Flawed Advice and the Management Trap

Citation

Coleman, B. (2002), "Flawed Advice and the Management Trap", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 647-650. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm.2002.15.6.647.1

This book is the closest to an airport best‐selling how‐to book we are likely to see from Professor Argyris. For those who know Argyris’s work, the current text in a large part covers familiar themes (models I and II, defensive routines, undiscussables) but from a new direction. When you are only expert in model I behavior and you want to be more effective, the usual response is to call in an expert that brings the expertise you need. The main thesis of the book is that the gurus and pundits, however famous and respected they may be, are just like you and me, operating from a model I mindset. The book offers useful advice about how to assess the advice being given, which the reader may also use to assess the advice in the book.

People who are acting from model I try to design and manage the situation unilaterally; take ownership and control of the task; unilaterally protect themselves; and unilaterally protect others from being hurt (pp. 62‐3). The result of following this path is that other people see the users of model I as being manipulative and hiding something, of being defensive. The main defensive approach is to hide much, if not all, of the underlying reasoning and when an explanation is required, use abstract language and avoid referring to external data that can be checked. Above all, avoid revealing underlying thoughts and feelings. Part of the problem is that the other people see that you are hiding your feelings and react negatively against that.

When model I is described most people would not admit to following it. The alternative to model I, Argyris argues, is not the opposite of model I but rather model II where only valid and testable data are used, where there is free and informed choice for all parties and there is internal commitment to the choice. Argyris (1999, p. 244) defines the governing variables supporting the opposite of model I as participation of everyone in defining purposes: everyone wins, no one loses; everyone expresses feelings and suppresses the cognitive intellective aspects of action.

Argyris makes much of the distinction between internal and external motivation. Although both are important in organizations, the latter receives more attention from managers because it is easier to create. Just think of the performance measures and stock bonuses that are endemic in business. Problems arise when there is confusion between the two. Argyris’s assessment of what managers want committed employees to do is:

• •

  Implement the strategy, process, and job requirements as faithfully, reliably, and effectively as they can.

• •

  Monitor such implementation to assess effectiveness.

• •

  Be vigilant about recognizing actual or potential gaps, errors, and inconsistencies, as well as new and unrecognized challenges (p. 40).

Although the first two can be implemented using either internal or external commitment, the last one requires internal commitment to go beyond what has been defined and to exercise creativity and initiative in dealing with the new. When others have done all the defining, commitment will only be external; internal commitment requires that the committed person participates in the definition, be it work processes, goals or strategy.

Argyris describes all this using an analysis of several well‐known books from the business literature. Reading the highlighted material quickly, it is easy to miss the contradictions; slow down enough to use the Argyris microscope and the gurus do not look as expert as they would have their readers believe. For instance, Argyris analyses a passage from The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People (Covey, 1989) where Covey is trying to get his son to clean the yard. Covey uses his theories expressed in his book, but they do not seem to work. Covey becomes frustrated with his son but purposefully hides his inner feelings and keeps working on his son in a positive manner, thus behaving inauthentically and thus against his own advice. Further probing by Argyris leads him to conclude that much of what is given as advice by Covey is framed in ways that cannot be tested. Another conclusion Argyris makes is that Covey must be unaware of the gaps and inconsistencies, since he would be unlikely to write a book with them in. This type of analysis is repeated with many more well‐known authors. The analytical approach he advocates has real merit when assessing the advice you are receiving from so‐called experts.

Argyris’s methodology of observing and tape‐recording human interactions, followed by analysis and validation seems very reminiscent of Scientific Management. It seems that the shift from model I to model II behavior requires the intervention of an expert in model II behavior. F.W. Taylor wrote for his final speech (Shafritz and Ott, 2001, p. 69):

A teacher of shoveling went down to see that man (who was not producing to schedule). A teacher of shoveling is a man who is handy with a shovel, who has made his mark in life with a shovel, and yet who is a kindly fellow and knows how to show the other fellow what he ought to do.

This is exactly the approach Argyris describes using with a consultancy organization, where he role‐plays model II behaviors. However, he is interested in more than just technique, he wants to understand what causes people to behave the way they do.

Since model II behavior is seen as productive and model I as not, why would anyone consciously keep using the latter? It turns out that they do not. Argyris and coworkers have done much work to show that people claim they use (“espouse”) model II but that when situations are embarrassing or threatening, they revert to their unconscious programming (“theory‐in‐use”) that is almost always model I. In an earlier book, Argyris (1999, p. 316) has a clear definition of the difference between espoused theories and theories‐in‐use:

Espoused theories are produced in the mind/brain in the activity described as understanding in order to explain. The theories‐in‐use are produced in the mind/brain in the activity described as understanding to take action.

This distinction forms the basis for much of Argyris’s recent work. Espoused theories are seen in responses to questions, theories‐in‐use from observation, followed by inference and checking.

Why would people use a theory that looked at coldly and rationally would indicate that it would not be effective? To avoid embarrassment and threat says Argyris, but is it not embarrassing to fail and does failure not increase the threat to one’s security? Why do people fear embarrassment? Argyris never seems to ask this question. While Argyris is saying that model II is necessary for effective action, he does not define the values that an individual would have to hold in order to keep using model II as the theory‐in‐use in difficult situations. Rather, he looks at organizational interventions that could lead to internal commitment to organizational values. His approach is to work with an organization to identify gaps between behavior and the agreed upon organizational values and other objectives. Time and again, model I keeps getting in the way of closing the gap.

The power of model I is that it works in the short term, in the here and now. However, it does not necessarily deliver the task, instead it delivers the emotional response that people seem to crave. This means that the individual controlled events unilaterally and “won” without experiencing any negative emotions. Why would anyone give this up? Argyris’s answer is because it does not work and he has supplied an alternative that does. His approach seems to be that model II works and can become the dominant theory‐in‐use through practice and continual monitoring of gaps between what is espoused and what is actually done. The danger is that this could become external motivation to a set formula and not the internal motivation that model II requires. He does not address the underlying reasons that might cause most people to switch models under embarrassing or threatening circumstances. It would appear that people have a “theory of fear” that determines at what point a situation becomes embarrassing or threatening and then which theory of action they use. This relationship is shown in Figure 1.