Foundations of Action Design: Theory and Practice
By Robert Putnam
|
People who work with Action Design sometimes ask, “What do you call this stuff?” These are people who know us, who find the work useful and important, and who want to tell others about it. We offer several names: action science, reflective conversation, productive reasoning, organizational inquiry. Each highlights important aspects of the work, but none satisfies us as capturing the whole. To better understand what this work is, it helps to know some foundations of our theory and practice. Theory of Action Theory of Action (Chris Argyris and Donald Schön)We begin with the theory of action approach developed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schön (bibliography). Its premise is that human beings design action to achieve results they intend. Acting skillfully shows know-how or tacit knowledge that we can represent as a theory of action. To learn, on this view, is to become able to produce the learning in action. This leads to distinguishing espoused theories, or theories of action that we believe we follow, from the theories-in-use that would be inferred from our actual behavior. We are aware of our espoused theories, but often unaware of our theories-in-use. The two are frequently inconsistent, notably in situations that trigger embarrassment or threat. We seem to be socialized in a particular theory-in-use, called model I or the unilateral control model, that comes out in these situations. Model I leads to low trust, low commitment, and limited learning. Argyris and Schön described an alternative theory-in-use, model II, for mutual learning on issues of fundamental importance. Developing competence in model II enables people to learn in the midst of difficult circumstances and to act as agents of organizational learning.Argyris and Schön published Organizational Learning
in 1978, the year before we began working with them and more than
a decade before the idea of learning organizations became popular.
We (Bob, Diana, and Phil of Action Design) were doctoral students
at Harvard and Teaching Fellows with Argyris. In 1985 Chris,
Bob, and Diana co-authored Action
Science. Action science is a form of inquiry into how
we design action and how we might create better organizations.
It is concerned with practical knowledge for the conduct of human
affairs. It proceeds by helping people reflect on and improve
social practices that shape inquiry, choice, and action. Family Systems (David Kantor)Our apprenticeship with Chris was in the practice tradition of organizational development, action research, and laboratory education. We also bring backgrounds in counseling and social change, each working in community counseling agencies during the 1970’s. In this domain, the most important ongoing influence on our practice has been our work with David Kantor.David Kantor is a family systems therapist and theorist.
He has been a founding principal in each of the family therapy institutes
in the Boston area over the past three decades. In the course
of this work he has created a theory for developing one’s model
of practice as an interventionist. A model of practice in
Kantor’s view consists of three parts: a theory of the thing,
for example families or organizations; a theory of how the thing
changes, and a theory of how one intervenes. We have done
model-building work with David going back to the 80’s. The
second area in which Kantor has been a major influence is in understanding
relationship structures and how one’s personal structure enters
into important relationships. We have used our relationship
as partners as a crucible for our learning (See our essay Climbing
out of the Muck.) Developmental Theory (Robert Kegan)A third influence on our work is developmental theory, especially as represented by Robert Kegan. In the tradition of Piaget, Kegan describes stages in the ways human beings construct meaning and the relationship of self and other. His is a theory of practice for educators and counselors who help people making developmental transitions, for leaders of educational organizations, and for adult development. Bill Torbert has adapted Kegan’s thinking to a theory of organizational development. Torbert, who studied with Argyris at Yale in the 1960’s, is a prolific writer and a coiner of apt phrases for this work. He was the first to use the term “action science” (1976) and now speaks of his way of working in this domain as action inquiry or developmental action inquiry.Organizational LearningIn the late 1980’s Peter Senge hosted a group of faculty and doctoral students from MIT and Harvard in an informal seminar on organizational learning, with special focus on how action science and systems dynamics might contribute to each other. Chris Argyris and Donald Schön, David Kantor and Edgar Schein joined Peter, along with John Sterman and Alan Graham in systems dynamics and with Amy Edmondson, Bill Isaacs, Bob Putnam, and Diana Smith. Peter was writing what would become The Fifth Discipline. In that book he drew on the work represented by Argyris for the basis of the discipline of mental models and part of the discipline of team learning. The other strand in Senge’s view of team learning was David Bohm’s idea of dialogue, which Isaacs has taken a lead in developing.Argyris and SchönArgyris and Schön have each made distinctive contributions in addition to their co-authoring of the theory of action approach. Argyris has focused on the reasoning processes individuals use to design and implement action, highlighting differences between productive and defensive reasoning. He has described how individuals create and maintain defensive routines in organizations and how to overcome those routines. And he has identified how consultants and consulting firms themselves contribute to defenses that reduce organizational effectiveness.Donald Schön developed a theory of knowledge for action by reflecting on the performances of master practitioners. In the ordinary form of practical knowledge we do not think about what we are doing. But sometimes we do, especially when we are puzzled or surprised. Schön named this reflecting-in-action, and argued that it is central to our ability to act effectively in unique, ambiguous, or divergent situations. He also pointed out that our most difficult problems are characterized by clashing frames or definitions of the situation held by different parties. Addressing these problems requires a capability for frame reflection, for understanding and bridging different perspectives.
|
|
Home | Workshops | Consulting | About AD | Resources | Community | Site Map