Tamsen Webster explains Chris Argyris and Donald Schön's Model I and Model II. Model I prioritizes winning and suppressing feelings; Model II seeks valid information and genuine commitment. The gap between what we say we believe and what we actually do shapes whether change work succeeds or fails.
Have you ever noticed that sometimes what people or a company says it believes doesn't match what they actually do? Best case scenario, it's a little annoying. Worst case scenario, it can interfere with the trust that we want and need to make change happen, to make sales happen, to establish long-term healthy relationships. This gap is known as the gap between the espoused theories and the theories in use. Theory meaning our causal relationship between when the situation arises, then I do this. Because X, Y, or Z is what I believe to be true. The espoused part is what we say, and the in use is the actual thing that we do and the actual reasons why we do it. This concept, which we have talked about before, is the work of Chris Ardris and Donald Schoen. As they were studying this gap between espoused theories and theories in use, they noticed something. That the theories in use were so consistent among most people that they could actually name the 4 big components, or what they called governing variables, of the dominant theory in use. Number 1, to achieve the purpose, the outcome as the actor defines it. In other words, get the thing that I want to happen. Number 2, win, do not lose. In other words, Do anything possible to make sure that I get that thing to happen. Number 3, suppress negative feelings, especially my own. In other words, if I don't like how something is going, I'm gonna explain it until it feels better to me. I'm gonna rationalize it. If somebody else expresses displeasure, I'm going to try to soothe them while still trying to get the thing that I want to have happen to happen. And number 4, emphasize rationality. Make it clear that there is good evidence, rational evidence. Only smart, critical thinking people would do it this way. Yeah. Does this sound a little familiar? I bet it does. Ardris and Schone call this Model 1 thinking. It is the dominant first primary model of how people operate. Now, you might be saying to yourself, Model 1, is there another one? Yeah, that's called Model 2. Now, Model 2 Interestingly, is what we say. It's often what we espouse we believe. Model 2 thinking has 3 governing variables. Number 1, valid information. In other words, full transparency, honesty, authenticity, integrity, congruence. I'm gonna give you the actual information and I'm not gonna hide it. Number 2, free and informed choice. Meaning I can make it clear what I want to have happen, but I also need to make sure that you are fully informed in such a way that you can decide or not whether or not you agree and go along. Number 3, internal commitment, which isn't just that something makes sense rationally. It's got to feel right too. In other words, that we are giving people enough information so that they can see whether or not they align before they agree and start to integrate this information into how they want to do what they want to do. Your mileage may vary, but I find that Model 2 thinking is ultimately more effective in creating long-term change. What does this mean for you if you are a change agent or you're someone who helps change agents make change? First, understand the stakes here. Humans are wildly attuned to intent. It's something I talk about in my second book, say what they can't unhear. Humans are really good at spotting these differences in what you say and in what you do. When there's a gap, it starts to interfere with their trust and in your believability to them. The larger the gap between what you say and what you do, the less people trust you. The smaller the gap, generally, the more they do. Second, it's really hard to fake this. One of the things that I've seen in my work and my research is that the more we can start with what we actually believe, what we actually think, the more likely that what we do and what we say will align. One of the first steps, if you are doing this for yourself or if you're working with somebody else, is to help them articulate what the actual reasoning is for why they believe in a certain change or why they've developed a certain product. The key is to not stop at what they say is important, but really keep testing until they're at an actual explanation for why something happens. Don't let something go with, "It's cost-effective." Ask them, ask yourself, "What is it about what we do that makes it cost-effective? Why do we believe that?" The more that you can align what you say and what you do, the stronger your message will be and the more likely the change you're looking for will happen. You just have to remember Model 1 and Model 2 with a hat tip to Argyris and Schön.
