Chris argyris 1

Editor's Notes

• #8: 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).
• #9: 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.
• #10: 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.