Margaretha Warnicke

PAF 603 (Spring 2009)
Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and rationalizations: The limits to organizational knowledge. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Chris Argyris’ (2004) most recent book builds on his prior scholarship in organizational learning and change. He unites several different theories with which he has worked over the years in this concise volume to explain two key issues: why individuals in organizations do not learn effectively and why scholars have not been very successful at helping organizations reverse this trend. He identifies defensive reasoning as the chief factor that prohibits individuals and groups within organizations from learning because they: protect one another from embarrassment or harm; employ self-referential logic; avoid transparency in order to ensure self-protection; deny and cover up their self-protective efforts; and then deny the cover up. In order to escape the cycle of defensive reasoning, Argyris proposes that organizations employ double-loop learning and action theory.

Argyris has created a significant amount of literature promoting action theory, double-loop learning, and action science as the keys to successful organizational learning (Argyris, 1970, 1980, 1982, 1993, 2000; Argyris & Schön, 1978). Here he elaborates and explains the role of defensive reasoning. The Theory of Action as first developed by Argyris and Schön (1978) is based on the concept of a theory-in-use, which includes the ideas and values that guide human action. Individuals may espouse theories that differ from their theory-in-use. For example, an executive might publicly offer support for a program (an espoused theory) while privately believing that it is worthless and working to discontinue it (a theory-in-use). Argyris (2004) describes double-loop learning as “the detection and correction of errors where the correction requires changes not only in action strategies but also in the values that govern the theory-in-use” (p. 10). Thus substantive changes in theories-in-use must be made if defensive reasoning is to be eliminated.

Argyris’ also focuses on scholars and their responsibility to provide practitioners with actionable information. He contends that scholars focus on describing the world as it is instead of describing how the world ought to be. Scientific research should be action science; it should assist practitioners and not simply answer the questions of normal science. He also suggests that scholars should be more concerned with the implementable validity of their recommendations. Argyris (2000) first discussed his initial ideas about action science for this book in an article included in an edited collection about action theory (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Argyris’ essay was paired with one by Andrew Van de Ven (2000) who asserts that scholarly research should pursue scientific interests first and that descriptive approaches are necessary to map the terrain of the organizational world. Michael Beer (2000) weighed in on the differences between the perspectives of the two scholars and concluded that both streams are important and necessary: the initial description of the world as it is and then the actionable research that provides practitioners with a step-by-step guide for enacting organizational change.

Throughout his career, Argyris has offered valuable insights into how individuals learn, why they struggle with learning, and now, why individuals do not learn even when they know that current behaviors are not productive. However, this is not his best work. His ideas are complex but the explanations sometimes too thin, and there are few structural issues. Additionally, the exercises he provides seem helpful, but it is questionable that they alone can defeat defensive reasoning. Given the enormity of the task, perhaps a combination of Argyris’ theories about individuals and Peter Senge’s (2006) theory about systemic challenges to organizational learning might be more successful.

References

Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method; a behavioral science view. Reading, Mass.,: Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C. (1980). Making the undiscussable and its undiscussability discussable. Public administration review, 40(3), 205-213.

Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action : Individual and organizational (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action : A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C. (2000). The relevance of actionable knowledge for breaking the code. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 415-427). Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and rationalizations : The limits to organizational knowledge. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Beer, M. (2000). Research that will break the code of change: The role of useful normal science and usable action science, a commentary on van de ven and argyris. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 429-444). Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (2nd ed.). New York: Currency Doubleday.

Van de Ven, A. H. (2000). Professional science for a professional school: Action

science and normal science. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 393-413). Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.