Flawed Advice and the Management Trap
by Janice Molloy
from LEVERAGE No. 43, July 2000

Copyright © 2000 Pegasus Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this newsletter may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from Pegasus Communications, Inc. If you wish to distribute copies of this article, please contact our Permissions Department at 781-398-9700 or permissions@pegasuscom.com.

In his new book, Flawed Advice and the Management Trap: How Managers Can Know When They’re Getting Good Advice and When They’re Not (Oxford University Press, 2000), Harvard University professor Chris Argyris probes the literature and practice of organizational change to evaluate the efficacy of this burgeoning field. He reports that most of the advice from executives, consultants, and academics regarding organizational learning, transformational change, and employee commitment “does not work. . . . It is simply too full of abstract claims, inconsistencies, and logical gaps to be useful as a concrete basis for concrete actions in concrete settings.”

To support this contention, Argyris parses some examples from bestselling management books, including Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (Simon & Schuster, 1989) and John Kotter’s Leading Change (Harvard Business School Press, 1996). When he delves beneath the surface of the cases presented by these authors, he finds that the actions that they propose actually contradict the principles that they champion. For instance, when Covey’s son neglects his commitment to keep the family’s yard “green and clean,” the father suppresses his frustration instead of acting authentically, as he advises other people to do.

Argyris believes that the core problem isn’t simply that Covey doesn’t “walk the talk”; it’s that he isn’t even aware of the inconsistency between his espoused beliefs and his actual behavior. This lack of self-knowledge allows Covey to claim that, by implementing his theories of personal leadership, he earned his son’s trust and ultimately motivated the boy to assume responsibility for the yard’s upkeep. Argyris doubts that Covey could prove this causal connection because, at least in this instance, he didn’t actually follow his own advice.

Do as I Say, Not as I Do
But Covey isn’t alone in his inability to practice what he preaches. According to Argyris, despite the enlightened principles that many of us embrace, in actuality, we falter because we unconsciously operate from a deeply engrained “theory of action” that he calls “Model I.” In a Model I framework, when we face potentially embarrassing or threatening issues, we seek to be in control, to win and not lose, and to protect ourselves and others by withholding our thoughts and feelings.

These strategies drive a dysfunctional cycle of defensiveness, mistrust, distorted feedback, and long-term ineffectiveness. Argyris remarks, “Because effective learning depends on both the exchange of valid information and the public testing of attributions and assumptions, Model I tends to discourage it.” In organizations, Model I leads to what Argyris terms “defensive routines” made up of “actions and policies intended to protect individuals from experiencing embarrassment or threat, while at the same time preventing them, as well as the organization as a whole, from identifying the causes of the embarrassment or threat in order to correct them.” These self-perpetuating processes undermine efforts to implement new, more functional behaviors—even when we think we are successfully doing so.

Argyris indicates that individuals and organizations can’t produce lasting behavioral change by focusing on changing behavior. Instead, we must learn how to introduce a new theory of action, called “Model II.” Argyris states that “[i]n a Model II environment, the action theory-in-use helps—indeed, requires—mistaken assumptions to be reformulated, incongruities reconciled, incompatibilities resolved, vagueness specified, untestable notions made testable, scattered information brought together into meaningful patterns, and previously withheld information shared.” Many of the tools that he has developed over his distinguished career, including the Ladder of Inference, Left-Hand/Right-Hand Column, and Advocacy and Inquiry, support the development of Model II skills.

Most of the change literature advocates conduct that reflects Argyris’s Model II, such as surfacing undiscussables, committing to organizational learning, supporting democratic participation within the organization, and so on. But, as we’ve seen, “[c]hange professionals may espouse actions consistent with Model II, but their theory-in-use when they take action is Model I.” And when viewed through the Model I lens, even values that on the surface may seem congruent with productive new ways of interacting— such as honesty, concern, and caring—can contribute to the pattern of dysfunctional behavior that they seek to disrupt. For instance, a manager might interpret “caring” to mean that she shouldn’t point out an employee’s error. However, this kind of “cover-up” actually deepens mistrust and misunderstanding over the long term.

Taking Effective Action
Given the intractability of Model I—and the fact that we are inherently unaware of the logical gaps that this framework produces—how can we move toward Model II skills and assumptions? Argyris believes that a successful program to create a true learning organization must address both real-time business problems and their accompanying emotional issues. Leaders should demonstrate Model II skills through their actual behavior and express a willingness to be challenged when they resort to less productive modes. At the same time, people within organizations need to explore defensive routines and the self-perpetuating nature of Model I theories of action. Argyris recommends tape-recording conversations as a way to analyze the quality of the interaction among participants objectively.

Finally, how can we know if the advice advanced by a particular change program or management book is actionable? Argyris suggests carefully evaluating the language that the presenters or authors use. Individuals working from a Model I framework advocate, evaluate, and make attributions using vague yet absolute language. Their claims are supported by self-referential logic and remain difficult to test. In a Model II approach, the consultants or writers advocate, evaluate, and attribute “in ways that are illustrated, encourage inquiry, and are easily tested. They believe that their claims are correct, but this belief can and should be tested independently of the logic that they used to create the ideas in the first place.”

Flawed Advice and the Management Trap asks us to change not only what we do but how we think, and to be vigilant for discrepancies between our actions and our thoughts. Argyris believes that, by overcoming our tendency toward self-censorship, testing our assumptions about others, and evaluating our actions to ensure that we are doing what we say, we can finally effect real, sustainable change in our organizations.

Readers who wish to discuss this topic are invited to The
New Workplace Forum.

Janice Molloy is managing editor of LEVERAGE and THE SYSTEMS THINKER.