Work about Chris Argyris.

1. CHRIS ARGYRIS
“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. CHRIS ARGYRIS’
LIFE
 Born in Newark, New Jersey on July
16, 1923 and grew up in Irvington.
 During 2nd WorldWar 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. 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:
“InterventionTheory 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 OvercomingOrganizational Defenses (1990),
Knowledge for Action (1993).

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. ARGYRIS AND SCHON’S THEORY
ON CONGRUENCE AND LEARNING.
Hence…the concepts Espoused theory andTheory-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. *
 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 betweenTheory-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. 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:
 GoverningVariables
(or values)
 Action Strategies
 Intended and unintended Consequences for self
 Intended and unintended Consequences for others
 Action strategy effectiveness.

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. 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 PROCESSOF
SOLVINGA PROBLEM BY
ALTERINGA SITUATIONTO
MATCHTHE OWN
EXPECTATIONS
 When both, the governing
variable and the action
strategy have changed, this
would constitute double-
loop learning. In other
words: BEING ABLEOF
EXAMINETHE OWN
PERCEPTIONSOFTHE
SITUATIONANDALTER
THEMTOACHIEVEA MORE
DESIRABLEOUTCOME
 VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/wa
tch?v=wuMQWslvExA&featu
re=player_embedded#at=26
4

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. MODEL I AND MODEL II
Most people in fact, espouse Model II,
according toArgyris.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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….

16. THANKS A LOT FOR LISTENNING!
 ….ANY QUESTION?
MADE BY:
SERGIO GORDILLO
CARMEN MUÑOZ GONZÁLEZ-DELEITO