Why do organizations and individuals often work at cross-purposes that undermine progress and success? That is the guiding question of Chris Argyris’ 2010 book, Organizational Traps: Leadership, Culture, Organizational Design (Oxford University Press).
In this book, Argyris, who developed the “Ladder of Inferences” that explains how we often make decisions based on filtered data that may skew our judgment, describes two theories of action: Model 1, Defensive Reasoning; and Model II, Productive Reasoning.
He contends that we most often use Model I when facing threatening situations or in cases where we are worried about being embarrassed. Those using Model I, Defensive Reasoning, work to:
1. Be in unilateral control;
2. Win, don’t lose;
3. Suppress negative feelings; and
4. Behave rationally
Argyris’ preferred theory of action is Model II, Productive Reasoning, where individuals:
1. Seek valid (testable) information
2. Create informed choice; and
3. Monitor vigilantly to detect and correct error (p.189, Kindle edition)
“As individuals become skillful at using Model II,” he says, “they will also become skillful at using productive reasoning. Productive reasoning can be used to make personal reasoning transparent in order for claims to be tested robustly. Model II governing values can lead to openness, transparency, and trust.” (p. 190, Kindle edition)
Obviously, the Productive Reasoning model, while preferred, rarely comes into play because of human beings’ general nature. In fact, Argyris contends that our behavior is “self-fueling: or self-reinforcing in that the actions reinforce the defenses that caused the problems in the first place.” (p. 22, Kindle version). As a result, we often create “traps” when we strive to use Model II reasoning, but our actions are more aligned with Model I.
Understanding Defensive vs. Productive Reasoning
Organizational Traps is full of case studies that can seem quite depressing. We live in a world with a preponderance of Model I thinking and actions. Argyris observes that most often we deal with difficult situations by not dealing with them. “We find ways to pretend to engage and in fact manage to avoid engaging and keep what we are doing hidden from ourselves.” (p. 22, Kindle edition). In other words, we believe that we are helpless victims involved in a process out of our control.
The solution? Argyris suggests that to reduce these traps, we must focus on our own role and responsibility and test whether or not we are really “helpless victims.” Model II behavior recognizes that we are “not victims” but rather “trapped by our own behavior. Interventions are available that interrupt these self-fueling, self-reinforcing model.” (p. 83, Kindle version)
It might help to look at a more concrete example of defensive vs. productive reasoning. You can see the two models in play as you read this explanation of the Left-Hand Column strategy developed by Peter Senge, Rick Ross and other colleagues in their Fifth Discipline work on learning organizations. This case study is one of those mentioned by Argyris. It explores a situation that will likely feel familiar to anyone who is under deadline pressure and is feeling pressure from above. The creators suggest using this strategy to replay a difficult conversation or to think about an upcoming meeting or conversation that you might find challenging.
To use this strategy, begin with writing a paragraph about the situation (or anticipated situation) where you capture what you are trying (or hoping) to accomplish and real or anticipated obstacles.
Next, take some paper and make a two column chart. On the right hand of the chart, capture what was said – or what you think might be said. Continue writing in the right hand column until you capture (or predict) the situation.
Now, in the left-hand column, go back and write down what you were thinking and feeling, but not saying. The link to the strategy provides an example.
Becoming a Productive Reasoner
So how do we move to Model II behavior? “The most critical features are genuine commitment to learning Model II and productive reasoning, coupled with time to practice.” Like any skill, lots of practice is required. (p. 83, Kindle version).
Individuals seeking to act more effectively, especially to diagnose and reduce Traps, need to know their theory-in-use and the degree to which they use a defensive reasoning mind-set. They also need to know the degree to which they blame others, deny their personal causal responsibilities. (p. 89, Kindle edition)
Argyris suggests that true change will only occur “when participants come to see the validity of the insight…we saw the enemy and it is us.” (p. 23, Kindle edition).
This was an intriguing read and provides insights into why managing effective change and making progress can be so challenging. It encouraged me to dust off the Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, which I’m taking with me on my upcoming vacation.
By rereading the Fieldbook, and thinking about what I’ve learned from Argyris’ book, I’m hoping that I’ll be much more aware of these two theories of action and the pitfalls of Defensive Reasoning (which adult humans become quite skillful at practicing), and, as a result, be more productive in my own professional work and collaboration.
