Flawed Advice and the Management Trap, Chris Argyris, 2000
Social tensions in organizations prevent people from doing what they privately believe to be right. People espouse one model but employ another; they do not walk the talk. The gap between words and actions is compounded (by repetition) to become the infamous strategy – execution gap that confounds leaders.
A model of flawed behaviour
The prevailing mode (Model I) is based on diplomacy. Managers avoid saying anything that may be seen to criticise superiors, each other, the organisation's designers, policymakers or any of its sacred traditions.
Success in Model I depends on:
- being in control, or appearing to be so (trust me, I’ve got this)
- acting rationally (I have it on the highest authority…)
- winning (or at least, not losing)
- suppressing negative feelings (because failure is not an option)
Masters of Model I describe their approach in terms that are abstract and not specifically actionable. Eg. ‘I brought everyone together and made sure we all shared the same vision’ does not tell anyone else how to replicate that proves or how to communicate a vision. Their method boils down to their ‘secret sauce’ which is available, of course, to firms that hire them. They hold their years of experience and ability to select which individuals to believe in higher regard than verifiable data, allowing them to make confident predictions about future results. Although these are nothing more than hypotheses, framing them as such and running tests would introduce an element of doubt about decisions that were already made. That could make people doubt the leader’s decision-making abilities and cast him as a loser.
Success in the application of Model I, as an implicit theory of action, leads to:
- defensive loops and cover-ups
- unintended consequences
- blaming others, or blaming the system
- people that are unaware that this is what they are doing themselves (although they may notice it in others)
Model I can therefore be seen as a model of ‘skilled incompetence’.
Argyris has a better theory of action. Model II was developed in collaboration with Donald Schon and published in 1995
A new form of dialogue (Model II)
Instead of causing further division, focus on finding & resolving causal factors by changing the dialogue. It starts by listening and reflecting back:
- I hear what you say about them, what data leads you to believe xyz and how can we test that?
- Are we distancing ourselves from abc in order to save face and missing a valuable learning opportunity by doing so?
These questions move attention away from judgements of others to curiously exploring the problem situation. They are offered in the manner of facilitating, coaching or mentoring people rather than managing resources.
The behavioural strategies of Model II involve sharing power with anyone who has competence and is relevant to deciding about implementing the action in question.
On those occasions when face saving actions must be taken, they are planned jointly with people involved.
However, do not underestimate personal inertia in shifting from blaming others to entering an intangible and unknown space. The words spoken about being determined to get to the real cause of the problems here, or being open to personal criticism, are nothing compared to the courage needed to face one’s behaviours and realise they are defensive and inconsistent.
Model II theory of action
Model II’s ‘governing variables’ (or values) are:
- Valid information (data that can be validated)
- Free and informed choice (psychologically safe environment)
- Internal commitment to the choice (as everyone is involved in making that choice)
Of course, everyone signs-up for values such as these – verbal commitment is free. the next steps are:
- Stating your position as hypothesis not fact and encouraging enquiry and public testing.
- Minimising face-saving or other defensive behaviours (usually done subconsciously and vulnerable to group think)
- Maximising opportunities for learning.
How to provide actionable advice
Argyris proposes a test for the actionability of advice. it must be:
- Specific; specifies detailed, concrete behaviours
- Testable; Contains causal statements (if you do X then Y will occur)
- Teachable; Prescribes skills people have or can learn
- Portable; Context cannot prevent its implementation
To which I will add:
- Situation; states the type of situation (eg. routine or non-routine, innovation or operation) where this advice applies
Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash
