New Articles:
Links
Coaching: Dealing with subliminal “Theories in Use”
(With acknowledgement to the inspired thinking of Chris Argyris,
professor, Harvard Business School)
We don’t necessary live in the same world we speak about; we operate
from a psycho-logic, embedded in a theory-in-use, through which we
control and predict the consequences of our behaviours; learning to
know is different from learning to do; people don’t give up their
theory-in-use because they know better.
1. Espoused Theories
It is not uncommon that we are confronted with the fact that it is
sometimes easier to give advice than to live it. Or, people who are
supposed to have the answers fail to be effective at their challenges
they face. All of this refers to the proverbial times when we “don’t
walk our talk”. In my experience as management coach and NLP/NS
trainer, this is also the challenge of “transferring learning”: to
do
what is required when it is required.
This enigma, however, start with peoples thinking (their stated “theory”)
about events. They would think about an event in a particular way, which, when
asked, is what they present verbally. However, when
watching real examples of their behaviour, their stated theory
(explanation) might not correspond to their observable behaviour.
“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 allegiance,
and which, upon request, he communicates to others. However, the theory
that actually governs his actions is his theory-in-use, which may or
may not be compatible with his espoused theory; furthermore, the
individual may or may not be aware of the incompatibility of the two
theories.” (Argyris and Schön, 1981, p.7).
This gap between the espoused theory and theory-in-use becomes
significant when the actual behaviour the person exhibits does not lead
to desired outcomes. Effective behaviour is at a premium in human
lives. “Moreover, we now see that one source of human energy is
psychological success with challenging opportunities; thus,
effectiveness may be connected with psychological health.
As the concept of human nature became more competence-oriented, it also became
more active.” Argyris and Schön, 1981; p.xi)
2. Theory in Use
“When you know what to do in a given situation in order to achieve an
intended consequence, you know what the theory-in-use for that
situation is. You know the nature of the consequence to be attained,
you know the action appropriate in the situation to attain it, and you
know the assumptions contained in the theory.” (Argyris and Schön,
1981; p7).
“All such theories of action have the same form: in situation S, if you
want to achieve consequence C, do A.. Of course, theories of action do
not hold when they are put into such simple form. They depend on a set
of stated or unstated assumptions.” (Argyris, 1976; p.5)
“Theories-in-use, however their assumptions may differ, all include
assumptions about self, others, the situation, and the connections
among action, consequence, and situation.” (Argyris, 1976, p.6).
Clearly, we build two kinds of assumptions into our theories in use:
one, about the content and meaning, and secondly, about the
cause-effect/influencing relationship that exist amongst the components
in our experience of the event.
Firstly, assumptions about the content and meaning of the variables
which make up our experience of the event in which we want to achieve
C. Some current thinking clearly indicate that one can think of more
variables than the ones identified by Argyris.
Bodenhamer and Hall in their latest research (The Matrix Model: a
Trainers Manual (@2003), as well as “The Matric Model: 7 Matrices of
Neuro-Semantics” by Michael Hall (2002)), demonstrate that we construct
meaning about the following 7 variables in our experience: Values,
Self, Power and Self-efficacy, Time, Others and the World. How we think
about these variables that make up our experiential world, determine
how we frame (punctuate or emphasise) our experience. How we frame the
content of our experience determines not just the meaning in our
experience, but also what is possible in behavioral terms. The
assumptions and meaning we hold about the 7 matrices sets the boundary
for the possible consequences and range of actions we permit ourselves
to consider.
Statements about “I cannot” or “it is not possible for me” or “I am not
even prepared to consider it” are not necessarily referring to
constraints in the world, but to how I think about me in the context of
the 7 matrices. I am my own constraint in how I pay attention and give
meaning to these 7 variables. In the same way, there is be an optimal
way of framing with the 7 matrices, which are conducive to peak
performance and healthy effectiveness. (This is bound to be a next
article by M. Hall, or me. In the meantime I suggest “Coaching and
Conditions for Excellence” at www.peakperformer.co.za).
Secondly, the perceived relationship between our definition of the
situation, the actions we are prepared or programmed to consider, and
the 7 matrices, defines for us the “what is possible” withing the
theory-in-use. As long as this theory-in-use stay as is, the persons
behaviour will stay constant. Unless the theory-in-use changes, the
person can only consider the behavioural span or consequences
“permitted” by the theory.
“From the subjective view, my theory of action is normative for me;
that is, it states what I ought to do if I wish to achieve certain
results. It is a theory of control.” (Argyris, 1976, p.9). Not only is
it my theory with which I control my world, it is also the theory which
“controls” me.
3. Self-Sealing
“The relationship between theory-in-use and action is special. Here,
the action not only applies and tests the theory but also shapes the
behavioral world the theory is about. We are familiar with this
phenomenon in its pejorative connotations, as in the example of the
teacher whose belief in the stupidity of his students results in the
students' behaving stupidly. But the usual conclusions of such
experiments is that one should avoid self-fulfilling prophecies--as if
one could. Every theory-in-use is a self-fulfilling prophecy to some
extent."
Every time your theory-in-use works, you have the confirmation for it.
Language solidifies meaning, but the consequences of one’s
theory-in-use entrenches or embeds the theory.
“Here are two examples. A teacher believes his students are stupid. He
communicates his expectations so that the children behave stupidly. He
may then "test” his theory that the children will give stupid answers
to his questions by asking them questions and eliciting stupid answers.
The longer he interacts with the children, the more his theory will be
confirmed. A second example involves a manager who believes his
subordinates are passive, dependent, and require authoritarian
guidance, with the result that his subordinates do behave passively and
dependently toward him. He may test his theory by posing challenges for
them and eliciting dependent responses. In both cases the assumptions
turn out to be true; both theories-in-use are self-fulfilling
prophecies because the protagonist cannot discover that his assumptions
are mistaken or that his theory as a whole is ineffective. The
so-called testing brings the behavioral world more nearly into line
with the theory, confirming for all concerned the stupidity of the
students and the dependence of the subordinates.” (Argyris, 1976, p.16).
Coaching managers is one place where you will definitely come across
the resistence to change which is the result of self-sealing. Coaching
managers who have a track record of “success” have the evidence that
there theory-in-use is not only working (i.e. gets the desired
consequences) but it is a valid way of thinking about the world, me,
others, etc.
The fact that a person may be out of step with “current management
practises” or achieve their success at the cost of “current values
about the workforce”, is not enough reason for them to change their
theory-in-use.
4. Learning to Do and Learning to Know
It can be argued that information in itself is the poorest change-agent
when it comes to behavioural change. Knowing is not enough reason to
do. Knowing about does not imply competence in making the appropriate
behavioural and experiential distinctions required for effective
behaviour.
Argyris, after many years of research of doing “action learning” (i.e.
his preferred method to change theory-in-use; see the next article on
“double loop learning” or Argyris’ own article by that name in the
Harvard Business Review, or “Empowerment” in the May-June 1998 edition)
came to the following conclusion:
“When the requirement was added that people use and produce these
concepts in concrete actions in their everyday life, under conditions
ranging from zero through moderate stress, we assumed that, once the
participants learned and internalized new concepts, they would
"naturally" be used and built on by them; thus they could be produced
in real life. Implicit in this assumption was another-namely, that
there was a continuous relationship between discovery, the formulation
of new concepts, and the production of these in real life.
We learned that this was not the case. What people define and accept as
valid discovery and as relevant conceptual learning varies dramatically
if they know that the objective educational experience is conceptual
learning, rather than if the objective includes the performance of the
concepts to be learned. (Argyris 1976, p.IX).
“We believe that theories of action whose purpose is primarily to
discover problems may be quite different from those whose purpose
combines discovery of problems with the invention and production of
solutions.” Argyris, 1978, p.5). “... people design and solve problems
differently if they know they will end their learning with
understanding than if they know that they will be asked to use their
understanding to make events come about.” (Argyris, 1976, p.xii).
This is another way of stressing the importance of outcome-based
interventions, where the person being coached is mutually responsible
for defining coaching outcomes. (See “Training Effectiveness using NLP”
and “Practical Mentoring” at www.peakperformer.co.za)
Summary
When people’s behaviour differs from what they say they are operating
from a particular theory-in-use. This theory-in-use is their way of
understanding the variables and controlling the consequences of their
behaviour on specific events. A theory-in-use have a particular
psycho-logic about “doing-to-get”.
Change during the coaching-process is working, directly or indirectly,
with the persons’ theory-in-use. Because of the self-fulfilling nature
of theory-in-use all behavioural evidence is translated into validation
of the theory, called “self-sealing”.
Since the early 70's (based on extensive research by Argyris) it has
been made clear that different strategies are required for “getting to
know” and “doing”. It would enhance coaching effectiveness
to consider
different strategies for these different outcomes.
Bibliography
Argyris, Chris (1976) Increasing Leadership Effectiveness, Wiley Series In Behavior.
Argyris, Chris and Schön, Donald (1978): Organizational Learning: A
Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
(1981): Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass
Inc. Publishers
Bodenhamer, Bobby and Hall, L Michael (2003): The Trainers Manual: The Matrix
Model.
Hall, L Michael (2002) The Matrix Model: the 7 Matrices of Neuro-Semantics Neuro-Semantic
Publications.