Moving Beyond Model I Behavior

Moving Beyond Model I Behavior:
Partnership Between Action Science and
Subject-Object Theory

2
In many ways, the world today barely resembles the one in
which most adults grew up or experienced their early
adulthood. The world around us is constantly changing.
With each day, new developments in business, health, and
technology leave the average adult facing new and ambiguous
challenges, as familiarity falls by the wayside. In other
words, not only is the individual facing an uncertain and
possibly stressful challenge, they face the loss of what
they know, were good at, and what perhaps defined them as a
person. What makes this scenario problematic is that the
majority of adults do not possess the mental capacity to
effectively meet these new challenges.
This paper examines two bodies of literature: Action
Science (Argyris) and Subject-object theory (Kegan).
Section I reviews the literature on Action Science,
including the theory and the methodology currently
implemented in helping adults overcome Model I behavior
(MI). Section II examines the limitations of the current
Action Science methodology. Section III reviews literature
on Subject–object theory. Section IV examines the
potential for partnership between Action Science and
Subject-object theory, including the promising ways in
which Subject-object theory components may improve the

3
efficacy of the current Action Science methodology.
Section V closes this Qualifying paper with conclusions and
implications for further research.

4
Section I
Action Science
Our theory of action can enhance human activity,
responsibility, self-actualization, learning and
effectiveness and make it likely that organizations will
begin to decrease the movement toward entropy and increase
the forces toward learning and health. We present a view
of man actively seeking to master himself and his
environment.
Argyris & Schön
Argyris and Schön’s theory of action addresses how
individuals act in ways that consistently fail to produce
their desired results. Argyris describes this work as an
“inquiry into how human beings design and implement action…
it is a science of practice...and calls for basic research
and theory building that are intimately related to social
intervention” (Argyris et al., 1985, p. 4). Marsick and
Watkins (1993) report that “Action Science helps people see
their behavior from a systems view - that is, how their
actions are shaped by culture” (p. 131). In other words,
Marsick and Watkins’s work examines how the individual’s
environment and social structure inform the way they take
action in the larger world.

5
Argyris and Schön have spent decades studying human
behavior, developing the theories of Action Science and
Model I (MI). In addition, the authors have also
identified the sources and consequences of individual
ineffectiveness, including the impact on individuals,
organizations, and the larger world. Perhaps more
importantly, however, they have also endeavored to
ascertain what adults may be able to do in order to
overcome MI. Argyris and Schön’s (1974, 1978) theory of
action asserts that the preponderance of adults, including
themselves, (conversation with Argyris, 1994) draws or
constructs meaning and takes action from a deeply
entrenched set of governing values. They describe these
values as a narrow set of emotional dimensions that require
adults to exert a great deal of time and energy in order to
keep them within personally acceptable limits. The authors
report that these governing values are always present.
However, it is when the individual is challenged to perform
effectively, exposed to criticism, or at risk of public
embarrassment that these values, mental models or default
settings are prevalent. Argyris and Schön propose that:

6
People hold theories of action about how to produce
consequences they intend... and these are essentially
theories about human effectiveness. By effectiveness,
we mean the degree to which people produce their
intended consequences in ways that make it likely that
they will continue to produce intended consequences…
therefore; we design the actions that we intend to
produce (p. 83).
The concept of mental models is examined in other works as
well, often presented as collections of routines, scripts
and schemata for selecting possible actions, cognitive maps
of a domain, and typologies for categorizing experiences
(Chen and Zhang 2005). Argyris and Schön (1974) describe
these models as “mental maps” individuals draw from in
order to determine how they should act in any given
circumstance, be it contemplating action, taking action, or
reflecting on action. Remarkably, the mental maps from
which we take action remain largely in our
subconsciousness, only available to us through critical
reflection and analysis of our behaviors. One can think of
these maps / models as a mental autopilot system that
simply “kicks in” without the individual’s awareness.
Langer (1989) confirms our ability to make decisions and
take action based on subconscious data or what she calls
‘automatic behavior.’ “People engage in a great deal of
complex behavior without consciously paying attention to
it” (p.13).

7
MI behavior, as described by Argyris and Schön, (1978) is
comprised of four governing values with predicable
resulting behavior. (See Appendix B for chart of MI
Values) Argyris (1993) claims that just about all the
participants in his studies operated from Theories-in-use
or values consistent with MI. The governing values of MI
include:
Unilateral Control: Making decisions without
consideration of differing opinions, ideas or data.
 The group member, who formulates a strategy,
divides the workload and creates assignments for
the other team members without ever talking to
any of them...decision making in a vacuum.
Win, Don’t Lose: An individual who must “win” or
appear right; achieve his or her intended outcome at
any cost.
 The individual who will employ any strategy to be
right...bullying, not taking a position, or
constantly changing positions, “I didn’t want to
say anything earlier, but I thought that wasn’t
the right choice.”
Maximize Comfort / Minimize Negative Emotion: People-
pleasing and / or avoiding conflict.
 The individual who will not express an opinion or
take a stand in order to avoid conflict at any
cost, “whatever you want is fine with me...no
really, you decide.”
Emphasizing Rationality: Removing emotion from
interactions and behaving according to what the
individual considers rational / appropriate.

8
 The individual who acts dispassionately and / or
emotionally uninvolved when “discussing” a heated
and / or controversial topic.
Argyris and Schön believe that in addition to operating
from the four governing values previously listed, adults
also hold two theories of action, his or her Espoused
Theory, and his or her Theory-in-use. One’s Espoused
Theory is what they say they believe, e.g., “Children’s
education should be our number one priority, and we should
support it in everyway!” Their Theory-in-use is what they
actually do, e.g., voting against all educational tax
increases, or spending their evening watching television
rather than helping their children with homework.
Therefore, individuals create a gap or mismatch between
what they say they believe--and what they actually do. It
is this mismatch, which renders them ineffective. Argyris
and Schön describe this phenomenon as follows:
When someone is asked how he would behave under
certain circumstances, the answer he usually gives is
his Espoused Theory of action for that situation.
This is the theory of action to which he gives his
allegiance, and which, upon request, he communicates
to others. However, the theory that actually governs
his actions is his Theory-in-use (Argyris and Schon
1974: 6-7).
Argyris asserts that effectiveness results from congruency.
He goes on to say that, “congruence means one’s Espoused
Theory matches their Theory-in-use” (1974, p. 23).

9
Unfortunately, putting our Espoused Theories into action is
much more difficult than one might assume. As stress
levels increase, an individual’s tacit MI values override
his or her Espoused Theories about how to behave.
Those tacit values cause individuals to employ a
strategy that furthers their personal agenda and
"winning”, often at the expense of interpersonal
relationships. The MI values temporarily enable
individuals to feel in control of their environment
while simultaneously producing a host of unintended
consequences. Ultimately, the MI strategy they use to
avoid stress or conflict may make the situation worse
-- and result in actions that produce more
ineffectiveness and subsequent stress (1974, p. 23).
Thus, as stress levels increase, the individual reverts to
the underlying values he or she operates from rather than
the values he or she publicly espouses. As a result, the
individual behaves in ways that are inconsistent with his
or her values. This increases the already existing
situational stress and mounting tension caused by the
individual’s continuing / escalating mental dissonance. MI
illustrates human behavior as a control strategy for
getting what the individual wants.
Three key things make this behavior problematic. First,
adults usually want to be right; therefore, they avoid
risking personal competency and opening themselves up to
potential embarrassment. Second, in order to remain in

10
control, avoid embarrassment and achieve “being right”, the
individual must eliminate the admission of new data,
especially if it is contradictory. Third, the individual
must impede discussion of new ideas and largely force his
or her opinions on others in order to remain in “control.”
It is these strategies which prevent individuals from
producing his or her intended results, keeping the
individual largely ineffective, and preventing the majority
of adults from learning particularly when they are faced
with a stressful or high-stakes situation. The
individual’s need for control has effectively limited or
entirely blocked his or her learning.
Argyris and Schön (1978) characterize learning as “the
detection and correction of error” (p. 2). Argyris goes
on to define the process of reflection on learning and
mismatches between intentions and results as “Single-loop
learning”. For example, in circumstances where adults are
frustrated by a problem or stressful situation, the
majority will revert back to their mental default unaware
that they have utilized a control strategy or plan of
action that will solve the problem without having to
examine the “governing values” that initially created the
problem or circumstance. Governing values are the

11
combination of the individual’s assumptions, thoughts, or
hypotheses at any given moment. In other words, if an
individual engages his or her mental autopilot, given
goals, values, plans, and rules are instantly
operationalized rather than examined or questioned.
According to Argyris and Schön (1974), this is Single-loop
learning. To demonstrate this behavior, imagine a manager
who takes on too many duties rather than delegating to his
direct reports. He knows that he cannot possibly complete
all the tasks himself but finds it “easier” to do them
personally rather than training others to perform the extra
tasks, particularly as the pressure for time increases.
This strategy will likely result in:
 Incomplete tasks
 Errors
 The manager’s attention placed ineffectively
 Weak, ineffective leadership
 Untrained and underutilized staff
 Lost productivity
 Feelings of mistrust and incompetence on part of
the staff

12
In comparison, Double-loop learning, as described by the
authors, is the ability of an individual to question and
publicly test his or her governing values through critical
scrutiny and discussion. By submitting one’s governing
values to the process of public scrutiny and discussion,
the individual’s learning may then include the ability to
modify his or her underlying governing values and,
therefore, create the desired shift in the way he or she
frames strategies, actions and the subsequent impact.
The manager from the previous example would behave much
differently when engaging in Double-loop learning. When
faced with too many tasks, the manager would critically
reflect upon the situation, including reflecting on the
possibility that his own beliefs and governing values are
contributing to the problem. He would then be better able
to take the time necessary to train his staff to
effectively perform the task/s at hand, despite the
pressure for time. This strategy would likely result in:
 Complete tasks
 Effectively completed tasks
 The manager’s attention placed effectively
 Strong leadership

13
 Well trained and effectively utilized staff
 Increased productivity
 Feelings of trust and competence on part of the
staff
 Increased learning of staff the next time the
situation arises.
Drawing from the theory that individuals “design” actions,
Argyris and Schön, (1978) present characteristics which
have a greater possibility of producing behaviors
consistent with Double-loop learning. The authors call
these characteristics “Model II Theory-in-use” (p. 60-63).
The table below illustrates actions congruent with Single-
loop learning and Double-loop learning.
Table I provides a visual representation of Single- and
Double-loop learning.
Table I: Single- and Double-loop Learning
Single-loop Learning
Double-loop Learning
Governing
Variables
Action
Strategies
Outcomes

14
Argyris asserts that the action strategies most prevalent
in MI include “the need to advocate one’s position;
evaluate the actions of others; and, attribute cause to
whatever one is trying to understand” (p. 53). The author
also asserts that Model I “...tells individuals to craft
their positions, evaluations, and attributions in ways that
inhibit inquiries into them and tests of them with others’
logic” (p. 52). Thus, according to Argyris, the
consequences for employing a MI strategy include limited
learning, defensiveness, and misunderstanding.
Argyris goes on to describe additional problematic features
of employing MI strategies:
First, they can be used to cover a lot of different
meanings. For example, “blunt” and “insensitive” can
apply to many different sentences. The confusion
around meaning often creates misunderstanding and
because the individual is employing MI strategies they
cannot take action toward clarification because such a
move would place their competency at risk…they would
not be able to “be right”. A second feature is that
governing values consistent with MI are usually
learned at an early age and supported by the
individual’s social structure, culture, and / or the
authority figures present in his or her life (Argyris,
1982, p. 12-13).
For example, an adult woman who engages in the MI strategy
of maximize comfort / minimize negative emotion may well
have been told as a child that “good little girls don’t

15
talk back” or “you better not rock the boat.” Likewise, an
adult male engaging in win/ don’t lose, may have been told
as a child that “men are in charge” or “be a man...don’t
back down.” All of these statements are culturally
accepted norms for many generations.
Hence, most of us learn to use the same concepts in
similar ways. Soon we take them for granted. They
become obvious and concrete, not abstract and
questionable (Argyris, 1982, p. 12-13).
As a result, many individuals enter adulthood without
having ever critically reflected on the values that drive
their behavior.
In stark contrast to MI values, Model II values include:
valid information, informed choice, and vigilant monitoring
of the implementation of the choice in order to detect and
correct error. Perhaps most importantly, MII implies a
willingness to be wrong and the ability to openly and
frankly discuss where the individual may become more
effective in his or her life. Argyris goes on to tell us
that Model II action strategies are: advocacy, inquiry, and
productive reasoning. (See Appendix C for chart of MII
values) Argyris (1974) describes Model II behaviors as
being:

16
crafted into action strategies that openly illustrate
how the actors reached their evaluations or
attributions and how they crafted them to encourage
inquiry and testing by others. As a consequence
…Double-loop learning is facilitated (p. 55).
According to the author, individuals who become aware of
their Model I governing variables, action strategies, and
the resulting consequences, can then implement “productive
reasoning” or a Model II action strategy in order to detect
and correct error and achieve Double-loop learning.
Argyris writes:
Holding a Model I Theory-in-use makes it highly likely
that reasoning used for any difficult threatening
issues, whether technical, goal, intergroup,
organizational, or interorganizational level, will
have counterproductive features that lead to self-
fulfilling, self-sealing, error-escalating processes
(Argyris, 1982 p. 14).
While Argyris’ work often takes place in the context of
organizations, the methodology is also applicable to
individual development. Adding to the description of
learning, Argyris (2004) writes,
To learn is to acquire, information, knowledge, or
wisdom’ (Ackoff 1999:164). Adaptation is learning
that is required to maintain and increase efficiency
and effectiveness. In order for organizations to
learn, they require a relatively complete learning
system that detects errors, diagnoses them, and
presents corrective actions. Learning systems require
information, knowledge and understanding. The focus
is on the context of the decision making because that

17
is the only context in which the learning can take
place (p.191-192).
Further drawing from Ackoff (1999), Argyris goes on to
describe what he considers central components of a learning
system. Provided below are illustrations of these points
based on Double-loop learning:
1. Generate data, information, knowledge, or
understanding about the behavior (generate valid data
through being open to new and / or contradicting
information and ideas).
2. Messages filtered for relevance (be aware of personal
biases and experiences).
3. If information, knowledge, or understanding is
incomplete or not understandable, generate new
requests. Continue until the information and
understanding is adequate. (Ask questions and mine
data and information until one has a complete
understanding of the situation or problem) (Argyris,
2004, p. 192).
Argyris goes on to provide a set of instructions for
detecting errors and the appropriate actions to take:
1. If information, knowledge, or understanding is in
error, change the support system so that the error is
not repeated (Seek out individuals and groups that are
willing to provide direct and accurate feedback and
support).
2. If decision-making is faulty, change the decision-
making process (Move toward a system that is based on
Double-loop characteristics while continuously
evaluating and reevaluating the process. Publicly
test assumptions and correct misunderstandings).

18
3. If the decision-making is correct but the
implementation is faulty, change the behavior of those
responsible (Create a learning environment that
emphasizes the importance of action) (Argyris 2004, p.
192).
Argyris (2004) later adds, ”the attempt is to make the
‘sense-making process’ visible" (p. 180). Argyris’ work
has changed relatively little since he first introduced the
world to Action Science and the concepts of MI and MII.
The overall goal of this work continues to be making
explicit the tacit reasoning and underlying values human
beings employ.
Action Science Methodology
Eliminating the gap or mismatch between one’s Espoused
Theory and Theory-in-use is the key objective of training
programs and seminars seeking to help adults overcome MI.
The methodology utilized in this process is heavily
dependent on the Left-Hand / Right Hand Column Case Study
Methodology. The method involves writing a real-time case
study that draws from actual dialogue and unspoken thoughts
and feelings. This allows the facilitator/s to gain a more
accurate window into the participant's thinking and
behavior in a real-time situation. Argyris (2004) provides
instructions for completing a case. Provided below are the
key concepts of this methodology.

19
Left Hand/ Right Hand Case Rationale and Method
The case provides relatively directly observable data such
as conversation. This data is the production of actions,
and therefore become the basis for inferring theories-in-
use.
1. It produces data in ways that make clear the actors’
responsibility for the meaning produced. When used
properly, the actors cannot make the research
instrument responsible for the data they produced.
(For example, ‘I didn’t really mean that’).
2. It produces data about the respondents’ causal
theories, especially those that are tacit because they
are often taken for granted.
3. It provides opportunities for the respondents to
change their responses without impairing the validity
of the inferences being made (Argyris 2004, p. 131-
132).
After describing the value of writing a case in this style,
Argyris goes on to explain how a left hand/ right hand case
is written:
1. In one paragraph, describe a key problem as you see
it.
2. Assume you could talk to whomever you wish in order to
solve the problem, in a paragraph or so, write out the
strategy you would use in this meeting.

20
3. Next, divide your page into two columns. On the
right-hand side, describe how you would begin the
meeting—what did or would you actually say. Then
write what you believe the other(s) did or would say.
Then write your response. Continue writing this
scenario for two or so double spaced, typewritten
pages.
4. In the left-hand column, write any idea or feeling
that you would have that you would not communicate for
whatever reason (Argyris 2004, p. 131-132).
In short, the case includes:
 A statement of the problem;
 The intended strategy to begin to solve the problem;
 The actual conversation that did or would occur as
envisioned by the writer;
 Information that the writer did not or would not
communicate for whatever reason (Argyris 2004, p. 131-
132).
Drawing from Argyris’ case directions, below is an example
of what the case study guidelines look like in an
organizational context, followed by a sample participant
case study (Cambridge Leadership Group 2000). This
illustration provides insight into what the facilitator and
participant is working with when attempting to overcome MI
behavior. This case is just one representation. Each

21
member of the group would also provide a personal case to
be facilitated publicly as a learning group.
Left-Hand/Right-Hand Case Guidelines
Think about a leadership, coaching, or influence challenge,
dilemma, or problem where you were not as effective as you
had intended. Use the template below to describe a
challenge that:
1. You’re unable to “solve” right now,
2. Matters to you personally, and
3. Can have a serious impact on the business.
You may choose to write a ‘future’ case, or a conversation
that you would like to have, but has yet to happen. Follow
the same guidelines using your best hunches to write the
responses of the other person(s) involved. Writing it
should only take you about 30 minutes total to complete.
Use the following template for your case.
1. The Challenge
Write a brief (1 to 2 paragraph) description of the
situation. Be sure to include some explanation of the
stakes involved—the impact (both positive and negative) on
the business, yourself, and other critical players.

22
2. Goals & Strategies
Briefly, describe your goal(s) and strategies going into
the situation.
 What would you consider a successful outcome of the
situation?
 What was your basic strategy for achieving your
goal(s)?
3. Left Hand/Right Hand Conversations
Using the two-column format below, present one or two pages
of the dialogue that transpired between you and the other
person(s). Focus on the most critical aspect of the
conversation.
 The right hand column should reflect the actual
conversation that occurred between you and the other
person(s) in the situation. Write it as best you can
remember the conversation occurring.
 The left hand column should describe what you were
thinking and feeling but not saying. This column is
just as important as the right hand ‘dialogue’. Be
sure to take the time to remember the thoughts and
feelings you experienced, and capture them in full.
MY LEFT HAND COLUMN RIGHT HAND COLUMN

23
What I was thinking & feeling….
but not saying
What was actually said
(Actual Dialogue)
4. Outcomes
To what extent did you achieve your goals or objectives?
5. Trips & Traps
Reflecting on your case, what personal patterns, habits, or
tendencies are getting in your way? What will you have to
overcome in yourself to be more effective?
SAMPLE CASE STUDY -- THE CASE OF THE CEO
Note: This example should give you a sense of how to use
the template not what to write about. Write about a real
challenge that personally matters to you and that can have
a serious impact on your personal effectiveness.
1. The Challenge
I want to meet with Larry, who is one of my direct reports,
to counsel him to take a more proactive, hands-on,”
driving” approach to managing his group of subordinates.
He plays a critical role, and so much depends on his
effectiveness, and that of his team. We’ve missed some
critical deadlines because he didn’t manage the process as
proactively as he could have, and should have. I don’t
want this to happen again. His work is the highest

24
quality, and he is highly trustworthy and loyal, all “A-
list critical” in our firm. But, as a leader, he is
somewhat disorganized and passive, even detached, in time-
critical situations.
2. Goals and Strategies
I want Larry to be very clear about my expectations,
without offending him and his sensibilities. To some
degree, we’re very reliant on him, so we don’t want to
alienate him or get rid of him. We meet regularly, so I’m
making this ‘future case study’ conversation part of a
regularly scheduled meeting. This is how I think the
conversation would occur:
3. Left Hand/Right Hand Conversations
MY LEFT HAND COLUMN
What I was thinking and feeling….
but not saying
RIGHT HAND COLUMN
What was actually said
(Actual dialogue)
Where is his head on this issue?
He obviously doesn’t sense that it’s
an issue for me.
Ugh. Passive! Let me be more
direct!
That’s true. But it’s like that for
everyone. I wish he were more
immediately solution oriented. Is
there something external to him that
is blocking his efforts?
P: Larry, how are you feeling about
managing your team?
L: It’s a great team – a lot of
bright people. It’s a challenge to
manage them, but other than that, it
is fine.
P: Well, I’m concerned about the
deadlines that we’ve been missing
lately.
L: (sigh) I know. There’s just so
much going on at once.
P: What can we do collectively to
manage the projects so that we make
the deadline? It’s getting
difficult for me to keep making

25
He needs to “step-up” and take the
lead in these situations, and tell
others “to get in line” because of
other priorities are already in the
queue.
He needs to be the heat shield for
his team. He needs to be the
gatekeeper for all requests.
Yeah, well, sorry, but we’re client
driven. They call every day and
change our plans. It is what it is.
Get used to it.
He has to take the initiative to
drive the priority realignment
process as it happens.
Riiiiiiiiiiight…..
He needs to push down more to his
subordinates. I don’t want to be
the only driver in this process. I
don’t want to relinquish involvement
in the weekly meeting.
Ugh! Passive! I want more
“Zip”!!!!!!
I want HIM to make these
suggestions.
Okay, good. An interactive
response! Phew!
My sense of urgency – I hope it is
obvious!
We better………
excuses to the clients.
L: I know. Our priorities keep
getting changed every day. It’s
hard to know which is most important
from one day to the next.
P: Well, when you have your
meetings with your team, are you
driving the process enough? Are you
making it clear that you want your
crew to stay focused on the
priorities you give them?
L: Well, we do in the meetings.
But even my priorities change from
day to day.
P: Then you need to meet with me,
and/or meet with your team to
realign the workload, so we can have
a “heads-up” on deadline fall-offs.
L: You’re right. I really need to
have the fixed time to get and stay
organized.
P: You know what needs to be done
because we review it weekly at the
senior management team meeting. I’m
looking for you to be the leader of
the implementation process
thereafter.
L: Okay.
P: Then, this is what I’d like you
to do. Hold you regular meetings
and copy me on the minutes each
week. Also, please start working on
a project plan for each of your
team’s projects and copy me on that
at our meetings.
L: Good, I’ll do that. That will
help the team stay focused, too.
P: Larry, you need to organize and
drive the process. That’s why you
are in the job, so I am counting on
you to run it that way so I can
focus the business on other
important priorities.
L: Okay, we’ll do it.

26
4. Outcomes
I think that Larry understands what I want from him. But,
I’m not sure. My sense is that I’m not getting my message
across to the depth that I feel it. I want leaders to
lead, but maybe I’m not overt enough, or mean enough.
There is plenty of respect, but maybe there’s not enough
fear. I’ll keep a close eye on how things progress in the
next weeks. If it doesn’t change, I’ll have a more
difficult decision to make.
5. Trip & Traps
I think I tend to use the word “we” when I really mean him…
I think this lets him off the hook and may confuse him. I
also prefer that my people like me… I’m the guy people see
as rational, level headed, that they can come to. That may
make it hard for me to say what needs to be said.
The objective of this unique type of case is three-fold.
First, the individual is coached through an attempt to make
the gap between Espoused Theory and Theory-in-use explicit.
Secondly, the model advocates bringing the left hand column
thoughts and control strategies into consciousness, making
explicit the unexpressed thoughts and emotions of the
individual through critical self-reflection. Third, the

27
individual is encouraged to re-frame the left-hand column
thoughts and strategies in an applicable and appropriate
manner. One method of doing this is Productive Dialogue,
(Cambridge Leadership Group, 2000), a format for
communicating in a manner that tests assumptions, provides
data, and encourages the inclusion of outside opinion.
1. Make your point “I don’t think you are committed to
this assignment”.
2. Provide directly observable data “ the reasons I
think this is: you have missed all three of our
planning meetings, you have not completed any of
your tasks and you don not respond to my messages
and e-mails concerning the assignment.”
3. Open conversation to discussion and disconfirmation
“do you see this differently?” “What are your
thoughts on what I just said?”
This sample case study demonstrates one assumption of the
model, namely that the individual will learn to effectively
and critically reflect on and analyze the data contained in
the columns. Moreover, with the assistance of an Action
Science practitioner, he or she will begin to identify,
reflect upon, and take responsibility for the tacit MI

28
strategies he or she currently employs. The individual can
then begin what Argyris describes as a "reeducative
process" (1978, p. 94).
A major goal of this model is to help the learner “unlearn”
the mental maps and behaviors he or she has become
accustomed to utilizing. The last phase of this model asks
the individual to engage in a re-educative process by
engaging in Model II behavior. Putnam (1991) uses scripts
and one-line phrases that are intended to scaffold,
referring to scripts as temporary until the individuals can
replace the underlying values of their Theory-in-use by
assuming the underlying values of their Espoused Theory.
Continuing the conversation, Kegan (1990) adds:
This is an expectation that we understand the
“stories,” “scripts,” “dramas”, or “myths” we
internalized when we were far too young to think about
such things but old enough to have such things be
about the way we think. The idea here is that when we
are not aware of these “stories” they continue to
author us, and not merely our past, but our present
and future as well (p. 85).
Argyris’ theory of action, created in close collaboration
with Schön, is the basis for this case study approach
(Argyris & Schön, 1974, 1978). Argyris remains a prominent
theorist and practitioner in the field of Action Science.
His continuing efforts to help others move beyond MI have

29
created a small cadre of practitioners heavily influenced
by his work and methodology.
SECTION II
Action Science Limitations
In reviewing the Action Science literature and methodology,
it is apparent that six key sticking points potentially
limit one’s ability to overcome MI in a permanent and
meaningful manner: 1) Tacit Expertise; 2) Reliance on
Scripts and Recipes; 3) Naiveté; 4) New Theories Vs.
Existing Theories; 5) Exposing Personal Incompetencies and
6) Crossing Disciplinary Lines.
1. Tacit Expertise: Alchemy and Artistry
Helping one successfully overcome MI behavior is generally
viewed as a form of individual alchemy that requires a high
level of artistry, an elusive phenomenon that many
practitioners have difficulty articulating, let alone
replicating on any level of scale. Because these highly
trained practitioners are often unable to articulate how
they educate, an important piece of the educational process
remains as tacit knowledge. The implication is that if the
methodology cannot produce consistent and sustainable long-
term results, then the methodology may not be a valid,
reliable process. Putnam (1990) adds, “[t] he tacit

30
expertise displayed in everyday interaction must be
restructured by embedding new concepts in skillful
practice” (p. iv). Dooley (1993, p.1), reporting on his
own effort at implementing Action Science, describes the
process as, "alchemy; a deeply artful practice aimed at
transforming individual and organizational behavior
patterns.” Putnam and Schön 1993) echo this sentiment:
“The need for artfulness in complex intervention practice
presents problems for professional education” (p.1). Much
of the learning that happens around effectiveness is
anecdotal and lacks the rigor of research, replicable
practice, and experience. Thus, when we look to find
competent practitioners, teaching successes are often
attributed to the individual’s personal style, talent, or
idiosyncratic ways of working with others. The inability
to systematize the process into a consistently replicable
methodology adds to the problem and does little to increase
the learning of individuals.
2. Reliance on Scripts and Recipes
Practitioners attempting to facilitate movement beyond MI
describe learners as falling into the trap of relying too
heavily on scripts and recipes. Putnam (1990) discusses
the problem of novice learners utilizing scripts and

31
recipes without an understanding of the underlying values.
“Novices are likely to misuse rules and recipes; they have
not developed the know-how to use them correctly” (p. 282).
“Moreover, it not simply a matter of learning new
techniques. It also requires a change in the underlying
values and assumptions that structure one’s theory of
practice” (1991, p. 3).
3. Naiveté: Underestimating the Process Difficulty
The naiveté of the learner concerning the difficulty of
what he or she is undertaking negatively influences
progress. These learners mistakenly believe that success
equates changing semantics and fail to grasp the difficulty
and importance of changing their underlying value system.
In short, these learners fail to recognize the challenge as
one of increasing mental complexity through development.
Rather, the individual believes and thus takes action in a
manner that does not significantly alter his or her
underlying governing values.
4. New Theories Vs. Existing Theories
The individual mistakenly seeks to simply add a new set of
“skills” without letting go of existing values. Argyris
(1974) posits, “[t] he trouble people have in learning new
theories of action may not stem so much from the inherent

32
difficulty of the new theories as from existing theories
people have that already determine practice.” According to
Argyris, a significant element contributing to the
difficulty in moving beyond MI is in the process of
unlearning existing concepts rather that than learning of
new ones.
5. Exposing Personal Incompetencies
The act of attempting to overcome MI will effectively
expose the very incompetencies the learner has attempted to
shelter. Therefore, in order to become more effective, the
learner must be willing to publicly display and take
responsibility for all of his or her ineffectiveness…
creating somewhat of a developmental catch 22.
6. Crossing Disciplinary Lines
The methodology requires behaviors and skills that cross
disciplinary lines requiring the educator to have a working
knowledge in various domains such as leadership and
psychology. Hunt (1994) defines leadership as “a form of
interpersonal influence” (p.118). Heifetz and Linsky
(2002) define leadership as “surfacing conflict,
challenging long-held beliefs, and demanding new ways of

33
doing things” (p. x). Argyris stresses the importance of
both interpersonal relationships and the need for precise
action when he says, “leadership is about the everyday face
to face relationships that create knowledge that is valid
and actionable” (Fulmer and Keys, 1998, p. 29).
Practitioners whose skill, talents, and experience cross
such disciplinary boundaries are rare. Creating them would
require specialized and lengthy training. Finally, Argyris
describes several universal errors made by learners
attempting to move beyond MI behavior:
 Actions intended to increase understanding and trust
often produce misunderstanding and mistrust;
 Blaming others or the system for poor decisions;
 Inertia: The tried and proven ways of doing things
dominate organizational life;
 Upward communications for difficult issues are often
lacking: difficulty dealing effectively with
authority;
 People do not behave reasonably even when it is in
their best interest (1990, p. 6-9).
Argyris is the first to acknowledge that overcoming MI is a
daunting task. Additionally, the author’s estimation of
how long the process may take is highly subjective and
determined individually.

34
To change highly skilled action is not easy; to do so
hampered by programmed unawareness is difficult
indeed. And when the basis for the programmed
unawareness is what we have been taught since
childhood, the task becomes formidable (Argyris, 2003
p. 15).
However, he does make recommendations as to how to approach
this difficult learning problem:
It is by no means an impossible task. Our research
suggests that it will take about as long to learn the
new reasoning and action skills as it takes to learn
to play a good game of tennis or golf. And, in my
opinion, that is how it should be. We are talking
about changing our reasoning processes, one of our
most fundamental human features. The learning should
be difficult in order to rule out the gimmick hunters
and quick-fix seekers. Most of us are constantly in
situations in which we must use reasoning processes.
There is plenty of opportunity to practice in everyday
life (Argyris, 1982 p. 15).
Argyris and Schön’s seminal work is not without its share
of vocal and well-known critics and skeptics. Senge writes
frankly about why Action Science is so difficult to
implement:
I consider Argyris and Schön’s core ideas radical.
Argyris and Schön’s entire theory rests on
appreciating learning as the “detection and correction
of error”. This sounds eminently logical. But, the
sorts of “errors” they are talking about are personal.
To detect an error is to acknowledge incompetence.
Clearly, Argyris and Schön’s ideas are essentially
about cultural change, and a quarter of a century is
not a long enough time for cultural change. (Senge,
2003 p. 47)

35
Senge’s writing makes the inference that the theory
produces exactly what it is trying to overcome - Model I
behavior.
It was not surprising to find that formal development
programs drawing explicitly from Action Science were
uncommon. The researcher spoke with Robert Putnam, an
Argyris-trained researcher, and practitioner, and learned
that most programs drawing from Action Science employed
pieces of the methodology but not the entire methodology.
It was also not surprising that the literature available on
Action Science was classified almost entirely as
Organizational Learning or business literature rather than
Adult Education or Adult Development. However, it was
encouraging to discover numerous inferences made about the
level of mental complexity required to successfully move
beyond MI. This suggests that the methodology reviewed may
indeed benefit from the addition of an Adult Education /
Adult Developmental component. However, research on this
is infrequent, and largely represented in doctoral theses.
Section III
An Adult Developmental Perspective: Subject-object theory
The major problems of our age deal with human relations;
the solutions can be found only in education. Skill in

36
human relations is a skill that must be learned; it is
learned in the home, in the school, in the church, and
wherever people gather in small groups.
Malcolm S. Knowles
Adult Development
Our life is what our thoughts make it.
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
The literature on Adult Development implies that as adults
mature, they become better able to critically reflect on
their motives, assumptions, and actions. Many theorists
remain expectant that with chronological maturity, a more
complex level of development will organically emerge.
Tennant and Pogson (1995) discuss the common conception of
the life-long learner as a continuously maturing individual
with specific characteristics. “The ideal life-long
learner is often portrayed as having self-knowledge, self-
worth, a sense of autonomy, and a desire to fulfill
personal potential” (Tennant & Pogson, p. 70). As Marsick
writes, “These theories suggest that as adults mature, they
can develop the capacity to see the world more contextually
and critically, though they do not always do so” (Marsick,
1998 p.126).

37
However, as Kegan suggests, adult educators should look at
adults’ capacities in relationship to the challenges of
their daily life. “What is the fit or match between the
way they are making sense and the way their culture is
demanding that they make sense?” (Marsick, 1998 p. 77).
If, as Marsick puts it, “they can develop the capacity”
then the question is, why don’t they?
Uncovering strongly held assumptions, beliefs and
values that shape action may be difficult and painful,
but also powerfully catalytic. People able to see how
their actions are shaped by their views – leading
often to unwanted results, often wholly contradictory
to their intentions – learn from that experience.
While it is not always easy for people to change their
beliefs or actions, the first step is to recognize
their existence. Mezirow believes that all adults can
see and challenge their own assumptions, given the
opportunity and appropriate educational assistance,
but research on adult development suggests that many
adults cannot easily step outside their worldview
(Marsick, 1998 p. 125).
Building off Marsick’s comments, one must consider a major
assumption in some of these writings--that adults mature
automatically because of aging. In deepening the
conversation, various authors write about maturity as a
more complex event dependent on many things, including, but
not limited to, life experience, access to educational
opportunities and cultural environments. “We need a way of
looking at human development that considers not only

38
people’s changing agendas but their changing capacities”
(Kegan 1994, p. 6).
“Cognitive, moral, and social development, however, ‘as
Berger says,’ unlike physical development, is not a matter
of simply waiting for nature to take its course” (p. 1).
Daloz examines the interplay between education and
development and realizes that students often are in a
developmental transition and that they look to education to
“help them make sense of lives whose fabric of meaning has
gone frayed” (Daloz, 1999 p. 4, as sited in Baumgartner,
2004 p. 17). Confessore (1992) proposed, “desire,
initiative, resourcefulness and persistence are critical
factors for understanding why adults engage in independent
and self-directed learning” (as cited in Derrick & Carr
2003, p. 4).
Drago-Severson writes, “this constructive-developmental
perspective on adulthood maintains that an individual’s way
of knowing, or “meaning-making system”, is the lens through
which he or she actively interprets life” (Drago-Severson,
2004 p.20). “They learned “to generate” new goals, new
skills and competencies and, in some cases, new
understandings of themselves” (Drago-Severson, 2004 p.
149). These writings suggest that development is

39
considerably more than simply accruing birthdays. They
paint a picture of development as changing the fundamental
construction of not just what adults know, but how they
know and understand experiences. In short, these authors
are describing a purposeful endeavor often spanning the
individual’s adult existence.
Mezirow builds on this conversation:
“An essential point made in many studies, including my
own (Mezirow, 1978), is that transformation can lead
developmentally toward a more inclusive,
differentiated, permeable and integrated perspective
and that insofar as it is possible, we all naturally
move toward such an orientation. This is what
development means in adulthood...a strong case can be
made for calling perspective transformation the
central process of adult development” (Mezirow 1978,
p. 155 as cited in Merriam, 2004 p. 61).
This section now narrows the focus on Adult Development
literature to examine a particular approach to perspective
transformation, namely Subject-object theory.
Subject-object Theory
Subject-object theory is a constructive-developmental
perspective, grounded in the tradition of Erikson (1950)
and Piaget (1948).
Constructivism backlights the images of human beings
shaping their own reality. There is power in this
image of creative activity, but it is a power that
cuts both ways. Shaping, selecting, and patterning

40
reality in some fashion also means not designing it in
some other fashion (Kegan 1948, p. 204).
Movement into an ever-increasing complexity of
understanding and personal meaning making defines this
developmental work. This “way” of thinking and
understanding allow individuals to increasingly hold at
arm’s length their decision making process including the
way they make sense of their world, allowing for a more
complete examination of the personal developmental process.
Subject-object relations emerge out of a lifelong
process of development; a succession of qualitative
differentiations of the self from the world, with a
qualitatively more extensive object with which to be
in relation created each time; a natural history of
qualitatively better guarantees to the world of its
distinctness; successive triumphs of ‘relationship to’
rather than ‘embeddedness in’ (Kegan 1982, p. 77).
Under consideration is the individual’s level of mental
complexity which refers to the manner in which one
understands oneself and makes sense of one’s relationship
to the larger world; in other words, the degree to which
the individual places authority for his or her own actions
externally or internally.
The Subject-object “evolution” is comprised of five levels
of core development, each moving toward a more objective
organization than the last. (See Appendix D for figure

41
depicting five core levels of development.) Kegan (1982)
asserts that nearly two-thirds of the overall adult
population operates at a level of mental complexity called
third order or socializing knower. Many of these adults
find themselves torn between the world of their upbringing
and one of vastly increased complexity and sophistication.
The demands placed on them by their rapidly changing
surroundings requires a level of mental complexity
sufficient to make sense of their social relationships,
culture and environment. It must also allow them to take
action in the larger world. Unfortunately, the required
level of complexity outlined in the below listed
expectations suggests a need for fourth order development
rather than third.
Kegan (1994) has compiled an intimidating list of
expectations the average adult faces in the workforce
alone. The remaining life spheres (partnering, parenting,
social relationships, etc.) have equally daunting lists of
their own.
1) To invent or own our work (rather than see it as
owned and created by the employer).
2) To be self-initiating, self-correcting, self-
evaluating (rather than dependent on others to frame

42
the problems, initiate adjustments, or determine
whether things are going acceptably well).
3) To be guided by our own visions at work (rather
than be without a vision or be captive of the
authority’s agenda.)
4) To take responsibility for what happens to us at
work externally and internally (rather than see our
present internal circumstances and future external
possibilities as caused by someone else).
5) To be accomplished masters of our work roles, jobs,
or careers (rather than have an apprenticing or
imitating relationship to what we do).
6) To conceive of the organization from the “outside
in,” as a whole; to see our relation to the whole; to
see the relation of the parts to the whole (rather
than see the rest of the organization and its parts
only from the perspective of our own part, from the
“inside out”) (p.153).
Kegan (1994) expresses the complexity of the expectations
presented above, including the depth of development and
personal commitment necessary to create the capacity to
meet them:
When we look into this collection of expectations for
success at work we discover that each actually demands
something more than a particular behavior or skill.
Each is a claim on our minds for a way of knowing.
Each amounts to a slightly different way of demanding
or expecting a single capacity for psychological
authority. This capacity, by now familiar, represents
a qualitatively more complex system for organizing
experience than the mental operations that create
values, beliefs, convictions, generalizations, ideals,

43
abstractions, interpersonal loyalty, and intrapersonal
states of mind (p. 185).
Regrettably, the level of mental complexity (third order)
from which the majority of adults presently operate may be
ineffective and insufficient to fully meet the demands
placed on them. As the above list of expectations
demonstrates, the average adult may not possess the mental
capacity to meet the demands they face each day in the
varied domains of their life (Kegan 1982). Kegan goes on
to advocate the necessity of self-authorship (or at least
the capacity) in order to be effective in the major domains
of life (as partners, as parents, in work, and in leading,
individuals). In other words, individuals required to
function effectively to meet highly demanding expectations
must operate from the fourth order, a destination not
easily undertaken. This is particularly difficult without
the proper holding environments from which one can move
forward with balanced support and challenge.
There’s a tremendous power in the move from the third
to the fourth order. In the history of humankind,
it’s only been in the last little blip of human
history that so many persons have been able to even
pierce beyond the third order. They are actually able
to stand back from their own cultural surroundings and
look at the nature of these arrangements and make
decisions about whether this is what it’s going to
mean to be a member of this tribe or to live life in
this way (Kegan as cited in Scharme 2000, p. 13).

44
Kegan asserts that in order to best meet the demands placed
upon us by modern society, adults will need to reach a
certain level of mental complexity. He goes on to suggest
that traditional education will not be sufficient “No
additional amount of information coming into our minds will
enable us to assume this authority; only a qualitative
change in the complexity of our minds will” (1994, p. 6).
Third Order: The Socialized Mind
This level of mental complexity is characterized by an
external authoring system. Individuals who function from
this level look to outside sources (often with no
recognition or experience that they are doing so) such as
family, friends, religion, or government to tell them how
to feel about themselves. As mentioned previously, two-
thirds of adults fall into this level of mental complexity.
In the not so distant past, this mental organization
provided sufficient capacity for the average adult to
largely meet the demands placed on him or her. In today’s
complex world, however, this order does not provide a
sufficient level of complexity that enables the average
adult to successfully and fully meet his or her daily
challenges.

45
The third order of consciousness amounts to the
psychological threshold for what sociologists call
“socialization”; we become truly a part of society
(rather than its ward or charge) when society has
become truly a part of us. Our capacity to
internalize, and identify with, the values and beliefs
of our social “surround” – as these may be
communicated by family, peer group, state, religion,
ethnic clan, geographic region, or social position –
(Kegan 1994, P. 76).
Those in the third order are bound by their need to find
acceptance in any given situation, cultural system, or
organization. Kegan (1994), writes: “From the perspective
of the third order, where the ultimate goal is being in
alignment with – being in good faith with – a value-
creating surround, it is not at all self-evident or
necessary that trying to establish a sense of self-worth by
winning the approval and acceptance of others is caused by
“self-doubt” (p. 171). Or perhaps is an expression of lack
of integrity as in Block’s words: “If we are focused on
seeking other’s approval... then we run the risk of
sacrificing our integrity...for the sake of finding the
most popular path” (Block, as cited in Kegan 1994, p.
163). Some characteristics of the third order are provided
below:

46
External Meaning Making
A Reflection of My Environment
 Our concept of 'self' value is shaped by other's
opinions, expectations and definitions of value rather
than our own (or these are “our own”).
 We feel responsible for causing others feelings, and
at the same time hold others responsible for causing
our own feelings.
 External psychological consequences drive our thinking
and actions.
 We are intolerant of ambiguity; we feel most
comfortable in a clearly defined environment and
situations.
 We rely on others to co-construct our image of self.
 We are capable of thinking about and reflecting on
situations, but feel that we cannot influence them for
the better.
 We experience criticism as destructive to our self.
 We are unable to simultaneously hear feedback and
differ with it. Instead, we blame the other person
for their feedback in order to avoid the stress; or
uncritically accept the feedback and are shaped by it.
 In order for me to feel valuable, others must find me
valuable. (Barber, K. and Shively, S. Teachers
College, Columbia University, Presentation at
Workplace Learning Institute, 1998.)
Fourth Order: The Self-Authorizing Mind
This level of mental complexity is characterized by an
internal authoring system. Individuals at this level of

47
development are able to take in data from outside sources,
examine them and then decide for themselves if it is
valuable to them or not. Unlike the third order, adults at
the fourth order develop their own sense of self-worth
rather than letting others tell them if they are valuable
or not. They determine their psychological support
internally. “The first issue any management training
oriented to transformation would have to address is exactly
this: What is the person having to manage
psychologically?” (Kegan, 1994 p. 167) Kegan (1994) talks
about the frustration some employers face when working with
individuals who are not yet at the fourth order:
Employers, unwittingly demanding Fourth order
consciousness, want nothing more than to stop being
this kind of determining psychological surround for
their employees (p. 169).
One characteristic of this order is that individuals who
function from here are better suited to the modern
workplace. They tend to be in management or supervisory
roles or require less psychological support from their
employers. Kegan states,
The very idea of managing – the central preoccupation
in the work literature and the schools of business –
suggesting as it does the activities of handling,
arranging, configuring, deciding, executing,
finessing, operating, and presiding would seem to
require or to imply the authoring capacities of the

48
fourth order or consciousness. The greatest
psychological differentiation of this way of knowing
is reflected in the social ability to order the parts
by first distinguishing oneself from them. The
greater internality of this way of knowing now creates
the self- not the present social surround – as the
source of direction and value (p. 168).
Below are some of the defining hallmarks of fourth order
development.
Institutional Stage:
Internal Self-Authoring
 We are capable of thinking and reflecting on
situations, and feel that we can influence them.
 Our internal psychological consequences, concern with
personal integrity and meeting our own standards
drives our thinking and actions. We take
responsibility for our own feelings and actions.
 We can hold contradictory feelings simultaneously.
 We rely on our own authority and rely on ourselves to
construct our self-image.
 We are comfortable 'visiting' differences, without
altering them or making them disappear.
 We create choices, author options and have self-
boundaries.
 We are aware that we are in charge (or author) of our
self.
 “Let me hear what you have to say, I'll think about it
and then I'll make a decision.”
 I have relationships, they do not have me. (Barber,
K. and Shively, S. Teachers College, Columbia
University, Presentation at Workplace Learning
Institute, 1998.)

49
Section IV
Partnership: Subject-object theory and Action Science
The Action Science methodology as outlined in section I
illustrates that the central component of the process (Left
hand / right hand case) draws from participants personal
and professional experiences. Often conducted in a public
forum, these cases offer a window into the participants’
best effort to be effective in difficult situations. The
case studies are a representation of what the participants’
feel is the right way of doing things. As such, this case
method illustrates the need for individuals to possess the
capacity to critically reflect upon and learn from their
experiences. It would seem the objectivity that comes with
a fourth order orientation would clearly benefit
individuals learning by enabling them to work with
increased objectivity and a critically reflective capacity
to explore how and why their MI approaches contribute to
outcomes contrary to their intentions. At the very least,
such a proposition should be testable.

50
One of the challenges in learning Actions Science comes
from MI itself, that is, the desire to win and not lose, in
other words, to save face and not appear to be wrong - a
tendency that can also be linked to third order Subject-
object capacity. In this way of thinking, individuals are
more or less acting without objectivity, and when asked to
reflect, they use subjective reasoning. A common pattern
involves being caught up in justifying one’s behavior as
something that one "had to do" because of the situation, or
due to the other person’s behavior. Argyris would call
this defensive reasoning. It is a strategy designed to
keep individuals in the “right”, but has several anti-
learning effects. First, adults usually want to be right;
therefore, they avoid risking personal competency and
opening themselves up to potential embarrassment. Second,
in order to remain in control, avoid embarrassment and
achieve “being right”, the individual must eliminate the
admission of new data, especially if it is contradictory.
Third, the individual must impede discussion of new ideas
and largely force his or her opinions on others in order to
remain in “control”. These strategies prevent the
individual from producing his or her intended results,
keeping him or her largely ineffective, and preventing the
majority of adults from learning - particularly when he or

51
she is faced with a stressful or high-stakes situation.
Effective learning requires the opposite of self-
justification; it would seem to require the fourth order
capability of critical reflection.
Action Science creates a window into the MI values that
contribute to diminishing effectiveness. The greater a
learner’s ability to objectively self-reflect, the fewer
barriers there are to recognizing MI and its impact on
one’s effectiveness. Likewise, Subject-object theory gives
form to the developmental capacities that may be required
by the Action Science methodology. A partnership between
Action Science and Subject-object may serve to reduce the
participant’s learning barriers.
Barriers and Developmental Requirements
Section II describes six key sticking points (or barriers)
to successfully navigating the Action Science methodology:
1) Tacit expertise; 2) Reliance on scripts and recipes; 3)
Naiveté; 4) New theories Vs. existing theories; 5) Exposing
personal incompetencies and 6) Crossing disciplinary lines.
These six obstacles seem to center on the individual’s
inability or lack of capacity to make sense of his or her
experience from a fourth order perspective. (In other

52
words), perhaps Action Science participants must be at a
Subject-object level that allows them to meet these
demands. The Adult Development literature in section III
clearly seems to define this required level as fourth
order. Individuals navigating the Action Science
methodology often describe the experience as
transformative. However, as previously discussed, due in
large part to their insufficient level of development, the
individual’s experience does not dependably produce
transformation. Below, is a description of six
developmental requirements that may serve to assist the
participant’s efforts to reliably produce long-term,
successful completion of the Action Science methodology.
Included in the description of each developmental
requirement is an illustration of that fourth order
capacity and the corresponding Action Science sticking
point as outlined in Section II.
Developmental Requirements
1. Willingness to be Wrong
The individual must be willing to be wrong, hold the
ability to openly, and frankly discuss where he or she may
become more effective in his or her life. Additionally,
the individual must possess a willingness to disclose and

53
publicly discuss personal incompetencies and failures in a
non-defensive manner. However, it may be the participant
must have an internal authoring system (fourth order) in
order to do so. Otherwise, the exposure to public
criticism would prove damaging to his or her sense of self.
This correlates to the Action Science sticking point:
Exposing Personal Incompetencies
Fourth Order Capacity:
 We rely on our own authority and rely on ourselves to
construct our self-image.
2. Critical Self-Reflection
The individual must be able to scrutinize external and
internal messages for relevance; he or she must be aware of
his or her personal biases, preferences, and experiences
from different domains. This capacity requires that the
individual can competently engage in critical self-
reflection. This correlates to the Action Science sticking
point: Crossing Disciplinary Lines
Fourth Order capacity:
 We are capable of thinking and reflecting on
situations, and feel that we can influence them.
3. Making Informed Choice
The individual must have the ability to generate data,
valid information, knowledge, or understanding through

54
being open to new and / or contradicting information. In
addition, the individual must have the capacity to make
informed choices and maintain vigilant monitoring of the
implementation of the choice in order to detect and correct
error. New learners and facilitators often forgo this
opting for the security of familiar recipes and scripts.
This correlates to the Action Science sticking point:
Reliance on Scripts
 “Let me hear what you have to say, I'll think about it
and then I'll make a decision.”
 We can hold contradictory feelings simultaneously.
4. Publicly Test Assumptions, Test Underlying Values
Participants must possess a willingness to accurately
depict their inner dialogue, thoughts, and reactions.
Further, they must be willing to have deeply held
assumptions and values questioned and disputed publicly
despite the possibility for embarrassment or critical
judgment from others. This correlates to the Action
Science sticking point: Tacit Expertise
 Our internal psychological consequences, concern with
personal integrity and meeting our own standards
drives our thinking and actions.

55
 We take responsibility for our own feelings and
actions.
5. Embracing Ambiguity Participants must have the ability
to remain committed while remaining in an often-ambiguous
learning environment in order to produce long-term results
rather than short-term gains. This correlates to the
Action Science sticking point: Naiveté
 We are comfortable 'visiting' differences, without
altering them or making them disappear.
6. Personal Meaning Making
There is general agreement that adults can and do learn
informally within a formal structure. Action Science-based
programs largely take place in formal settings. However,
it is the informal experiences of the participant’s
personal lives that largely construct their underlying
assumptions and values: MI values. As such, the manner in
which the individual makes sense of his or her experience
will be crucial to his or her ability to examine his or her
actions. This correlates to the Action Science sticking
point: New Theories Vs Existing Theories

56
 We create choices, author options and have self-
boundaries.
 We are aware that we are in charge (or author) of our
self.
The above outlined requirements for meeting the challenges
and demands facing individuals participating in the Action
Science methodology suggest they need higher order skills,
in general, and very possibly, in particular, they may
require a minimum level (fourth order) of mental capacity.
Again, this level of development is higher than what the
majority of adults may currently possess. While the Action
Science methodology can instruct individuals on how to take
steps to overcome their MI behavior, what it does not do,
is teach the individual how to reach the required level of
development in order to successfully move toward MII
behavior.
Several central themes appear throughout the Action Science
and Subject-object theory literature: self reflection,
consideration and inclusion of differing opinion / data,
willingness to be wrong and learn from both positive and
negative experiences, partnership in learning, modification
in underlying assumptions and values, publicly testing
assumptions, and the ability to adapt and learn in any

57
context. While the Action Science methodology (as
described in the literature) advocates and requires the
above-mentioned capacities it does not provide within its
process the means for acquiring or developing them. A
developmental component may compliment the current Action
Science methodology by increasing an individual’s capacity
to objectively reflect on his or her Model I thinking.
These steps may make the process of overcoming MI a more
permanent and meaningful experience and, therefore, help
individuals create a match between intentions and results.
The partnership between Action Science and Subject-object
theory may produce a methodology that enables individuals
to produce meaningful and permanent results. “We need a
way of looking at human development that considers not only
people’s changing agendas but their changing capacities”
(Kegan 1994, p. 6).
Section IV
Conclusion and Implications
Two bodies of literature were reviewed for this Qualifying
Paper: Action Science and Subject-object theory. In
Section I, the review was guided by two questions: 1) what
is Action Science and Model I behavior? And 2) Can
individuals learn to overcome MI behavior and, if so, how
difficult is it? Section II explored the limitations to

58
the methodology for helping individuals overcome MI
behavior. In conducting a focused search of the Action
Science literature, several major authors from the field
were considered, including (Argyris, 1982, 1985, 1990,
1993, 2004), (Argyris et al., 1985), p. 4) Argyris and
Schön (1974), MacArthur, Putnam and McLain-Smith (1999),
Putnam (1990, 1991) and Schön, (1983 1987); and Senge
(2003).
Section III reviewed work from the field of Adult
Development, – specifically Subject-object theory. The
following question guided this review of Subject-object
literature: Is there a potential “fit” between Subject–
object and adult learners trying to moving beyond Model I
Behavior? Major authors from the field included,
Baumgartner (2001), Brookfield (2005), Jarvis (1992), Kegan
(1982, 1994), Kiley, Sandman & Truluck (2005), Knowles
(1980, 1998), Watkins and Marsick (1993), Merriam (2004),
Mezirow (1991), and Schön (1983,1987).
Examination of the Action Science literature reveals
several propositions: First, there appears to be six
central “sticking points” to participants successfully
navigating the Action Science methodology:
 Tacit expertise

59
 Reliance on scripts and recipes
 Naiveté
 New theories Vs. existing theories
 Exposing personal incompetencies
 Crossing disciplinary lines
Secondly, there also appears to be six primary
developmental demands placed upon Action Science
participants:
 Willingness to be Wrong
 Critical Self-reflection
 Make informed Choice
 Publicly Test Assumptions
 Embracing Ambiguity
 Personal Meaning-making
Third, the Action Science methodology does not factor in
the mental demands that many of its participants cannot
meet. Fourth, the Action Science methodology cannot take
this capacity for granted. Finally, the literature
reviewed suggests that the methodology as is, is limited
without a developmental component.
It is evident that the Action Science methodology as
outlined in section II makes developmental demands upon its

60
participants without providing a way for them to meet the
challenge. Engaging in the Action Science methodology may
influence individual development as a consequence of the
process. However, beginning this process at an advanced
level of development with the capacity to reflect on one’s
own behavior and underlying values and motives may expedite
the process and increase individual development and long-
term success. Earlier work suggests that a developmental
component may well compliment the current Action Science
methodology. Souvaine (1985) writes,
In one sense, the concept of a Theory-in-use seems not
to differ substantially from that of a Subject-object
construction: Argyris and Schon and Kegan both
conceive of an underlying theory which governs the way
the individual will frame his experience in the world
(p.30).
Further exploration of the literature on overcoming MI
behavior, and initial considerations or hypothesis about
the developmental implications of this work, will provide
the foundation for a systematic exploration of a possible
constructive developmental approach to moving beyond MI for
my thesis.
The short-term intention of this research is to help bridge
gaps in the current literature and conceivably provide the
foundation for a developmental Action Science methodology.

61
The long-term intention of this Doctoral work is to
potentially assist those trying to move beyond Model I
behavior in an effective and permanent manner. Therefore,
the literature reviewed in this Qualifying paper is crucial
to understanding the field as a whole, but also in
understanding the strengths, weaknesses, and potential
compatibility of current processes in place. Kegan 1994
writes:
the expectations upon us that run throughout these
literatures demand something more than mere behavior,
the acquisition of specific skills, or the mastery of
particular knowledge. They make demands on our minds,
on how we know, on the complexity of our consciousness
(p. 5).
A review of this literature strongly suggests that an
Subject-object theory component may be a crucial part of
our continuing educational process as a whole, but
specifically to the work of helping adults move beyond MI,
particularly when utilizing the current Action Science
methodology. According to Argyris, the consequences for
employing a MI strategy include limited learning,
defensiveness, and misunderstanding.

62
Appendix A
Definition of Key Terms
1. Action Science is "the science of interpersonal
effectiveness” (Argyris et al, 1985). Action Science
“seeks to help [leaders] reflect on the world they create
and learn to change it in ways more congruent with the
values and theories they espouse” (1985, p. 98).

63
2. Demands and Challenges refer to circumstances faced by
individuals in different spheres of daily life; work,
relationships, parenting, etc., which require the
individual to create solutions for problems they have not
yet faced, do not understand or simply misinterpret. Their
discomfort will force them to revert to their mental
autopilot or default, which is inadequate to solve the
problem or face the challenge before them.
3. Effectiveness is congruency in reaching one‘s intended
results i.e., producing results that match one’s
intentions.
4. Espoused Theory and Theory-in-use: Espoused Theory is
what one says they believe. For example, “Children are our
most precious resource. This is the “theory” to which the
individual gives his allegiance, and which, upon request,
he communicates to others. Theory-in-use is the action
produced by an individual, for example, a refusal to pay
increased taxes, which would help, provide quality
education for children. This is the theory that actually
governs his actions.
5. Holding environment is instruction that creates a safe
mental place for the learner. It is an individualized

64
balance of psychological support and challenge rather than
any physical place or construct.
6. Model I behavior is Argyris and Schön’s theory of human
behavior and consists of four distinct mental strategies
for obtaining and remaining in control of ones environment.
 Win / don’t lose
 Minimize negative emotion/ maximize comfort
 Appear rational
 Unilateral control
7. Model II behavior is Argyris and Schön’s theory of
human behavior in which, individuals attempt to make
operational their espoused governing variables. MII values
include: valid information, informed choice, and vigilant
monitoring of the implementation of the choice in order to
detect and correct error.
8. Reeducation is the unlearning of problematic concepts
followed by the acquisition of productive and meaningful
concepts.
9. Productive reasoning refers to a 3-step conversational
model based on Argyris’ work. The steps are as follows:
 State your opinion

65
 Provide directly observable data to support your
statement
 Open the conversation up to inquiry

66
Appendix B
Model I: Theories-In-Use
Governing
Variables les
Action
Strategies
Consequences
for the
Behavioral
world
Consequences
for Learning
Effectiveness
Unilateral
Control
Design and
manage the
environment
Unilaterally.
Shut off
influx of new
information
and data.
Actor seen as
defensive,
inconsistent,
competitive,
controlling,
fearful of
being
vulnerable,
overly
concerned with
self and
unconcerned
with others
Self-sealing Decreased
effectiveness
Win/ Don’t
Lose
Own and
control the
task. Claim
ownership of
the task, be
guardian of
definition
and
execution.
Defensive
interpersonal
and group
relationship
Single-loop
learning
Decreased
effectiveness
Maximize
Comfort/
Minimize
Negative
Emotion
Unilaterally
protect
yourself,
speak with
inferred
categories,
provide no
directly
observable
data.
Defensive norms
(mistrust, lack
of risk taking,
conformity,
external
commitment,
emphasis on
diplomacy
Little
testing of
theories
publicly,
much testing
of theories
privately
Decreased
effectiveness
Be Rational Unilaterally
protect
others from
being hurt,
Withhold
information,
create rules
to censor
information
Low freedom of
choice, low
internal
commitment and
low-risk taking
Blocks influx
on new or
differing
information
and data
Decreased
effectiveness
(Argyris and Schon, 1974, p. 68-69)

67
Appendix C
Model II Theories-in-use
Governing
Variables
Action
Strategies
Consequences
for the
Behavioral
World
Consequences
for
Learning
Effectiveness
Valid
Information.
Design
situations or
environments
where
participants
can
experience
high personal
causation
Actor
experienced as
minimally
defensive,
facilitator,
collaborator,
choice creator
Disconfirmable
process
Increased
long-term
effectiveness
Free and
Informed
Choice.
Tasks are
controlled
jointly
Minimally
defensive
interpersonal
and group
dynamics
Double-loop
learning
Increased
long-term
effectiveness
Internal
Commitment to
the Choice and
Constant
Monitoring of
its
Implementation.
Protection of
self is a
joint
enterprise
and oriented
toward growth
(speak in
directly
observable
categories,
seek to
reduce
blindness
about own
inconsistency
and
incongruity)
Learning
oriented norms
(trust,
individuality,
open
confrontation
on difficult
issues)
Public testing
of theories
Increased
long-term
effectiveness
(Argyris and Schon, 1974, p. 87)

68
Appendix D
Five Core Levels
(Kegan, 1982, p. 119-120)
Evolutionary
Balance
Culture of
Embeddedness
Function 1:
Confirmation,
Holding On
Function 2:
Contradiction
, letting go
Function 3:
Continuity,
staying put
Common
natural
transitions
(0)
Incorporativ
e
Embedded in:
reflexes and
sensing
Mother
culture
Literal
holding,
dependency
Recognizes
displays of
willfulness
and
independence
Permits self
to become
part of
larger
culture
A soft,
comforting
representativ
e of
undifferentia
ted
subjectivity
(1)
Impulsive
Embedded in:
impulse and
perception
Parenting
Culture
Acknowledges
and cultures
exercises of
fantasy,
intense
attachments
and rivalries
Recognizes
and promotes
emergence
from
embeddedness
in fantasy
and impulse
Couple
permits
itself to
become art
of a larger
culture
Repository
for impulses
(2) Imperial
Embedded in:
enduring
disposition,
needs,
interests,
and wishes
Role
recognizing
culture
Acknowledges
and cultures
displays of
self-
sufficiency
Recognizes
and promotes
emergence
from
embeddedness
in self-
sufficiency
Family and
schools
permit
themselves
to become
secondary to
relationship
s
Another who
is identical
to me
(3)
Interpersona
l Embedded
in:
mutuality,
interpersona
l
concordance
Culture of
mutuality
Acknowledges
and cultures
capacity for
collaborative
self-
sacrifice in
mutually
attuned
interpersonal
relationships
Recognizes
and promotes
emergence
from
embeddedness
in
interpersonal
ism
Interpersona
l partners
permit
relationship
to be
relavitized
or placed in
bigger
context
Opportunities
for
provisional
identity
(4)
Institutiona
l
Culture of
Self-
authorship
Acknowledges
and cultures
capacity for
independence
Recognizes
and promotes
emergence
from
embeddedness
in
independent
self-
direction
High risk:
Ideological
supports
vanish
Ideological
self-
surrender
(5)
Interindivid
ual
Culture of
intimacy
Acknowledges
and cultures
capacity for
interdependen
ce

69
Bibliography
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for Action: A guide to
overcoming barriers to organizational change. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational
defenses: facilitating organizational learning.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning and action:
Individual and organizational. San Francisco CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and rationalizations:
the limits to organizational knowledge. NY, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy, change and defensive
routines. Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing, Inc.
Argyris, C. (1982). The executive mind and double
loop learning. Organizational Dynamics, Autumn.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and McLain-Smith, D. (1985).
Action Science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational
learning II: theory, method and practice. Boston, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1974). Theory and practice:
increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Barber, K. and Shively, S. (1998). Presentation on
Subject/Object Theory at The Workplace Learning
Institute. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Baumgartner, L. M. (2001). An update on transformational
learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, no. 89, Spring 2001 p. 15-24. Jossey-Bass.
Berger, J. (1999). Unpublished paper.
Brookfield, S.D. (2005). The power of critical

70
theory: liberating adult learning and teaching. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Brookfield, S.D. (1994. May-June). Tales from the
dark side: A phenomenography of adult critical
reflection. International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 13 (3) 203-216.
Cambridge Leadership Group, (2000) Unpublished Paper
Chapman, V. (2005), Attending to the theoretical
landscape of adult education. Adult Education
Quarterly, Vol. 55 No 4, August 2005 (Pg. 308 –312).
Chen and Zhang, (2005). Literature review on
individual learning. Unpublished Paper, Beijing:
school of economics & management, Tsinghua University.
Chung, Carl. J. (2005). Journal of Developmental
Education, Vol. 28, No. 2, Spring 2005.
Daloz, L. (1999). Mentor: effective teaching and
mentoring: San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Daloz, L., Keen, C., Keen, J. & Parks, S. (1996).
Common fire: leading lives of commitment in a complex
world. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Derrick, G. M. & Carr, B. P. 2003. Facilitating and
understanding autonomy in adult learners. New
Horizons in Adult Education Vol. 17, No. 2, Spring
2003.
Dewy, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York:
Collier Books.
Dooley, J. (1993). Bootstrapping beyond model I: a
design for professional self-reeducation.
Drago-Severson, E. (2004). Becoming adult learners:
principals and practices for effective development.
NY, NY: Teachers College Press.
Erikson, E. & Coles, R. (2000). The Erik Erikson
reader: NY, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Frey, B. & Welbreck-Alman, S. (2003). Applying adult

71
learning theory. Winter 2003.
Fulmer, R.M., and Keys, B. Interview with Chris
Argyris. Organizational Dynamics: 10-01-1998; Volume
100.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: the mental
demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self: problem and
process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kegan, R., Broderick, M., Drago-Severson, E., Hesling,
D., Popp, N., Portnow, K. (2001). Toward a new
pluralism in ABE/ESOL classrooms: teaching to multiple
“cultures of mind” Research Monograph. NCSALL Report
No. 19.
Kegan, R. & Lahey, L. (2001). How the way we talk can
change the way we work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass, Inc.
Kiely, R., Sandman, L. & Truluck, J. (2004). Adult
learning theory and the pursuit of adult degrees. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No.
103, Fall 2004, Wiley Periodicals Inc.
King, Kathleen. P. (2004). New Horizons in Adult
Education, Vol. 18, No. 4, Winter, 2004.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult
education: from pedagogy to andragogy. New York:
Cambridge Books.
Knowles, M., Holton III, E. & Swanson, R. (1998) The
adult learner: The definitive classic in adult
education and human resource development. Houston,
TX: Gulf Publishing Co.
Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. (2005). The
adult learner. Burlington, MA: Elsvevier
Langer, E. (1997). The power of mindful learning.
Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

72
Lecker, M. J. (2004). Teachers College Record, Vol. 106,
No. 12, December 2004, pp. 2261-2263.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principals of topological psychology.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
Loughran, J. 2001. Monash University, Teachers and
Teaching. Carfax Publishing Company: Victoria,
Australia.
Marsick, V.J. and Volpe, M (eds), Informal learning on
the job, Advances in Developing Human Resources, No. 3
San Francisco: Berrett Koehler, 1999.
McArthur, P., Putnam, R. & Mclain-Smith, D. (1999).
The dance of change. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass
Inc.
Merriam, S.B. (2001). The new update on adult
learning theory. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Merriam, S. (2004). The role of cognitive development
in mezirow’s transformational learning theory. Adult
Education Quarterly, Vol. 55 No 1, November 2004 60-
68.
Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in
adulthood: A guide to transformative and emanicpatory
learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Mezirow, J. & Associates. (2000). Learning as
transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in
progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of
adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformative
theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 44, 222-232.
Putnam, R. (1990). Putting concepts to use:
reeducating professionals for organizational learning.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: Harvard Graduate
School of Education.
Putnam, R. (1991). Recipes and reflective learning:

73
“what would prevent you from saying it that way?” NY,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Pohland, P., Bova, B. (2000). Professional development as
transformational learning. International Journal of
leadership in education: Vol. 3, NO 2, 137-150.
Senge, Peter M. (2003). Taking personal change
seriously: the impact of organizational learning on
management practice. Academy of Management Executive
Vol. 17, No. 2, 2003.
Scharme, C. O. (2000). Grabbing the Tiger by the
Tail: Conversation with Robert Kegan. Harvard
Graduate School of Education March 23, 2000.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective
practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how
professionals think. New York: Basic Books.
Souvaine, E. (1985). Creating contexts for effective
action and the development of meaning-making.
Unpublished Qualifying Paper. Harvard Graduate School
of Education.
Taylor, K., Marienau, C. & Fiddler, M. (2000). Developing
Adult Learners: San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Tennant, M. & Pogson, P. (1995). Learning and change
in the adult years: San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
Inc.
Torbert, W. & Fisher, D. (1995). Personal and
organizational transformations: the true challenge of
continual quality improvement. London: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
Watkins, K.E. & Marsick, V.J. (1993). Toward a theory
of informal and incidental learning. International
journal of lifelong education, 11 (4), pp. 12-34.
Watkins, K.E. & Marsick, V.J. (1993). Sculpting the

74
learning organization: Lessons in the art and science
of systemic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Yorks, L. (2005). Adult learning and the generation
of new knowledge and meaning: Creating liberating
spaces for fostering adult learning through
practitioner-based collaborative action inquiry.
Teachers College Record, Volume 107, Number 6, June
2005, pp. 1217-1244.

Moving Beyond Model I Behavior

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Moving Beyond Model I Behavior (9)

Moving Beyond Model I Behavior