Chris Argyris
Over the past decade, I have been studying the How can the same reasoning necessarily lead to
ways executives reason while they are solving productive and counterproductive consequences?
difficult human and technical problems. The How can people act and at the same time be
executive mind seems to work in bewildering ways, disconnected from their reasoning processes? And
a few of which I will discuss in this article. For one why is it necessary for them to be disconnected
thing, I have identified a pattern of three nested from their reasoning processes in order to solve
paradoxes embedded in executive reasoning. difficult problems? What impact do these features
First, the reasoning executives use to manage have on executive problem solving and on the
people and technical issues leads simultaneously to organization?
productive and to counterproductive consequences. These nested paradoxes indicate that we are
Second, they are unaware of this feature because dealing with some deeply embedded features of the
they are disconnected from their own reasoning human mind. And it is the executive mind that
processes while making tough decisions. concerns us because executives are most often held
Third, they are disconnected from their responsible for dealing with the difficult issues in
reasoning processes because of the skills they have organizations and in society at large.
mastered to solve tough problems. The skills that
lead to success will also lead to failure.
2
errors, other people — especially subordinates —
may feel it is safest to play down the error, or may
ease in the correct information so subtly that the ex-
ecutive will probably not even realize that he did
make an error.
These actions at the upper levels are especially
detrimental to the organization's capacity to detect
and correct errors, to innovate, to take risks, and to
know when it is unable to detect and correct error.
Such consequences can lead to difficulties in getting
the everyday job done correctly. But worse, lack of
attention to the underlying policy issues can lead to
Chris Argyris is James Bryant Conant Professor of the organization's losing control of its destiny.
education and organizational behavior at Harvard
University. His academic degrees are: A.B., Clark In a previous article I gave an example in which
University; M.A., Kansas University; Ph.D., Cornell managers at all levels "rounded out" sentences in
University; and honorary doctorates from McGill reports in ways designed to (1) avoid upsetting
University, the University of Leuven, Belgium, and the those at the top too much and, at the same time, (2)
Stockholm School of Economics. From 1951 to 1971,
permit the subordinates involved to "cover"
Argyris was Beach Professor of administrative sciences at
Yale University; he served as chairperson of the themselves. The result was a multimillion dollar
department during the latter part of the period. His early error that led to the closing of major facilities. The
research focuses on the unintended consequences for error was known, and the consequences predictable,
individuals of formal and organizational structures, by managers at the lower levels several years before
executive leadership, and control and management
the crisis exploded into the open.
-information systems — and on how individuals adapted to
change those consequences (Integrating the Individual and
the Organization, John Wiley & Sons, 1964). He then Figure 1
turned his attention to ways of changing organizations WHAT Y SAID TO X
(Organization and Innovation, Irwin-Dorsey, 1965). This
led him to focus on the role of the social scientist as
1. X, your performance is not up to standard (and
researcher and interventionist (Inner Contradictions of
Rigorous Research, Academic Press, 1980). During the moreover. . .)
past decade, he has been developing, with Donald Schön, 2. You seem to be carrying a chip on your
a theory of learning in which human reasoning, not just shoulder.
behavior, becomes the basis for diagnosis and action 3. It appears to me that this has affected your per-
(Organizational Learning, Addison-Wesley, 1978).
Argyris's latest book is (Reasoning, Learning, and Action:
formance in a number of ways. I have heard
Individual and Organizational (Jossey-Bass, 1982). words like lethargy, uncommitted, and disin-
terested used by others in describing your recent
performance.
THE EXECUTIVE MIND DEFINED 4. Our senior professionals cannot have those
characteristics.
By "executive mind," I mean the way executives
5. Let's discuss your feelings about your perfor-
create premises, make inferences, and arrive at
mance.
conclusions. Surprisingly, executives (or anyone
6. X, I know you want to talk about the injustices
else, for that matter) are usually unaware of their
that you believe have been perpetrated on you in
reasoning processes. There are two reasons for this.
the past. The problem is that I am not discussing
First, they have great reasoning skill — the activity
something that happened several years ago.
is second nature to them, and they are rarely aware
Nothing constructive will come from it. It's
of it while they are doing it. Indeed, as is true of
behind us.
most skilled behavior, they rarely focus on it unless
7. I want to talk about you today and about your
they make an error. Second, when they do make
future in our system.
3
Our research indicates that when executives deal
with difficult, threatening, underlying issues, they Your thoughts and feelings What you and Y said
use reasoning processes that, at best, simultaneously (Give in this column any thoughts I: (Write what you would say.)
lead to immediate success and long-range problems. and feelings you had during the
session but which you did not Y: (Write what you expect Ys
Often the problems go unsolved, compounding the communicate.) response would be.)
long-range difficulties. Much of this occurs without I: (Write your response to this.)
executives' realizing it. Or, if they do realize it,
many believe that no other outcome is possible. Y: (Write Ys response.)
They are correct if they are willing to accept the and so forth
world as it is, without seeking alternatives.
According to the Pentagon Papers, this is what
happened at upper levels in the Defense Department
as well as in the State Department. The responses presented below were made by
To illustrate how we arrived at these the 15 top senior officers, including the CEO, of a
conclusions, I want to present data from a case that five-billion-dollar corporation. If your answers do
concerns one of the most difficult problems not vary significantly from those in our sample, then
executives face — namely, to help fellow the consequences that followed for the executives
executives realize that their performance is will more than likely occur for you. (If your answers
deteriorating when they believe otherwise. Later I are different, please mail them to me. It will help us
will show how the results from this case apply to better understand the gaps in our research.)
other common but difficult leadership problems.
(The reader may wish to try his hand at solving this
case and compare his or her response with those of THE EXECUTIVES' EVALUATION OF
our sample.) Y's EFFECTIVENESS
must hold a tacit theory of threat. 1. Blamed X compeletely. 1. Blamed X justly, or only
partially
• Therefore, embedded in the first causal 2. Resisted hearing X’s views. 2. Only resisted getting into a
miniature theory is another one, a theory past history that was a can of
worms
about what makes people defensive. 3. Discounted X’s feelings. 3. Understood X’s feelings for
• All the explanations that the executives X’s sake, but, he did not
want to get mired in them;
produced have a taken-for-granted quality that he was trying to think
because they have been absorbed and positively and look toward
the future
learned in the experience of everyday life. In
my jargon, people are socialized to believe
When the executives were confronted with the
this theory of defense because they have
second puzzle (that they were using the same
been taught from an early age that such an
approach as Y), their initial response was surprise
act — telling someone his or her
and disbelief. A few tried to prove that this was not
performance is poor — can be
an inconsistency on their part, but fellow executives
counterproductive.
disagreed. When the defensive reactions wore thin,
there was a momentary silence. Then someone said:
SOME PUZZLES AND SURPRISES
Yes, you are right; there is the inconsistency.
First, two puzzles:
But what you fail to realize is that none of us
1. If everyone has learned these causal ex-
would say to Y what we have written down.
planations early in life, why have they not
also eventually learned not to create them?
Why, for example, did Y behave the way he
No, added another with a smile, we're too smart
did toward X?
to say what we think.
2. If Y had asked these executives what they
thought of the way he dealt with X, and if
the line executives told Y what is in Figure
Note the difference between the executives'
2, they would be using the same causal
reactions to the first and second puzzles. Their
theory with Y that they were criticizing Y
response to the first puzzle was to place the blame
for using with X. For example, to tell Y that
on Y. In the second, unable to explain away their
he is insensitive and blunt is to be blunt and
own inconsistency, they decided that they would not
insensitive.
say what they thought. They accepted being
When the executives were confronted with the
surprised about, and unaware of, their impact on Y
first puzzle, they were quick to reply that either Y
as natural. But note that they never suggested that Y
was not very competent, or that maybe he was even
might have been unaware of his impact on X.
a bit flustered and tried to cover this up by being
Once the executives had made a diagnosis, they
directive.
assumed that it was true and countered any
Notice the reasoning. The executives dealt with
questioning of it in ways designed to keep their
the first puzzle (of why Y behaved thusly) by saying
diagnosis intact.
that Y lacked some skill, or was upset. That places
the responsibility on Y. It also means that the
5
Figure 2 theory used by Y) by asserting that they would not
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO tell Y their diagnosis.
X AND Y CASE We collected two kinds of data to test. their
(by line executives) assertion. First, the executives were asked to write
scenarios of a conversation they might have with Y
Y's Action Strategies about Y's handling of X. They were at liberty to
Ys comments have a strong power tone; they mold Y's reactions as they wished.
smell of conspiratorial knowledge. The executives used three basic strategies in
Y gives no sign of interest or compassion. their scenarios. The first strategy (used by five
Y set X up to give only the answers Y wants executives) was direct. In effect, they told Y their
to hear. diagnosis. But many who used a direct approach
Y comes across as a blunt, uncaring executioner communicated with Y in such a way that they
of the firm's policy decision with regard neglected important features of their own advice.
to X. For example, most of them were "up front" with Y
Y makes it abundantly clear that he does not but were unable to create an "open process," .a
want to be bothered with X. receptive mood," a process for the "growth and
Y is insensitive to Xs feelings. development" of Y.
Y waits too long to listen to X. Here are examples of how three of these
Y does not give X a chance to respond. He pays executives began their scenarios, with hypothesized
lip service to hearing X's side. reactions that Y might have had but did not
Y is too blunt, direct, one-sided, disclose.
Y cuts off X.
Y communicates the seriousness of the situation Examples of Direct Approach
from the company's point of view.
At no time does he appear to communicate that Executive said
According to the executives, Y
could have thought
he and the firm genuinely want X to have a Executive1: To tell the truth , I 1. He is not only telling me I
second chance. don’t think you accomplished failed, but that I was blind to
what you wanted to. that fact.
Impact on X Executive2: Some of your 2. I had to be straight with him.
Makes X feel defensive, rejected. comments were bound to hit X Speaking of hitting pretty
pretty hard and force a defensive hard, you’re not doing badly
Makes X defend his past performance reaction. yourself!
aggressively. Executive3: Well , you started off 3. Somebody had to be straight
pretty hard on his performance, with him. We had been
X will feel prejudged, as though the "deck" were his defensive reaction. The poor pulling our punches for five
"loaded." bastard almost had to defend his years. He didn’t have much
record to set you straight. to defend, and he knew it. I
X is not likely to relax and learn. feel I have to set you straight
X is left with no room for constructive about me!
exploration.
X feels totally demoralized and inferior. A more lengthy example from one scenario
X is placed in a no-win situation. indicates the flow of conversation and the possible
Impact on Learning buildup of Ys reactions.
Inhibits learning on part of both individuals.
According to the writer,
X will probably look for another job. Executive said
Y could have thought
4. Nobody believes the 4. If this is true, I really was
judgement about their own doomed to failure because
poor performance is accurate this guy has no successes.
THE EXECUTIVES' ADVICE TO Y unless they can balance it Are you also thinking the
against a number of same about me? If so, how
successes. about a few successes?
Recall that the executives tried to evade the Did you get a defensive Of course I did, just as you
reaction from X? predicted from what you just
second puzzle (that they were using the same causal said
6
Well, my only point is that Just like you are guaranteed was better?
you probably were to do with me. Let’s begin to 5. Perhaps if you could 5. Maybe this is what he is
guaranteed to get some end this diplomatically. persuade him to open up driving at. If so, he is wrong.
defensiveness. (“Thanks for the advice.”) about it, he might get it off The last thing I want to do is
his chest. open up past wounds . . . oh,
Don’t be afraid to be honest. I’m not afraid to be honest these bleeding hearts!
except with people like you.
3. Failed to hear Y’s pent-up 3. To listen to X’s pent-up The executives The executives advised Y
feelings. feelings.
1. Were in unilateral control. 1. Not to unilaterally control X.
4. Failed to solicit Y’s 4. To solicit X’s participation.
2. Evaluated Y as ineffective. 2. Not to prejudge X as being
participation.
ineffective.
3. Made attributions about Y’s 3. Not to make attributions
So a third puzzle was that the executives created motives. about X’s motives.
7
Figure 3
MODEL I THEORY-IN-USE
Be rationale
8
can apply to many different sentences. A second problems. The only requirement is that the problems
feature is that they are usually learned at an early are threatening to some of the key players involved.
age. Hence most of us learn to use the same con- Once the players diagnose the problem as
cepts in similar ways. Soon we take them for threatening, they use the same reasoning described
granted. They become obvious and concrete, not in the X–Y case.
10
tains of specifications, including specifications on problem. This in turn means creating a learning
how to understand the specifications. environment separate from everyday pressures.
For example, select a double-loop issue that is
important to you, one that requires you to deal with
WHAT CAN BE DONE others in order to solve it. Using the X–Y case
format, write in one paragraph how you define the
What can interested readers do to begin to learn issue. In a second paragraph, write how you tried to
more about the effectiveness of their reasoning solve it (or might try to solve it if it is a future
processes and their action? problem). Next, write an actual scenario of several
First, may I remind the reader of the two most pages describing the conversation as you can best
fundamental findings. They were that the recall it (or if it is a future problem, what you would
executives' responses were highly automatic and expect the conversation to be). Include thoughts and
skillful, and that the executives were programmed feelings that you might not communicate, for
to be unaware of their faulty reasoning as well as of whatever reason.
the counterproductive impact. To change highly By the way, do not worry about how accurately
skilled action is not easy; to do so hampered by you recall the incident, or how well you plan the
programmed unawareness is difficult indeed. And future dialogue. If our theory is correct, you cannot
when the basis for the programmed unawareness is write down anything except what is consistent with
what we have been taught since early childhood, the your theory-in-use.
task becomes formidable. Now put the case away for at least a week.
However, it is by no means an impossible task. When you reread it, analyze it as if you were trying
The reader is not starting from scratch. We all know to help a friend. Here are some of the questions that
how to reason to separate effective from ineffective you can ask yourself about the dialogue.
results, and how to design experiments for learning. • Do the sentences indicate advocating a
Our research suggests that it will take about as long position in order to be in control and to win
to learn the new reasoning and action skills as it and not lose? Or is the advocacy of the posi-
takes to learn to play a good game of tennis or golf. tion combined with encouraging the other
And, in my opinion, that is how it should be. We are person to inquire? Is there an easing-in or
talking about changing our reasoning processes, one forthright strategy? How aware is the writer
of our most fundamental human features. The learn- of the possible interpretations by the
ing should be difficult in order to rule out the receiver?
gimmick hunters and quick-fix seekers. • Are the evaluations or attributions made
Learning new reasoning processes, like learning with or without illustrations? Are they tested
to play tennis or golf, requires plenty of practice. publicly or do they go untested?
Herein lies an advantage because most of us are • What kind of information is on the left-hand
constantly in situations in which we must use side of the paper (thoughts and feelings)?
reasoning processes. There is plenty of opportunity Does it contain information that would
to practice in everyday life. better enable the other person to understand
The nature of the practice will be different at your intentions? If so, what prevented you
different stages of learning. During the early stages, from communicating this information?
you should be able to make errors without a high • If the feelings and thoughts in the left-hand
cost to you or to the organization. Also, you should column would predictably upset others, what
have plenty of time to get feedback and to redesign change would be necessary so that they
your actions. These two features, when combined, could be effectively communicated?
suggest that the best kind of learning environment More important, why does the writer think and
during the early stages is one that allows for feel about other people in ways that are not directly
slowdown of the action and decomposition of the communicable? Sure, it may be that they are
S.O.B.s. But it may also be that the writer is
11
unknowingly creating self-fulfilling and self-sealing for example, top management realized that if the
processes. partners were going to be successful in dealing with
The next step would be to try to redesign some mediocre performance, they would have to become
part of the dialogue, especially the sentences with much more candid and forthright. They also realized
which you find it difficult to deal. that such candor was countercultural; hence the
• Read the sentence(s) several times and write partners had to learn new skills. They also realized
down the (culturally acceptable) meaning that if the partners learned to confront
that you infer (rung 2 on the ladder of constructively, and if it worked well with the
inference). subordinate professionals, the latter would probably
• Write down the meaning that you would take them up on their challenge and start
impose on the cultural meaning (rung 3). confronting the partners and the firm's policies.
• Invent a possible solution to deal with such Top management believed this would lead to
meanings. constructive dialogue and possibly a new culture.
• Write an actual conversation that produces All the top executives agreed with this espoused
the invention you just made. policy. However, as they examined their scenarios
Feel free to make all the changes you wish and the self-initiated censorship (what they placed
during the exercise. Every change is a sign of on the left-hand side of their page), they became
learning and another opportunity for practice. This aware that their theory-in-use was quite different.
is not a win / lose competitive situation with About half of them were trying to act in ways that
yourself or with others. were consistent with the new policy. About half
Again, put your written work away, this time for were easing-in but denying this was the case. One
at least a day, before rereading it. If you prefer not senior executive then said:
to wait for the week, or the day, show your efforts to
someone else. It is best to do this with persons who Let's assume for the moment that our subordinates will be
are also interested in learning about themselves, and watching not only what we espouse but how we act. If that
is so, then many of them should be aware of the bipolar
who might reciprocate by showing you a case they nature of our actions. Yet to my knowledge, this is never
had written in this format. The set is then one in discussed. They give much lip service to our policies. This
which both of you are learning. means in the name of candor we must be (unknowingly)
Another step is to make exercises like those just helping them to identify what is undiscussable, to keep it
described part of the firm's executive-development undiscussable, and to act as if they are not doing so!
activities. For example, you and your group The next phase is to use the new skills in
members could each write a case. One of these everyday situations. In one firm, for example,
could be the subject of discussion during a seminar. professionals at all levels went through the X–Y
(I recommend at least an hour and a half and some experience. When the officers had to evaluate their
trained professional help for each of the early professionals in the normal review process, they
sessions.) decided to use the opportunity to practice their new
Another possibility is for all individuals to write skills. Often they needed practice sessions ahead of
a case about an organizational problem that plagued, time to help them prepare to conduct the review
or continues to plague, the organization. It is then appropriately. The number and length of the
possible not only to see how each player preparatory sessions were greatly reduced once the
conceptualizes the problem, but also how he or she officers felt secure in their new skills.
has tried (or would try) to solve it. Since the bewilderment, bafflement, and
During these discussions, the players soon frustration of the X–Y case were experienced by all,
generate a lot of data about the organization, its subordinates who came to the review sessions knew
culture, and the way decisions are made. Grouping how difficult it would be for the officer to behave in
the cases provides a new data source for diagnosing line with the new model. It was easy for the officers
organizational features that inhibit or facilitate to say that the evaluation was going to be a learning
organizational learning. In a large professional firm,
12
experience for them as well as for the subordinates. discussable), then the need for a strong leader might
If the subordinate agreed, I participated in the be greatly reduced. If so, the firm could use its
evaluation sessions. The subordinate and the senior officers more flexibly.
superior often listened to the tape of the session, re- An episode in another firm involved design of a
porting that doing so was an eye-opener for them. new organizational structure. Sides were taken;
Another type of intervention is illustrated by the subgroups began to view each other as
officer who asked his project team to reflect on a conservatives and liberals. In X–Y case
recent job they had completed. Although everyone terminology, each side held untested and often
involved evaluated the project as a success, he felt unillustrated attributions that led to divisive
that they could have done better since they were intergroup dynamics. Instead of reenacting their
exceptionally talented professionals. In the first history of intergroup warfare, several executives
session, team members reflected on their experience pointed out the connection between the reasoning
of the project. They identified ten factors that led they used in the X–Y case and the reasoning they
the team to be less creative than it could have been. were currently using. A meeting was held with the
For example, they admitted that, as senior key players on both sides present. In presenting their
professionals, they had all acted as chiefs, each in analysis of the situation, several executives asked,
his own bailiwick, adding that they had often recog- "If this makes sense to you, would you all be willing
nized a lack of coordination and integration to join us in reflecting on what we are doing?" Most
throughout the project. Their conclusion was that agreed spontaneously; a few agreed but were
the team could have gained by stronger leadership. concerned — As one commented, "This could lead
A second session was held to dig into the to blows." Well, it never did. They were able to map
reasoning that the team used during the first the attributions and evaluations people were making
meeting. I noted, for example, that the team had and not testing, the games that were being played,
recognized the lack of coordination early in the and the possible negative consequences of all this
project. "Do you recall what prevented you from on their final decisions and on the firm. The result
surfacing these views?" Their replies clustered was a jointly developed plan on how to reduce
around (1) the fear that they would step on counterproductive factors. The participants agreed
someone's toes, (2) the fact that they were all very that the result was a greater degree of internal
busy, and (3) the assumption that team coordination commitment to make the new design work, as
was the officer's responsibility. The officer I evidenced by their willingness to monitor it actively
mentioned that he had reduced his time with the and to design and implement changes that would
team because top management had asked him to make it more effective.
take on additional and unexpected work. He had One of the other important consequences of the
agreed to the extra work in part because the team exercise was not learned until several months later.
was so senior that he believed they could administer Many of the executives at the middle and near-top
themselves. level — especially those who tended to play it safe
I asked what cues or data the members got that — were baffled by the degree of commitment, and
led them to believe that they would be stepping on especially by the near absence of undiscussable
other people's toes. The responses ranged from cues issues, on the part of the top people. Many had
individuals gave each other to informal policies of predicted that it would take years to implement the
the firm that made them hesitate to speak out. Their plan. They told their subordinates not to become too
theory-in-use was to cover up their views; to cover anxious because top management would probably
up the cover-up in order to get the job done. This be changed before the new scheme had an important
deeper analysis pointed to a different change target. impact on their levels. This led middle-level
If they could change the need for the cover-up, if executives to reduce their vigilance and concern
they could learn to generate more effective about implementation. However, unlike previous
cooperative relationships (including being able to occasions, the implementation not only moved
make the heretofore undiscussable issues faster but greatly reduced the space for hiding. This
13
Figure 5
MODEL II THEORY-IN-USE
taught the middle and lower levels a more vivid valid? The answer, from this perspective, is
lesson about the change in the firm than could have "Nothing." The problem is that negative evaluations
occurred in the usual information and exhortation should not be communicated by using the same
exchanges. features that the actors believe it is ineffective for
someone else to use. To the extent that meanings
are communicated in a way that follows the same
MODEL II THEORY-IN-USE causal theory the sender has told the recipient is
counterproductive, the sender will be experienced
Embedded in the advice above is a different by the recipient as behaving inconsistently and
theory-in-use that we shall call Model II (Figure 5). unjustly.
Its governing variables are valid information, free The participants' attributions had two major
and informed choice, and an internal commitment to features. First, they explained Y's actions by
that choice in order to monitor the effectiveness of attributing motives "in" Y. For example, Y was
the implementation of the action. Model II is a protecting himself, was seeking to frighten X,
theory of action that combines learning and inquiry intended to intimidate X, and was insecure. Second,
with advocating one's views. It is not a nondirective the attributions stated that the cause was in the role
model (such a model would simply be the opposite or the position that Y held. For example, Y was act-
of Model I). Model II action strategies are to ing like a company man, like an authoritarian boss,
combine advocacy with inquiry, to minimize face like a superior identifying with the hierarchy.
saving, and to encourage the acceptance of personal Not only do the attributions contain negative
responsibility. evaluations — they imply that Y intended to make
Let us now consider the X–Y case with a view X defensive in order to protect himself or the
to redesigning it along lines more consistent with organization.
Model II. Recall that the meanings the executives If we combine the features of the evaluations
produced were high up on the ladder of inference, and attributions just described, and if we keep in
unillustrated, and untested; that executives believed mind that the receiver is also programmed with
their evaluations and attributions were low on the Model I, then we have the basis for the predictions
ladder of inference – that is, they were concrete and of self-fulfilling prophecies, self-sealing processes,
obvious inferences — and that it was therefore and escalating error that were illustrated.
unnecessary to test them. To invent and produce a different way of
An outstanding feature of the participants' dealing with X, let us first identify the key features
evaluations of Y was their negativeness. The most of an intervention that contains negative or
probable explanation for this negativeness was that threatening meanings even through the intention is
Y's actions were negative. What is ineffective about to facilitate learning.
communicating negative judgments if they are
14
Messages should be designed so that they are same amount of time as the Model I roleplay, or
experienced as credible by the recipients. Recipients even less.
must have access to the data and to the reasoning We now turn to an illustration of how the
used by the sender to arrive at his or her evaluation interventionist might deal with Y. Remember the
or attribution. Hence the evaluations or attributions ladder of inference and Y's statement that led us to
should be illustrated and the reasoning made infer the meaning "X, your performance is
explicit. unacceptable." Remember, too, that inferences are
The message should be communicated in ways subject to error and hence should be put to public
that will minimize individuals' automatic response test. Every move up or down the ladder necessarily
to defend themselves. This means that senders means that inferences are made; the higher up the
should state their messages in such a way as to ladder of inference and the more abstract the ideas,
encourage inquiry into or confrontation of their the greater the chance of error and therefore the
reasoning and meanings. greater the importance of public testing. Whatever
From the preceding, it is possible to infer rules theory one uses, it should make public testing as
for producing such messages: easy as possible.
1. Provide the (relatively) directly observable data To test an inference with someone else, it is
(first rung on the ladder) that you use to infer necessary to make explicit both the premise and the
your evaluations or attributions, and check to conclusions drown from the premise. The inference
see whether the recipient agrees with your data. 'Your performance is unacceptable in the X–Y case
2. Make explicit the cultural meanings that you is based on the premise of Y's words to X.
inferred from the data and seek confirmation One can test the inference by asking Y: "When
from the other person. you said, 'X, your performance is not up to
3. Make explicit your judgments and opinions in standard,' did you mean that his performance was
ways that permit you to show why the unacceptable," or "When you said 'You seem to be
consequences of the actor's action were carrying a chip on your shoulder,' did you intend to
inevitable, but without implying intentions to attribute to him unacceptable attitudes?" If Y
produce such consequences. responds yes, then the meanings have been affirmed
4. Encourage others to express feelings or ideas and it is possible to proceed to the next rung on the
that they may have about the process. ladder.
The reader might ask, "How efficient can such If a participant in an X–Y seminar wanted to
rules be? Can we get anything done under real-time reveal his diagnostic frame, it is at this point that he
constraints?" First, recall that these rules are for would have to say something like "Well, I infer
dealing with double-loop issues. Second, how much from these data that you prejudged X," or "You
is actually accomplished in the present modes of were too blunt," or "You were insensitive," Such a
communication? Research suggests that present response is likely to produce defensiveness in Y for
modes actually take longer and, worse, that they several reasons. First, Y may not agree with the
generate a social pollution of misunderstanding and evaluations / attributions. Y may believe that he had
mistrust that gives people a sense of helpless to be blunt or insensitive in order to get through to
hopelessness. As our world becomes saturated with X. Or he may believe that he did not prejudge X,
this pollution, even a small incremental error can that X generated years of data that led to the present
touch off a breakdown of our natural defenses judgment. Second, the evaluations not only attribute
against it. As we shall see, the process of designing errors to Y, but imply that he intended to be blunt,
and implementing meanings in accordance with insensitive and so on. Since no one knowingly
Model II does not take much longer. When we have produces error, if Y knew what he was doing, then
clocked Model I and Model II roleplay, we have dis- he knew that he was being blunt and insensitive. An
covered that Model II (when produced by actors explicit negative evaluation is coupled with an
who are moderately competent) usually requires the implicit attribution that Y intended the encounter
with X to produce these negative consequences.
15
Under these conditions, the interventionist's
testing is more of a trick than a helpful strategy. He Let's stop for a moment. What is your reaction? Does this
make sense? (or) Am I communicating?
or she may have tested the first two levels of
inference only in order to nail Y with his or her Several features of this response should be
third-level evaluations and attributions, themselves highlighted. First, not only do the concepts of
difficult to test. Indeed, in our experience it is "unillustrated evaluation" and "unillustrated
difficult both for the interventionist and for the attribution" provide insight into a problem, but the
participants to see and agree with the logic of in- insight is in the form of a causal theory. If someone
ference between successive levels of inference. produces unillustrated evaluations, whoever
Recall how often in the transcripts the participants receives the evaluations or attributions will not
either were unable to illustrate their inferences or know the basis of them unless they are illustrated.
illustrated them with further inferences. If The receiver will feel bewildered and misunder-
inferences are to be tested, then no matter how high stood. He may therefore react defensively (unless he
on the ladder of inference they occur it should be is afraid or prefers to be dependent on you).
possible to proceed down the ladder and explicitly The causal theory in these propositions is true
connect them with the first and second levels. for anyone, not simply for Y. Therefore, framing it
To summarize: Whatever concepts are being as we do gives Y a degree of distancing from the
used, one should be able to order them on a ladder problem that may help him or her to understand it
of inference, advancing from relatively directly better. We are not saying "Y, you are wrong." We
observable data to the culturally acceptable meaning are saying that anyone who behaves as Y did will
and then up to the concepts used to organize the produce the unintended consequences described
previous two rungs into a problem. It is at this point above.
that interventionists are introducing their own When individuals observe the redesign of what
(usually tacit) theory of help. they could have said to Y, they are often impressed
Let's return to the interventionist's two questions with its simplicity and obviousness. Many report
to Y. Recall that Y confirmed the meanings. But let that they expected the answer to be more surprising.
us assume that Y said yes but was showing signs of The redesign may not be surprising because the
impatience: "Of course I meant the performance is ideas behind it are self-evident and not new.
unacceptable!" or "Naturally I think Xs attitudes are Another reason is that many individuals report that
wrong! What are you driving at?" At this point the they had considered some of these intervention
interventionist, using our theory of action, could ideas but did not know how to design responses that
say: made sense.
Both of these reasons show how crucial is the
I'll be glad to tell you what I am driving at. First, though, I distinction between being aware of a possible action
want to make sure that I understood you correctly.
and being able to produce that action. In our terms
I have a way of understanding the effectiveness of the the roleplay may not seem surprising, because it fits
kinds of comments that you made to X. Your first many individuals' espoused theories. But the
comment (repeats it) I call an "unillustrated evaluation." It difficulty is evident when people try to produce
tells the person he is wrong, but it does not include the such redesign and find themselves unable to do so.
data and logic of how you arrived at that conclusion.
People tend to react to these unillustrated evaluations and They are surprised that they have difficulty
attributions by feeling bewildered and / or misunderstood. redesigning their own interventions. The reason for
Depending on how free they feel, they may confront you their difficulty is that they still hold a Model I
or they may imitate your style and make their own theory-in-use. When they are listening or advising,
unillustrated evaluations and attributions about you. If individuals use their espoused Model II theories.
they do the latter, it upsets the receiver, just as X was
upset by your comments. Now, if X reacted on inferences When they try to produce action, their Model I
that he is keeping secret, you would probably sense that theory-in-use is activated.
secrecy because you would not see clearly the reasoning The governing values of the theory are
he used to come to his stated conclusions. especially important. It is possible to make Model II
16
statements to Y and yet fail because the actor still
holds, and subtly conveys, Model I governing
values such as "Win, don't lose," or "Maintain
unilateral control." Indeed, some people initially
react to the Model II redesign as if they were utiliz- SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
ing a new and more subtle form of Model I. Their
The ideas in this paper come from the author's
disguised Model I approach usually shows when Reasoning, Learning and Action: Individual and
they try to defend their views. Organizational (Jossey–Bass, 1982). Also relevant is
To close, the skills and competencies that a study of a group of presidents learning Model II,
executives learn for dealing with an X–Y type of Increasing Leadership Effectiveness (Wiley–
Interscience, 1976). Shorter versions of the theory
problem can be used for dealing with any
behind the research may be found in the author's
double-loop problem. The key is to learn the new previous Organizational Dynamics article,
skills and to acquire a new set of governing values. "Leadership, Learning, and Changing the Status Quo"
If executives learn the new skills — such as (Winter, 1976).
advocating their position and encouraging inquiry Two studies in government policy making and
regulation are Laurence E. Lynn and David de F.
— but use them to maintain unilateral control and to
Whitman's The President as Policymaker: Jimmy
maximize winning, they would be using their new Carter and Welfare Reform (Temple University
skills in the service of Model I values. They remain Press, 1981) and Robert B. Reich's "Regulation by
within a Model I mode; they hide their views about Confrontation or Negotiation" (Harvard Business
the gimmickiness of the new behavior, yet act as if Review, May–June 1981).
The research on managing paradoxes can be
they are not hiding anything. As a result, others may found in Louis B. Bames's "Managing the Paradox of
interpret their newly acquired skills as gimmicks or Organizational Trust" (Harvard Business Review,
as new ways to manipulate people. March–April 1981).
Luckily, people judge the credibility of human
skills by evaluating what values they serve. This
means that those who learn the new skills as
gimmicks and tricks will be discovered. It means
further that those who wish to gain credibility not
only must learn the new skills, but also must
internalize a new set of values.
17