la Teoría de la Ciencia de la Acción Humana de Chris Argyris y Donald Schon. Ella con fines didácticos. Preparada por el Dr. Ramón García Moncada en el postdoctorado en Ciencias Gerenciales.
Using Loop Learning in developing Innovative Literature ReviewsCybernos, LLC
The literature review is a basic element of most research, including doctoral research. But most reviews are standardized, narrow interpretations of the literature, and rarely go "outside the box" of conventional thinking. In this paper and presentation, we consider the ways in which using a loop learning approach in literature reviews can generate new insights and generative directions for advancing understanding and new scholarship in a field of research.
Social Learning Theory of Career ChoiceSocial Learni.docxjensgosney
Social Learning Theory of
Career Choice
Social Learning Theory of Career Choice
There are several career development theories that help to explain
how people come to choose certain careers.
One prominent theory is the Social Learning Theory of Career
Choice introduced by Dr. John D. Krumboltz in the late 1970’s. Dr.
Krumboltz is presently a professor of Education and Psychology at
Stanford University and a leader in the theory of career counseling.
Social Learning Theory of Career Choice
Krumboltz’s theory of career choice postulates that “career
decisions are the product of the many learning experiences one has,
which are made possible through encounters with people,
institutions and events in a person’s environment.”
In short, he believed people choose their careers
based on what they have learned through the
experiences and influences they have had in
their lifetime.
Social Learning Theory of Career Choice
Krumboltz proposed that:
People bring certain genetic and socially inherited
attributes to their environments.
As people interact with their environments, learning takes place, and
self-views and beliefs are produced.
These self-views and beliefs, in turn, influence one’s work related
behavior and choices.
More specifically, Krumboltz states that there are
four main factors that influence career choice:
1. Genetics
2. Environmental conditions and events
3. Learning experiences
4. Task approach skills
Social Learning Theory of Career Choice
Social Learning Theory of Career Choice
How do these 4 factors influence an individual’s career trajectory?
1. Genetic influences includes – race, gender, physical appearance, cognitive and
physical abilities.
~These inherited qualities can play significant role in shaping an individual’s
propensity for a certain job or career field. Example: an exceptionally athletic
person may lean towards a sports related career.
2. Environmental conditions and events includes – social, cultural, political, and
economic forces.
~These are generally outside the control of any one individual. For example, certain
economic or political events can have an impact on an individual’s upbringing which
may in turn, affect what career path they choose -- or refrain from.
Example: a person who experiences a recession when growing up may wish to
ensure he/she pursues a career that will remain stable in tough economic times.
Or, perhaps that person would consider pursuing a degree in economics or political
science to determine if he/she can make a difference in addressing future economic
issues.
Social Learning Theory of Career Choice
How do these 4 factors influence an individual’s career trajectory?
3. Learning experiences -- includes instrumental and associative learning.
Instrumental - learning that takes place due to a direct action or a reaction to
certain circumstances. Positive and negative responses to behavior can
influence career choice.
Exampl.
Modern Database Management 12th Global Edition by Hoffer solution manual.docxssuserf63bd7
https://qidiantiku.com/solution-manual-for-modern-database-management-12th-global-edition-by-hoffer.shtml
name：Solution manual for Modern Database Management 12th Global Edition by Hoffer
Edition：12th Global Edition
author：by Hoffer
ISBN：ISBN 10: 0133544613 / ISBN 13: 9780133544619
type：solution manual
format：word/zip
All chapter include
Focusing on what leading database practitioners say are the most important aspects to database development, Modern Database Management presents sound pedagogy, and topics that are critical for the practical success of database professionals. The 12th Edition further facilitates learning with illustrations that clarify important concepts and new media resources that make some of the more challenging material more engaging. Also included are general updates and expanded material in the areas undergoing rapid change due to improved managerial practices, database design tools and methodologies, and database technology.
Oprah Winfrey: A Leader in Media, Philanthropy, and Empowerment | CIO Women M...CIOWomenMagazine
This person is none other than Oprah Winfrey, a highly influential figure whose impact extends beyond television. This article will delve into the remarkable life and lasting legacy of Oprah. Her story serves as a reminder of the importance of perseverance, compassion, and firm determination.
Artificial intelligence (AI) offers new opportunities to radically reinvent the way we do business. This study explores how CEOs and top decision makers around the world are responding to the transformative potential of AI.
The Team Member and Guest Experience - Lead and Take Care of your restaurant team. They are the people closest to and delivering Hospitality to your paying Guests!
Make the call, and we can assist you.
408-784-7371
Foodservice Consulting + Design
2. Chris Argyris
He is a behavioral scientist
Born in 1923
After serving in World War Second
Education:
Baccalaureate in psychology
Masters in economics
Doctorate in organization behavior
3. 1960s: Professor of Industrial Administration at Yale
1968: Moved to the Harvard Business School
1971: Became the James Bryant Conant Professor of Education
and Organization Behavior, a position he still holds
Consulting work: IBM, DuPont and Shell, along with the US
State Department, other US government bodies and several
overseas governments.
4. Contribution to Management
Theories of action
Espoused theories and theories-in-use
Single-loop and Double-loop learning
Organizational Learning
5. Theories of Action
Espoused theory: what people profess to believe
Theories-in-use: the theory they actually use when they take action in the
real world
He concluded that no matter how genuinely we believe in some approach
to a situation, but at the first sign of threat or embarrassment most of us
fall back on a deep-rooted, master programme of behaviour.
This behaviour is characterised by a powerful defensive attitude and a
tendency to blame others whilst struggling to maintain control and save
face
Not only do people slip easily into defensive routines, they are totally
unaware they are doing so.
The effectiveness results from developing congruence between theory-in-use
and espoused theory.
6. Model explaining the process of
developing theories-in use.
Linkage of our thoughts and actions.
Elements of the model:
•Governing Variables (or values)
•Action Strategies
• Intended and unintended Consequences for self
•Intended and unintended Consequences for others
•Action Strategy Effectiveness
8. Connecting double loop learning with
organizational learning
Inability to uncover errors and other unpleasant truths arises from
faulty organizational learning
This can be solved by double loop learning
Case study
When the plant managers and marketing people were detecting
and attempting to correct error that was single loop learning.
When they began to confront the question whether Product X
should be manufactured? that was double loop learning, because
they were now questioning underlying organization policies and
objectives.
9. Organizational learning
The constant learning of people within an organisation, when
reflected in the way the organisation itself changes and develops,
can reasonably be described as organisational learning - hence
the term learning organisation
Single-loop learning involves connecting a strategy for action with a result. For example, if an action we take yields results that are different to what we expected, through single-loop learning, we will observe the results, automatically take in feedback, and try a different approach.
This cyclical process of applying a new strategy to achieve an expected or desired outcome may occur several times and we may never succeed. Running out of strategies may push us to re-evaluate the deeper governing variables that make us behave the ways we do. Re-evaluating and reframing our goals, values and beliefs is a more complex way of processing information and involves a more sophisticated way of engaging with an experience. This is called double-loop learning and looks at consequences from a wider perspective.
Double-loop learning is seen as the more effective way of making informed decisions about the way we design and implement action (Argyris, 1974).
Double Loop Learning in Organizations
by Chris Argyris
Why are employees reluctant to report to the top that one of their company’s products is a “loser” and why can’t the vice presidents of another company reveal to their president the spectacular lack of success of one of the company’s divisions? The inability to uncover errors and other unpleasant truths arises from faulty organizational learning, says this author. Such habits and attitudes, which allow a company to hide its problems, lead to rigidity and deterioration. The author describes how this process can be reversed by a method he calls double loop learning.
Several years ago the top management of a multi-billion dollar corporation decided that Product X was a failure and should be dropped. The losses involved exceeded $100 million. At least five people knew that Product X was in serious trouble six years before the company decided to stop producing it. Three were plant managers who lived daily with the production problems. The two others were marketing officials, who perceived that the manufacturing problems could not be solved without expenditures that would raise the price of the product to the point where it would no longer be competitive in the market.
There are several reasons why this information did not get to the top sooner. At first, those lower down believed that with exceptionally hard work they might turn the errors into success. But the more they struggled the more they realized the massiveness of the original mistake. The next task was to communicate the bad news so that it would be heard above. They knew that, in their company, bad news would not be well received at the upper levels if it was not accompanied by suggestions for positive action. They also knew that top management was enthusiastically describing Product X as a new leader in its field. Therefore, they spent much time in composing memos that communicated the realities yet would not be too shocking to top managers.
Middle managers read the memos and found them too open and forthright. Because they had done the production and marketing studies that resulted in the decision to produce Product X, the memos from lower level management had the effect of questioning the validity of their analysis. They wanted time to “really check” these gloomy predictions and, if they were true, to design alternative, corrective strategies. If the pessimistic information was to be sent upward, they wanted it accompanied by optimistic action alternatives. Hence further delay.
Once the middle managers were convinced that the predictions were valid, they began to release some of the bad news, but they did so in measured doses. They managed the releases carefully to make certain they were “covered” if management became upset. The tactic they used was to cut the memos drastically and summarize the findings. They argued that the cuts were necessary because top management was always complaining about receiving long memos. The result was that the top received fragmented information underplaying the severity of the problem (not the problem itself) and overplaying the degree to which line middle management and the technical people were in control of the problem.
Top management, therefore, continued to speak glowingly about the product, partially to ensure that it would get the financial backing it needed from within the company. Lower level managers became confused and eventually depressed because they could not understand the continued top management support nor the reason for the studies that were ordered to evaluate the production and marketing difficulties they had already identified.
Their reaction was to reduce the frequency of their memos and the intensity of the alarm they expressed while simultaneously turning the responsibility for dealing with the problem over to middle management people. When local plant managers, in turn, were asked by their foremen and employees what was happening, the only response they gave was that the company was studying the situation and continuing its support. This bewildered the foremen, but led them to reduce their concern.
How Organizations Learn
I should like to use this case to explain a view of organizational learning. First, however, a few definitions and concepts are in order. Organizational learning is a process of detecting and correcting error. Error is for our purposes any feature of knowledge or knowing that inhibits learning. When the process enables the organization to carry on its present policies or achieve its objectives, the process may be called single loop learning. Single loop learning can be compared with a thermostat that learns when it is too hot or too cold and then turns the heat on or off. The thermostat is able to perform this task because it can receive information (the temperature of the room) and therefore take corrective action.
If the thermostat could question itself about whether it should be set at 68 degrees, it would be capable not only of detecting error but of questioning the underlying policies and goals as well as its own program. That is a second and more comprehensive inquiry; hence it might be called double loop learning. When the plant managers and marketing people were detecting and attempting to correct error in order to manufacture Product X, that was single loop learning. When they began to confront the question whether Product X should be manufactured, that was double loop learning, because they were now questioning underlying organization policies and objectives.
Double Loop Learning in Organizations
by Chris Argyris
Why are employees reluctant to report to the top that one of their company’s products is a “loser” and why can’t the vice presidents of another company reveal to their president the spectacular lack of success of one of the company’s divisions? The inability to uncover errors and other unpleasant truths arises from faulty organizational learning, says this author. Such habits and attitudes, which allow a company to hide its problems, lead to rigidity and deterioration. The author describes how this process can be reversed by a method he calls double loop learning.
Several years ago the top management of a multi-billion dollar corporation decided that Product X was a failure and should be dropped. The losses involved exceeded $100 million. At least five people knew that Product X was in serious trouble six years before the company decided to stop producing it. Three were plant managers who lived daily with the production problems. The two others were marketing officials, who perceived that the manufacturing problems could not be solved without expenditures that would raise the price of the product to the point where it would no longer be competitive in the market.
There are several reasons why this information did not get to the top sooner. At first, those lower down believed that with exceptionally hard work they might turn the errors into success. But the more they struggled the more they realized the massiveness of the original mistake. The next task was to communicate the bad news so that it would be heard above. They knew that, in their company, bad news would not be well received at the upper levels if it was not accompanied by suggestions for positive action. They also knew that top management was enthusiastically describing Product X as a new leader in its field. Therefore, they spent much time in composing memos that communicated the realities yet would not be too shocking to top managers.
Middle managers read the memos and found them too open and forthright. Because they had done the production and marketing studies that resulted in the decision to produce Product X, the memos from lower level management had the effect of questioning the validity of their analysis. They wanted time to “really check” these gloomy predictions and, if they were true, to design alternative, corrective strategies. If the pessimistic information was to be sent upward, they wanted it accompanied by optimistic action alternatives. Hence further delay.
Once the middle managers were convinced that the predictions were valid, they began to release some of the bad news, but they did so in measured doses. They managed the releases carefully to make certain they were “covered” if management became upset. The tactic they used was to cut the memos drastically and summarize the findings. They argued that the cuts were necessary because top management was always complaining about receiving long memos. The result was that the top received fragmented information underplaying the severity of the problem (not the problem itself) and overplaying the degree to which line middle management and the technical people were in control of the problem.
Top management, therefore, continued to speak glowingly about the product, partially to ensure that it would get the financial backing it needed from within the company. Lower level managers became confused and eventually depressed because they could not understand the continued top management support nor the reason for the studies that were ordered to evaluate the production and marketing difficulties they had already identified.
Their reaction was to reduce the frequency of their memos and the intensity of the alarm they expressed while simultaneously turning the responsibility for dealing with the problem over to middle management people. When local plant managers, in turn, were asked by their foremen and employees what was happening, the only response they gave was that the company was studying the situation and continuing its support. This bewildered the foremen, but led them to reduce their concern.
How Organizations Learn
I should like to use this case to explain a view of organizational learning. First, however, a few definitions and concepts are in order. Organizational learning is a process of detecting and correcting error. Error is for our purposes any feature of knowledge or knowing that inhibits learning. When the process enables the organization to carry on its present policies or achieve its objectives, the process may be called single loop learning. Single loop learning can be compared with a thermostat that learns when it is too hot or too cold and then turns the heat on or off. The thermostat is able to perform this task because it can receive information (the temperature of the room) and therefore take corrective action.
If the thermostat could question itself about whether it should be set at 68 degrees, it would be capable not only of detecting error but of questioning the underlying policies and goals as well as its own program. That is a second and more comprehensive inquiry; hence it might be called double loop learning. When the plant managers and marketing people were detecting and attempting to correct error in order to manufacture Product X, that was single loop learning. When they began to confront the question whether Product X should be manufactured, that was double loop learning, because they were now questioning underlying organization policies and objectives.
