Chris Argyris Possibly Chris Argyris is within the privileged group of the three most notable personalities in the area of Organizational Change and Development, which has privileged the importance of individual values striving to identify those social mechanisms - as is the case with organizations - which can have harmful effects on individual development.
This aspect is closely linked to values and ethics, which have been prioritized early on by the President of The Organization Development Institute, Dr. Donald W. Cole, who has dedicated much of his time, energy and resources to developing a Code of Ethics applicable to the Organizational Development Profession.
Dr. Terry R. Amstrong who is currently in charge of the monthly Newsletter of said Institute (“Organizations and Change”) highlights in the version corresponding to the month of February of this year 2006, that in its beginnings the OD field has privileged the values above theory and research (“OD as a field was originally driven by values rather than theory or research”).
At the very heart of the Organizational Development Profession are the values of the consultant - advisor specialized in change processes.
And Chris has been one of the main personalities who has emphasized the importance of values in the achievement of objectives, these values that are related to both the consultant and the organization
- Client, and with company personnel.
Chris Argyris stands out for prioritizing values over "Best Practices" and "Best Theories". He has often been harshly criticized as the leader of the "evangelizing movement" in matters of organizational change and development, assuming that his ideas, concepts and practices are not fully valid in today's industrial world, which is characterized by its pragmatism. He has been a professor at Yale University and also at Harvard University.
Argyris's basic hypothesis suggests that all people have a need for self-realization whose potential is far from what they are experiencing at that particular moment.
It takes into account that the man as a social individual who dedicates many of his available hours to work in companies can and surely must be strongly influenced by what he does during those hours.
Since the paths of self-realization of the individual do not necessarily intersect with the way companies and other types of institutions are managed, people are limited in their development and operate well below their potential.
Different components of importance appear in this daily game: the individual, the organization, and the degree of interpersonal competence shown by superiors in action with subordinates in their work units.
The impact of childhood on adult life is openly recognized by the knowledge community and adult behavior is also known to be largely a function of life as an infant.
For Chris Argyris many of the behaviors of the organizational members are seen as adulthood due to the physical age of the people but in reality they respond to the childish, focusing on seven main types of development:
- From passive childhood to active adult behavior, From dependence to relative independence, From limited linear behaviors to greater behavioral diversity, From short-term, changing, narrow, and shallow interests, To deeper, more far-reaching, stable interests From a short-term perspective. term towards a long term From a subordinate social position towards an equality position From zero self-awareness to self-awareness and self-control
The enormous and rich contributions of this remarkable expert have been poured into many of his publications, and some of them are highlighted below:
Personality and Organizations. New York: HarperCollins - 1957
Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: Wiley - 1964
Intervention Theory and Method. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley - 1970
Problems and new directions for industrial psychology. In MD Dunnette (ED.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally - 1976
Is capitalism the culprit? Organizational Dynamics - 1978
Organizational Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley - 1978
Inner contradictions of rigorous research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press - 1980
Reasoning, learning and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1982.
Making knowledge more relevant to practice: Maps for action. In EE LawlerIII, AM Mohrman, SA Mohrman, GE Ledford, TG Cummings & Associates. Doing research that is useful for theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass - 1985
Strategy, change and defensive routines. New York: Harper Business - 1985
Skilled incompetence. Harvard Business Review - 1986
Reasoning, action strategies, and defensive routines: The case of OD practitioners. In R. Woodman & W. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press - 1987
The dilemma of implementing controls: The case of managerial accounting. Accounting, organizations, and society - 1990
Inappropriate defenses against the monitoring of organization development practices. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science - 1990
Overcoming organizational defenses: facilitating organizational learning. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon - 1990
Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review - 1991
Knowledge for Action. Jossey-Bass Management series - 1993
According to Chris Argyris, one of the main problems that arise for individuals who interact in organizations is that the latter do not facilitate the self-realization of their organizational members.
It should not escape those people who have been involved in organizational change and development that usually improvements in organizational efficiency and effectiveness are based on strengthening day by day a characteristic that companies have: that of parameterizing the behavior of individuals. It is known that the increasing robotization and automation has far surpassed what would today be a primitive assembly line such as the one launched by Henry Ford almost 100 years ago, and to this we must add the developments in software - with its respective hardware - that they have parameterized not only the compartments of the organizational members but also that of their suppliers and Clients.
Given this new way of operating within companies, the way of interacting has become quite childish and this impacts on low interpersonal competition. This low interpersonal competition is found in almost all organizational arrangements regardless of their orientation, such as schools, universities, hospitals, companies, etc. A sincere and open relationship in trust with others is practically non-existent within companies. They hear little of what others tell them; they handle themselves with intrigue and mistrust, they do not handle themselves openly, they have a short horizon in their projects, their feelings are rationalized, they are comfortable repeating what they are doing, they prefer not to hear criticism of what they do and say,in the case that they agree with a criticism, it may be that in the best case it is heard but behaviors are not modified from said criticism, which makes people have an appearance of health that is only a false image.
All these characteristics are found within a formal-rational organizational culture, following Max Weber, where tasks are reduced to a minimum in sub-tasks, which implies a high specialization that both in terms of actions and results and rewards promotes a partial vision of the entity where the different sectors compete with each other, moving away from the organizational objectives. Now, the question that Chris Argyris asks himself is the following: How can adults be expected not to behave in a childish way in this type of organization?
Gradually they begin to feel comfortable in what they do, the system reinforces routine behaviors and those who take risks when they fail in a heroic mission that no one ever dared to undertake (see the lethal operation of this mechanism in Dr. Donald Cole and Eric Gaynor's book entitled "Professional Suicide and Organizational Murder").
How many of us have heard of "other" phrases like the following: "Our policy does not allow it"; "Our pyramid values have always been these." It happens very frequently in educational institutions that both managers and teachers mention that the student does not pay due attention and is not interested in what the teacher says, when in reality, within the climate and culture of said institution, said student has already experienced in others what it happens when it deviates from certain pre-established limits. Students and organizational members quickly learn what the minimum acceptable behavior is… and their performance should not stray far from it.
However, sometimes organizations receive certain electro-shocks from the context and must adapt to them.
For this, companies develop support mechanisms that are often strongly contradictory. Staff are told to be creative and come up with suggestions…
but it is very likely that they will not be taken into account. And if they are taken into account - exceptionally - and produce positive results, it is likely that the superior will be rewarded, while any problem or difficulty that arises from the implementation of the new idea that is not beneficial in the short term should be blamed on the proponent of the idea. You are asked to look and act in perspective and with the long term in mind, but most executives are evaluated, promoted and fired for what they do in the short term (officers of multinational corporations are usually transferred every three or Five years from one subsidiary to another and evaluations of what happens in these three years generally has more to do with the predecessor - who may have been fired - than with the incumbent himself.)The organizational participant is invited to extremely expensive special trainings in order to understand the overall objectives of the corporation, but its partial departmental results must be given priority over corporate integrity.
Interpersonal competence is defined by Chris Argyris as:
to. The ability to have your own ideas and feelings
b. The ability to be open to ideas and feelings of others and share your own.
c. The ability to experiment and take interpersonal risks
d. The ability to help others to come up with their own ideas, the ability to help others open up, and the ability to help us experiment.
Chris Argyris suggests that the main problem is not that these paradoxes and contradictions exist since they are present in life itself; The main problem is that managers do not have the interpersonal skills that allow these issues to be brought to light and discussed frankly, openly and non-defensively. Johari's Window (Eric Gaynor:
Organizational Development Congress held in Argentina, 1997) suggests that the best organizational operating style is one where people know themselves and are also known by others since in this way a fluid and open relationship can be maintained with third parties.
However, there is a very big difference between what management preaches and verbalizes with what it actually does in day-to-day actions within the organization.
Management behavior with a focus on daily actions has been studied in depth by joint work carried out by Argyris and Schon. In these behaviors they found - preferably - the following 4 properties: setting goals unilaterally with the hope of being achieved in groups.
maximize profits and minimize losses in the short term by dividing the tasks of others into sub-tasks, which facilitates control and makes them less dependent on others.
minimize any manifestation of negative feelings especially in public, operating in a mysterious type in the light of others by keeping your thoughts (and eventual verbalizations) to yourself.
behave rationally and objectively prioritizing the quantification of variables as performance indicators, reducing listening to the feelings of others, so that he protects himself from issues that may have an emotional content that alters the rational-objective establishment.
Managers prefer to operate under what Chrys Argyris calls “Model I” where they move one-dimensionally and in order to have total control (it is no coincidence that when asking the manager, How are you? He tends to answer very frequently: “ OK… with everything under control ”(all under control).
Under this model I open and frank debate on issues of relevance are generally avoided and give rise to what Chrys calls “first-cycle learning” where in reality what managers learn has to do basically with how to “conform” to the superior in the organization.
As a consequence of her work with Schon, Chrys proposes Model II of managerial learning which she calls theory-in-practice / in-use, which really promotes and enables organizational learning (see Peter Senge).
Model II postulates include:
- Initiate actions on reliable information. Obtain such information in an open way, without secrets to others. Initiate actions with others under the free options method with all those parties that are competent and add value. Investigate and promote suggestions from others for their expertise and competence.Include “critical” staff within the options analysis team. Generate readiness for change as a result of the decision on the options chosen. Promote the highest possible degree of commitment so that all parties involved accompany the change. Develop a monitoring system even regarding their own actions and commitments
One of the questions that Chris Argyris asks here is how do we stop management from operating under Model I if they are not really aware that it operates under this (inefficient) model and even knowing that such Model is not ideal, as it does to transform itself by allowing it to operate under Model II when the rest of the organization has so many operating mechanisms under Model I.
Argyris suggests that these issues should be dealt with openly by the different parties involved in training sessions where the different participants confront these paradoxes and contradictions.
The facilitator's work in this situation has to do with providing assistance to the participants regarding reducing the dissonance between what is said and what is done within the groups that make decisions, and how they feel in this dilemma in front of the rest of the staff. involved.
Managers usually have "defensive routines" that have worked for them thus far, and the main job is to become aware of the limits of using such defensive routines.
Perhaps we can make a tight synthesis in relation to the ideas and contributions of this notable author:
- In its work "Explorations in Consulting-Client relationships", Human Organization - 1961 recounts a specific experience related to the conflict that occurs as a result of a consulting intervention.
It is common for company advisers many times to consider that the organization as a whole is the Client, and not a particular person within that company, which of course generates a conflict.
The case in question arises when, as a result of a series of interviews, an executive reacted defensively and was quite furious in the process of receiving feedback, but on the other hand, the consultants did not show their own frustration.
In the short term, the resulting benefit is that the consultants were on good terms with this person, but this represented a very important cost: the executive had a check that the consultants were not consistent between what they said and what they themselves did, accepting On the other hand, the norms and values that the company had.
Another interesting contribution by Argyris is taken from his work "Some limits of rational man organizational theory", Public Administration Review - 1973, where he suggests that the same generation of knowledge regarding human behavior produces as a consequence the development of a set of norms and values. For Argyris, all descriptive concepts, once used to organize a reality and guide behavior, become normative. If we follow the implications of decryptive generalizations, we must transform these generalizations into regulations, and for this we cite the case of a black militant who used the hypothesis that all frustration leads to aggression, and based on this he justified his own behavior. Accordingly,Since he himself was in a state of frustration, he should be aggressive.
- In his work entitled "Intervention theory and method", Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley - 1970 Argyris suggests that organizations do not know - by themselves - to generate information that is important in relation to the problems they face, and by therefore the process of developing alternatives and decision-making is imperfect. For this reason, Argyris prefers to speak of "consulting intervention" and to refer to the main actor as an interventionist instead of an agent of change. The latter is more linked to the process of offering possible solutions, while the functions of the interventionist (“intervenor” in English or intervener in Spanish) would be more linked to the processes of information flow, information gathering and decision-making within the business.
Based on this, Argyris concludes that offering - the agent of change - possible solutions to the Client does not allow the company-Client to carry out the maximum learning in terms of generating data and seeking solutions.
According to Argyris, an effective consulting intervention must require three basic requirements:
1. the fact of being able to generate valid and reliable information;
2. to be able to make elections in freedom, being well informed;
3. that there is an internal commitment regarding the options made.
It highlights that two important criteria to take into account when performing an intervention - and that are usually not taken into account by many consultants
- They have to do with reaching a solution that must help prevent the recurrence of the problem without deterioration, and also the ability to increase problem solving, decision-making, and process implementation.
In “Organization Development: An annotated bibliography” (Jerome Franklin; University of Michigan - 1973) some additional aspects are highlighted that every consultant should take into account and are referred to below, literally, in English: “Argyris sets forth those qualities he considers Basic for effective activity on the part of the interventionist:
(1) confidence in his own intervention philosophy, (2) an accurate perception of a stressful reality, (3) an acceptance of the client's attacks and mistrust, (4) a trust in one´s experience of reality, and
(5) an investing of stressful environments with growth experiences.
The interventionist behavior needed to produce effectiveness includes
(1) owning up to, being open toward, and experimenting with ideas and feelings, (2) helping others to open up, be open, and experiment with ideas and feelings, (3) contributing to the norms of individuality, concern and trust, (4) communicating in observed, directly verifiable categories, with minimal attribution, evaluation, and internal contradiction ”.
- Argyris mentions in his book “Organization and Innovation”, Homewood, Ill.: Irwin - 1965, a real situation that is worth considering both for company executives and directors and also for consultants interested in organizational development and organizational efficiency, which refers to regular meetings held by the board of an organization dedicated to consulting services, and which lasted for several months (we will quote the same according to Edgar Huse:
Organization Development and Change; West Publishing Co. - 1975): “The process consultant who had not attended the meetings, were then analyzed the tapes. After several board meetings had been held, a feedback session was arranged, at which the consultants fed back group-process data gathered from the tapes.
After the diagnostic phase, but before a change program was instituted, the board members´ values were surveyed by means of an open-ended questionnaire. All the board members but one reported that the most effective leader was one who directed, controlled, and inspired loyalty from subordinates. The entire group was unanimous in reporting that a rational, unemotional.
And objective executive was best. All but one member of the board believed that should personal feelings, eg, antagonism and hostility, arise, the leader's most effective approach was to "be reasonable", "stick to the facts", switch subjects, and request that members. "Keep personalities out of the discussion".
The tapes were analyzed according to a system of categories developed by Argyris to observe group behavior - owning up to behavior, openness, experimentation, rejecting experimentation, individuality, conformity, and a number of others. This system of categories was used as the basis for recording changes in behavior from meeting to meeting.
The results of the analysis showed that with the exception of one meeting, the board rated high in owning ideas, conforming to ideas, concern with ideas, openness to ideas, individuality, and antagonism. Low scores were recorded on the dimensions of mistrust and helping / not helping others.
Analysis of the data showed that the board lacked the ability to innovate, take risks, and to fully discuss and explore disagreements. After the feedback session, the board decided to accept a change program.
After joint discussion, it was further decided that the primary objective of the program was to enhance the interpersonal competence of the board members.
The change effort, which took the form of a series of one-day sessions, was designed to provide opportunities for board members to experience their own feelings and to become more aware of the feelings of others, to experiment, to take risks, and to help others to own ideas, be open and to experiment.
Each of the change sessions were rated according to the system of categories explained earlier.
The scores became worse before improving, but this had been expected, because openness and feelings had previously been pent up and unexpressed. Toward the end of the sessions, concern an individuality increased and antagonism decreased.
The study also compared members' behavior in board meetings before and after the change program.
After the change program, board meetings were characterized by members´ concern for ideas, openness, and helping others; conformity, antagonism, and not helping others all decreased. ”
- "Both Argyris and Whyte have postulated that organizational objectives and individual needs are basically incompatible and that the conflict between them is inevitable" (Edgar Huse: "Organization Development and Change"; West Publishing Co. - 1975).
- Argyris shares with us - and also alerts us - to some of the dangers of the laboratory learning approach (“On the future of laboratory education”; Journal of Applied Behavioral Science - 1967).
There he emphasizes that this type of learning is of interest but can be dangerous since the individual could leave the experience, feeling that the only world that is really good is that of the laboratory. And this feeling should not help the person to increase their inter-personal competence within the real world.
- “As Lewin points out, the thawing process involves very different problems in different situations. For example Argyris believes that strong resistance to change comes not only from managers, but also from other individuals within the social system.
He notes that many individuals are so "systematically blind" to their own behavior that they are then "culturally programmed" to behave in a manner that greatly reduces their likelihood of change "(Edgar Huse:" Organization Development and Change "; West Publishing Co. - 1975).
- In “Organization and Innovation” (already quoted) Chris Argyris cites a work of his where he studied interpersonal barriers in decision making, based on 165 executives at the top of the organization.
There he found that executives very rarely take risks or experiment with new feelings, nor do they help other people behave openly or take risks.
He found that although executives valued innovation, risk taking, confidence, and flexibility, they did not act in line with what they expressed regarding these factors.
On the contrary, rather they tended to behave in a way that reduced operating openly and based on trust, the search for new alternatives was not activated, and they even created barriers in relation to implanting more flexibility and innovation in the organization (see: Chris Argyris “Do personal growth laboratories represent an alternative culture? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science - 1972.
- In “Conditions for competence acquisition and therapy” (Journal of Applied Behavioral Science ”-1968), Argyris makes known the differences between the acquisition of competences and therapy as different learning processes, and for this he establishes the distinctions between the two in various dimensions.
Basically both differ in relation to the individuals who can be helped and the necessary conditions for this to happen, where the first one favors inter-personal competences while therapy focuses on survival.
- One of the main jobs of an entrepreneur, CEO, consultant and entrepreneur is strongly related to how to develop skills and competencies within an organization so that actions towards risk-taking and innovation take place continuously and in a sustained manner.
This is one of the questions asked by Chris Argyris ("T Groups for Organizational Effectivess" in Organizational Change and Development; G. Dalton, P. Lawrence & L. Greiner; Irwin & The Dorsey Press - 1970).
In this article Argyris analyzes to what extent T Groups - Sensitivity Training can be recognized educational experiences that are available to organizations for more efficient management.
Argyris suggests that “laboratory education” when conducted in a competent manner, and if the right people are the ones involved, can be a powerful educational experience. In the conclusion of this work, she refers to six main aspects:
1. “Laboratory education” is a very promising educational process in the first place.
2. “Laboratory Education” is by no means a panacea, nor does it turn out to be a process that should be able to help all types of organizations.
3. not all programs are created equal.
4. An openness in people, a degree of trust and commitment, and an orientation towards risk taking can grow and prosper only when the climate in the organization provides support and support.
5. There is no single best way to do it.
6. Something that seems to be quite common in this type of learning process is that the people who participate in them have difficulties in describing the experiences, which can be largely due to the fact that it produces very different results in different people.
And that's why Chris Argyris ends by suggesting that the best way to learn about this learning option is through self-experimentation that is substantially different from other learning methods.
- For those managers and even consultants who are uncomfortable with personnel who apparently "act and behave differently than what is expected of most of them", it must be helpful to go to Argyris' work entitled "Personality and organization: the conflict between system and the individual ”; New York; Harper & Row - 1957.
A basic proposition relates to the mismatch between the principles of formal organization and the healthy needs of individuals.
This mismatch or inconsistency increases as the maturity level of the employees increases, as the formal structure is more clearly delimited and pressed towards the maximum level of effectiveness as a formal organization, when one gets closer to those who are in the bottom of the pyramid, and as the jobs are increasingly mechanized.
As a result of these imbalances and inconsistencies factors such as frustration, conflict, and performance errors appear in the organizational participants. However, it must be recognized that informal organization is a mechanism that helps reduce these negative consequences.
From this, a conclusion emerges that any person in charge of the organization who is interested in its growth and long-term sustainability must consider that this apparent incongruous behavior on the part of the employee who is coerced by the informal organization, becomes really necessary if we want to have healthy individuals and if the formal organization must also have to achieve maximum expression of its own demands.
- The variable interpersonal competence - the one taken later by Daniel Goleman in his development on "Emotional Intelligence" - is key for Argyris. In this regard it is good to turn to the latter's work entitled "Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness"; Homewood, Ill: Irwin - 1982.
In this work the author refers to a model, and how different values in formal organizations led to a decrease in organizational efficiency:
"one. Really relevant human relationships are those that are related to the organizational objective.
2. The effectiveness of human relationships increases as behavior is rational, logical, and clearly communicated.
Personal attitudes, feelings, and values tend to decrease efficiency. 3. Human relationships are influenced more effectively through directives, coercion, and controls as well as through rewards and penalties that must serve to emphasize rational behavior and "getting the job done and done."
In addition to noting these limits of formal organization - and some of its most important dysfunctional consequences - Argyris notes that it is necessary to increase interpersonal competence, although this is not a sufficient step to increase organizational effectiveness.
It is also necessary to alter values in order to support changes in organizational, technological, and interpersonal relationship factors.
- In his treatise "Interpersonal barriers to decision-making"; Harvard Business Review - 1966, Argyris highlights the various non-rational factors that impact decision making, and in particular effective and efficient decision making. Furthermore, the author concludes that these forces that operate against good decision-making operate more strongly when the most important decisions must be made.
We can conclude that different people (executives, shareholders, businessmen, executives, managers and professionals) can choose and embrace the ideas, concepts, practices and values suggested by Chris Argyris and apply them within organizations and companies or, otherwise, they may not do what.
But regardless of the degree of acceptance of the same or not, possibly Chris Argyris is one of the personalities with the most provocative and challenging conceptions regarding organizational arrangements and the way to develop them; For those who want challenges, new options and perspectives, they now have a proposal at their fingertips.
