Tamsen Webster explains Argyris and Schön's theories of action: the gap between what we say we do (espoused theory) and what we actually do (theory-in-use), plus single-loop and double-loop learning. Essential for understanding organizational change and persuasion.
Have you ever noticed that what we say we believe doesn't always match up to what we actually do? Well, that brings us to Chapter 4 of Doctoral Studies in Seconds with my 4th favorite concept that I've learned since starting my doctoral program last summer, and that is Ardris and Shun's theories of action. And what they described is they gave a name to that difference between I say I believe something but I do something different. The I say I do something is what they called an espoused theory. I believe in giving everybody an equal voice in a meeting, and yet the theory in which is what the actions actually reveal to be the actual beliefs and theory and practice, would be something like, yeah, but you always interrupt everybody else in the meeting. That gap between what we say and what we sometimes even legitimately think is what is driving our behavior isn't always driving our behavior, which brings us back to the subject-object idea of Robert Keegan, which brings us back to Chee's idea of categorical shifts, because if we don't see it, then we may be thinking about it incorrectly, which may mean that we are trying to solve the wrong problem or even the wrong kind of problem. Adaptive or technical, from Heifetz the wrong way. So what do we do about that? Well, there's two types of learning that feed into this. They call it single loop learning and double loop learning. Single loop learning just slaps a solution onto something as if it were a technical problem without questioning the deeper premise about what was going on in the first place. Something like, it's too cold in here, turn the heat up. Now, double loop learning actually goes one step further and says, why is this happening? In other words, it's trying to surface those implicit things that may be driving the situation in the first place. So we could be saying, why do I feel cold? Is the room actually too cold or am I getting sick? That kind of thinking is where and how Ardris and Schoen say we can start to bring things up to the surface and really examine them in practice. This is helpful for when you are thinking about and making your own case for change, because this is where it's really important to make sure that you're not just saying what you wish were true, but you're actually articulating something approximating underestimating the reason why you actually believe it's true. By going one step deeper and saying, who says that this is the way it works? Why does it work that way? We can really start to surface the underlying plausibility of whether or not a particular change or an approach to change would work at all. It will also, by the way, make sure that what you say you do tracks with what you actually do, which is a key component to trust, credibility, and long-term change being sustainable. So the next time you're thinking about arguing for a change, start with the theory in use, the reasons why your strategy or your approach is actually better based on things that your audience agrees is true rather than things that you wish were true. It's one of the most important keys to saying something that people can't unhear.
