Teaching Smart People How to Learn

1. Teaching Smart People How to Learn Begum Civil Dezerae Carmona Diandra Torres Susan Rich

2. Teaching Smart People How to Learn byChris Argyris

3. Teaching Smart People How to Learn • Chris Argyris was born in Newark, New Jersey on July 16, 1923 and grew up in Irvington, New Jersey. • He is an American business theorist, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School, and a Thought Leader at Monitor Group. He is commonly known for seminal work in the area of "Learning Organizations”. • The work of Chris Argyris has influenced thinking about the relationship of people and organizations, organizational learning and action research. • Action Science, Argyris' collaborative work that advocates an approach to research that focuses on generating knowledge that is useful in solving practical problems. • Other key concepts developed by Argyris include Ladder of Inference, Double-Loop Learning, Theory of Action/Espoused Theory/Theory-in-use, High Advocacy/High Inquiry dialogue and Actionable Knowledge.

4. Teaching Smart People How to Learn • Every company faces a learning dilemma because most people don’t know how to learn. • The companies must resolve this basic dilemma to be successful in the market place. • But even most of them do not aware of the learning dilemma. • The reason is that they misunderstand what learning is and how to bring it about.

5. Teaching Smart People How to Learn • The author coins the terms “single loop” and “double loop” learning to capture crucial distinction. • Double loop learning is not simply a function of how people feel, it is a reflection of how they think. • While high skilled professionals are good at single loop learning, they are bad at double loop learning. • Because they rarely experience failure and when their strategies go wrong, they become defensive and put blame on anyone. • So defensive reasoning can block learning.

6. Teaching Smart People How to Learn • On the other hand, companies can learn how to resolve the learning dilemma. • The common assumption is that getting people to learn is largely matter of motivation. • When people have the right attitudes and commitment, learning automatically follows. • So companies focus on creating new organizational structures such as compensations programs, performance reviews and corporate cultures .

7. How Professionals Avoid Learning • The author has studied management consultants for 15 years because they are highly educated professionals who play an important role in all organizations. • He found that these professionals embody the learning dilemma: they are enthusiastic about continuous improvement, and often the biggest obstacle to its complete success.

8. How Professionals Avoid Learning • As long as learning and change focused on external organizational factors such as • Job redesign • Compensation programs • Performance review • Leadership training • Professionals were very enthusiastic participants

9. How Professionals Avoid Learning • When learning and change was focused on the professionals own performances, something went wrong. • What happened? • Professionals began to feel embarrassed • Felt threatened by examining their own role • Began to feel guilty because they were so well paid, and their performance may not be at its best.

10. How Professionals Avoid Learning • The professionals began to get defensive- shifted blame • Unclear goals • Insensitive and unfair leaders • Stupid clients • Example: A manager called a case meeting to examine his teams performance on a consulting project. The blame was shifted to everyone except the actual team members

11. How Professionals Avoid Learning • The professionals criticized the managers and the client to protect themselves from the embarrassment of having to admit that they may have contributed to the problem. • The end result of the meeting was unproductive. • Thos example illustrates the learning dilemma. Constantly shifting focus away from one’s own behavior will bring learning to a grinding halt.

12. Defensive Reasoning and the Doom Loop • Professional’s defensiveness is due to the way they reasoned about their behavior and that of others. • Theory of action • Espoused theory of action has little to do with with how an individual actually behaves • “Theory-in-use” • People consistently act inconsistently

13. Defensive Reasoning and the Doom Loop • 4 basic values in which individuals tend to design one’s actions: • 1. To remain in unilateral control • 2. To maximize “winning” and minimize “losing” • 3. To suppress negative feelings • 4. To be as “rational” as possible – by defining clear objectives and evaluating their behavior in terms of whether or not they have achieved them. The purpose of these values is to avoid embarrassment.

14. Defensive Reasoning and the Doom Loop • Encourages individuals to keep private the premises, inferences, and conclusions that shape their behavior and to avoid testing them in a truly independent, objective fashion • Closed loop – impervious to conflicting points of view • Open inquiry situation is often considered by others as “intimidating” • Short-circuits learning

15. Defensive Reasoning and the Doom Loop • Well-educated professionals are especially susceptible • Success at education explains problems with learning • Their lives have been filled with success • Rarely experienced the embarrassment and sense of threat that comes with failure • The result is not knowing how to deal with failure effectively, which leads to reasoning defensively This can lead to the fear of the fear of failure itself.

16. Doom Loop and Doom Zoom • Doing the same thing over and over again with the same detrimental result. • Performance on teams are done well, but because the individual did not do the job perfectly or recive accolades , they go into a doom loop of despair. • They do not ease into the doom loop, they ‘zoom’ into it.

17. Doom Loop and Doom Zoom • Tend to fall apart when faced with a situation they cannot immediately handle. • Performance evaluations can spark defensive reasoning throughout an entire organization • Professionals tend to hold management to a different level of performance than themselves

18. How Defensive Reasoning Looks • To explain professionals’ behavior by articulating rules that are in their heads in order for them to act the way they did, the rules would look like this: • 1. When criticizing the company, state your criticism in ways that you believe are valid - but also in ways to prevent others form deciding for themselves whether your claim to validity is correct. • 2. When asked to illustrate your criticisms, don’t include any data that others could use to decide for themselves whether illustrations are valid. • 3. State your conclusions in ways that disguise their logical implications. Of others point out those implications to you, deny them.

19. Learning How to Reason Productively • How can organizations get employees to change their behavior? • Focusing on individual’s attitudes/commitments not enough • Creating new organizational structures/systems not enough • People remain locked in defensive reasoning • People either unaware of their defensive reasoning or they blame others for it

20. Learning How to Reason Productively • Reason to believe this vicious cycle can end • People strive to produce what they intend • People value acting competently • Self-esteem tied up with behaving consistently and performing effectively • These universal human-tendencies can be used to teach people how to reason in a new way and reshape behavior

21. Learning How to Reason Productively • People can be taught how to recognize their own reasoning when they design and implement their actions • First, must identify inconsistencies between espoused and actual theories of action • Second, must face up to the fact they unconsciously design and implement actions that are not intended • Third, must learn how to identify how individuals and groups create organizational defenses • Finally, realize how these defenses contribute to an orgnization’s problems

22. Learning How to Reason Productively • Companies will realize this learning process requires: • Realizing this new reasoning requires “tough reasoning” • Incorporates same ideas in: • Strategy, finance, marketing, manufacturing, and other management disciplines • This productive reasoning requires: • Collecting valid data • Analyzing the data carefully • Constantly testing inferences drawn from the data • Conclusions should be able to withstand all kinds of critical questioning

23. Learning How to Reason Productively • First step: Senior managers must change first • Connect the program to real business problems • Take plenty of opportunities to practice these skills • A simple approach: participants produce a case study of the problem and begin analysis • Describe a meeting that one is intending to have • Describe the scenario for that meeting and potential responses • Write down any thoughts or feelings that may be suppressed during meeting

24. Learning How to Reason Productively • Case study legitimizes talking about issues that were previously not discussed • Often emotional and painful process • Management teams and organizations work more openly with each other • CEO behavior shows the company acts on values of participation and employee involvement

25. What the CEO and Learned from Case Study • The CEO learned from his direct reports: • Conversations were often counterproductive • While trying to be “diplomatic”, he pretended a consensus existed, when none existed • Subordinates often felt wary, instead of reassured • Often sent contradictory messages to management team • Tacit evaluation and attributions listed were actually wrong • What he tried to hide in conversation actually came through anyway

26. What Management Learned from Case Study • Management learned about own ineffective behavior • Examined cases of their own and realized: • They tended to bypass and cover up real issues • Made inaccurate evaluations and did not express them • Each was wrong when believing ideas and feelings had to be disguised in order not to upset anyone • Entire senior management team realized the team was willing to discuss issues that were before thought to be undiscussable