The other is their theory‐in‐use: the internal decision rules or implicit programs that guide how they actually behave. Others hear us talk about our espoused theories, but they see our theories‐in‐use. Problems ensue when the two don't match.
Argyris and Schön studied thousands of professionals and managers, finding significant discrepancies between their espoused theories and their theories‐in‐use. In other words, individuals are often poor at describing and understanding the impact of their own actions. Would‐be leaders typically saw themselves as more rational, open, concerned for others, and democratic than they were seen by their colleagues – or by the researchers. And such blindness was persistent because as a rule, people didn't know they were blind and didn't learn very well from their experience. Argyris and Schön concluded that a major block to learning was a cycle of self‐protective, interpersonal behavior that they labeled Model I. Their research showed that this program for action is ubiquitous: almost everyone uses it, even though few people realize that they do.
Model I Assumptions
Lurking in Model I is a set of core assumptions that other people are dangerous, so we better not let our guard down. These assumptions cause individuals to follow predictable steps in their attempt to protect themselves in their interactions with others. We can see this progression in the exchanges between Sarah and George.
1 Assume that the problem is caused by the other person(s). Sarah sees herself as earnest and principled, simply trying to do a good job under difficult circumstances. She expects the meeting to be challenging because George is routinely exasperating. Her implicit assumption is “George is the problem, and I have to be the solution.”
2 Develop and implement a private, unilateral diagnosis and solution. Sarah sees at least two problems. The first is George's work performance, which she hopes to discuss with him. The second is that she expects George to be defensive and unpleasant in response to feedback on his performance. But it does not occur to Sarah to surface that concern with George or to enlist his thoughts on how they can have a productive conversation about difficult issues. Sarah's strategy instead is threefold: start positive; flatter George; and stay cool, rational, and factual. We have no direct evidence of what George was thinking in advance of the meeting, but it is likely he too was pessimistic. His consistent sarcasm and criticism convey little confidence in Sarah's leadership. Both parties expected failure, and both saw their pessimism as undiscussable.
3 Get the others to change and be who you want them to be. Model I leads people to use one or more of three basic strategies to accomplish the makeover: (1) facts, logic, and rational persuasion (argue the merits of your point of view); (2) indirect influence (ease in, ask leading questions, cajole or manipulate the other person); or (3) direct critique (tell the other person directly what he or she is doing wrong and how he or she should change). Sarah made a half‐hearted and somewhat clumsy stab at easing into the conversation with George. The results were less than stellar. She then shifted to facts and logic, arguing the merits of her case. George riposted with disparagement of Sarah's reputation and experience. It was all downhill from there.
4 If the other person resists or becomes defensive, it confirms the initial diagnosis that the other is the cause of the problem. George's reactions and resistance to discussion of his performance proved to Sarah that her pessimism was justified and her diagnosis was spot on: George was as defensive and exasperating as expected. It is likely that Sarah's raised voice and rising emotionality confirmed George's perception that she was in over her head.
5 Respond to resistance with some combination of intensifying pressure and protecting the other person or with rejection. Sarah responded to George's resistance by intensifying the pressure when she told him to open his mind and “listen to someone else for a change.” That led George to reject her before she could figure out what to do next – or to reject him first.
6 If your efforts are less successful than hoped, it is the other person's fault. Sarah sees the meeting as a failure and regrets that she couldn't do anything to make it go better. In her mind, it's still George's fault: he kept “trying to change the subject,” and he was “infuriating,” “arrogant,” and “totally uncooperative.” Sarah does not see how her behavior might have encouraged or allowed George to act in the very ways she feared he would.
Model II Assumptions
Model I survives because it enables us to get things done, but at a price that often includes wasted energy, strained relationships, bad decisions, and little or no learning. We continue to pay the price because we don't see our contributions to the bad results – and even if we do, we often don't know a better option. Argyris and Schön (1974) propose Model II as an alternative. The basic precepts of Model II include:
1 Emphasize common goals and mutual interests. Even in a situation as difficult as Sarah's meeting with George, shared goals are possible. They both want to be effective, and neither will benefit from mutual destruction. Creating a shared agenda is a good starting point. Sarah could, for example, have said, “George, you've been in meetings like this before. What do you hope we can accomplish, and how should we proceed to make that happen?”
2 Communicate openly, publicly test assumptions, and be willing to discuss the undiscussables. Sarah dreads the meeting because she believes George will respond negatively to any questions about his performance. Her reasoning puts her in a hole from the beginning because she begins the meeting feeling anxious and fearful. She does not realize that she has built her approach to George around trying to avoid what she suspects is unavoidable – an unpleasant battle with George.Model II suggests that Sarah openly test her assumption with George. She might say, for example, “George, let me tell you what I worry about. If I raise questions about your work, you'll get angry and the meeting will go downhill. Should I be worried about that?” Such directness may seem surprising and risky. But Model II argues that Sarah has little to lose and much to gain. One advantage is that the question subtly calls George's game. It moves the discussion away from terrain where George is prepared for battle to a question that is more difficult for him to answer. It is easy for George to attack when Sarah suggests that his productivity is in decline, but much harder when she asks if he might get annoyed by a discussion of his performance. Even if George does not respond positively to her question, she is following a simple and surprisingly useful precept: “When in doubt, try telling the truth.” That would give George fuller information about her thinking and might enable them to talk about the elephant in the room. It is almost always easier to address something that you can discuss than something you can't.
3 Combine advocacy with inquiry. Advocacy includes statements that communicate what an individual thinks, knows, wants, or feels. Inquiry seeks to learn what others think, know, want, or feel. Successful exchanges need a balance of both. Figure 3.1 presents a simple model of the relationship between advocacy and inquiry and a way to think about the meaning of choices in using both.
Figure 3.1 Advocacy and Inquiry.
Model II emphasizes high advocacy coupled with high inquiry. It asks academic leaders to express openly what they think and feel and to actively seek understanding of others’ thoughts and feelings. The Sarah and George meeting consisted almost entirely of bilateral advocacy. Sarah opened with an attempt at inquiry when she asked George how he saw his performance, but was flummoxed by his response, which Sarah could easily have predicted. She pivoted to advocacy and tried to get George to look at evidence of his declining performance. George tried to persuade
