Ed Batista

Chris Argyris, Double-Loop Learning and Meta-Work

Graphic by Mark Smith, Informal Education

I'll get to Chris Argyris and "double-loop learning" in a moment, but first, what do I mean by "meta-work"?  Putting it simply, meta-work is the work we have to do in order to work more effectively.  Meta-work occurs anytime we step back from our regular activities to ask larger questions, like "Why do we do this task this way?" or even "Why do we do this task at all?"  Meta-work is ultimately about challenging assumptions and not taking things for granted.

I started thinking about meta-work per se after reading Merlin Mann on various ways to improve personal productivity, but I've always been fascinated by the systems and tools we use to do our work--sometimes because I'm legitimately looking to solve a problem, and sometimes because research is a respectable form of procrastination.

Merlin's Inbox Zero series encouraged me to do some serious meta-work and rethink how I manage my email.  But my experience as a teaching assistant for High Performance Leadership and my ongoing interest in improving interpersonal skills has encouraged me to look at meta-work in a much larger context--and that thinking led me to Chris Argyris, professor emeritus at Harvard Business School and a major influence on such thinkers as Peter Senge.

One of Argyris's key concepts is "double-loop learning," described very effectively by Mark Smith at Informal Education:

Single-loop learning seems to be present when goals, values, frameworks and, to a significant extent, strategies are taken for granted. The emphasis is on 'techniques and making techniques more efficient' (Usher and Bryant: 1989: 87). Any reflection is directed toward making the strategy more effective. Double-loop learning, in contrast, 'involves questioning the role of the framing and learning systems which underlie actual goals and strategies' (op. cit.)... The former involves following routines and some sort of preset plan – and is both less risky for the individual and the organization, and affords greater control. The latter is more creative and reflexive, and involves consideration [of] notions of the good. Reflection here is more fundamental: the basic assumptions behind ideas or policies are confronted... hypotheses are publicly tested...(Argyris 1982: 103-4).

Double-loop learning, then, involves a substantial amount of meta-work and requires raising a number of potentially challenging questions: Not only "Why do we do this task this way?" and "Why do we do this task at all?" but also "What assumptions are embedded in our methods and our goals?"

As Smith notes, asking these questions can be risky--the phrase "opening a can of worms" comes to mind--but the potential reward is the possibility of being much more effective (and, I'd argue, much more fulfilled) because such questions not only create opportunities to do things in more innovative ways, but also because they challenge us to think about finding entirely new things to do.

It's easy to come up with all sorts of reasons not to do our meta-work, starting with: We're too busy!  But that begs the question: Busy doing what?  If all your learning is single-loop, at best you're making marginal improvements in existing routines.  More on double-loop learning and personal development tomorrow.

UPDATE: More on Double-Loop Learning and Executive Coaching

McClelland and Burham on Power and Management

What qualities characterize high-performing managers?  Last week in High Performance Leadership we covered Power Is the Great Motivator, David McClelland and David Burnham's classic HBR article on this topic (originally written in 1976, revised in 1995 and republished in 2003.)  The authors reach three primary conclusions that run counter to some conventional wisdom on effective managers.  (The article is rooted in McClelland's motivational needs theory, which suggests that people are driven by needs for power, for achievement, and for affiliation, i.e. a desire to establish relationships with others.)

1) High Achievers Aren't Necessarily Good Managers
People with a high "need for achievement, the desire to do something better or more efficiently than it has been done before," do not necessarily make good managers, because "they focus on personal improvement and doing thing better by themselves."  They also "want concrete short-term feedback on their performance."  But effective managers achieve superior results not merely by performing well themselves but by motivating others to perform well, and they often receive little if any direct feedback.

I'm struck by the fact that so many aspects of our educational system identify and promote high achievers, essentially creating a managerial class that, by virtue of its emphasis on individual accomplishments and its association between success and direct feedback, may be poorly prepared to actually manage.  In McClelland's 1995 update, he notes that SAT results...

...relate little to how competently those people manage in the workplace later in life.  People who scored exceptionally well on SATs often later functioned poorly as managers, and people with only average scores often made the best managers.

In the same passage, McClellan also noted that a high need for achievement is important to effective management in a small organization or sub-unit, but I still find his initial conclusion compelling--managers focused on their own achievement may view colleagues and subordinates as obstacles to be overcome rather than as forces to be marshaled.

2) Good Managers Have a High Need for Power and a Low Need to be Liked
McClelland and Burham also concluded that effective managers had a higher than usual need for power, coupled with a relatively low need to be liked by others:

[M]ost of the managers...were high in power motivation compared with the average person.  This finding confirms that power motivation is important for management.  (Remember that, as we use the term, power motivation refers not to dictatorial behavior but to a desire to have impact, to be strong and influential.)  The better managers, judged by the morale of those working for them, tended to score even higher in power motivation.  But the most important determining factor of high morale turned out to be not how their power motivation compared with their need to achieve but whether it was higher than their need to be liked.

This resonates with my experience.  The very best managers I know have exceptional people skills and use them to great effect, but those skills are employed in service to the manager's larger goal of influencing and motivating others, not simply to generate warm feelings.

3) A High Need for Power Doesn't Necessarily Translate into Displays of Power
Uninhibited self-aggrandizement or abuses of authority shouldn't be mistaken for a good manager's strong need for power.  McClellan and Burnham determined that the most effective managers were mature and disciplined, which minimized their displays of power and reinforced their focus on achieving organizational results:

Mature people can be most simply described as less egotistic.  Somehow their positive self-image is not at stake in their jobs.  They are less defensive, more willing to seek advice from experts, and have a longer-range view.  They accumulate fewer personal possessions and seem older and wiser...

[T]he best managers possess two characteristics that act as regulators--a greater emotional maturity, where there is little egotism, and a democratic coaching managerial style.  If an institutional power motivation is checked by maturity, it does not lead to an aggressive, egotistic expansiveness.  That means managers can control their subordinates and influence others around them without having to resort to coercion or to an authoritarian management style.

<><><>

McClelland and Burham are aware that they're raising some controversial issues, but they think their critics are making a key mistake:

Our findings seem to fly in the face of a long and influential tradition of organizational psychology, which insists that authoritarian management is what is wrong with most businessess...  But much of the apparent conflict between our findings and those of other behavioral scientists in this area stems from the fact that we are talking about motives, and behaviorists are talking about actions.  What we are saying is that managers must be interested in playing the influence game in a controlled way.  That does not necessarily mean that they are or should be authoritarian in action.  On the contrary, it appears that power-motivated managers make their subordinates feel strong rather than weak.

I think it's notable that McClelland and Burham insisted on using the word "power," rather than softening it to something like "influence" or "impact."  We're more comfortable with these latter terms--"power" makes many of us feel uncomfortable.  And I believe that's precisely the point--until we get comfortable with it, we're going to undermine our own effectiveness as managers and leaders.

Photo by brokenchopstick.  Yay Flickr and Creative Commons.

David Bradford and Allan Cohen on Supportive Confrontation

Something's wrong at work.  Maybe your boss is a micro-manager, or your subordinate is screwing up assignments, or your officemate is just really annoying you.  You should talk to them, but it's going to be a difficult conversation--and if you find the courage to do it, will it really make a difference?

One of the most important skills that I've begun to develop is the art of discussing difficult issues in a direct way without being unduly confrontational or causing unnecessary defensiveness.  (Note that I say "begun" because although I'd like to think I've made some progress over the years, I run into situations where I could have done better every week.)

In David Bradford and Allen Cohen's Power Up (the text for David's class at Stanford Business School on High Performance Leadership), they call this skill Supportive Confrontation and describe four basic approaches to difficult conversations like this, starting with...

Approach 1: "This is the effect of your behavior on me"

You describe to the other person the negative impact they're having on you.  This can be harder than it sounds because a) we often imagine that the difficulties others cause us are apparent to them, so they must be doing it intentionally, and b) this puts us in a vulnerable position relative to the other person, which is often tough to do in the workplace.  But I'd argue that a) what we imagine to be true isn't necessarily so--it's surprising how often people don't realize that they're causing problems, and b) exposing our vulnerabilities, rather than trying to deny or hide them, can be an incredibly empowering experience--most people react with concern, interest and a desire to help.

That said, this is not about asking for sympathy; it's about stating the negative impact you're experiencing plainly and directly.  However, as Bradford and Allen write, "This approach works only if [your] reactions cause [the other person] to want to change.  But something else is needed if [the other person] is defensive, and tells [you], 'That is your problem, not mine,' or even worse, labels [you] as weak or over-sensitive." So on to...

Approach 2: "Your behavior is not meeting your apparent goals or intentions."

Just as people are often unaware of how their behavior affects us, they can be equally unaware of how their behavior affects their ability to achieve their goals or how it deviates from their stated intentions.  We observe others' self-defeating behaviors or inconsistencies and imagine that they're irrational or hypocritical, but the truth is they simply may not have the data that we have by virtue of our outside perspective.

If someone's not going to be motivated to change because of their impact on you, perhaps they'll be motivated by their impact on themselves.  The key here is linkage, a term that comes up frequently in Bradford and Cohen's work.  They regularly emphasize the importance of leaders linking team members' personal goals to the goals of the larger group, and here they talk about linking your goal (i.e. getting the other person to change) to their goals, whatever they may be.  But what if their goals are being met, despite (or even because of) their behavior?  How can you induce a desire to change then?  You can try...

3) "Your behavior may meet your goals, but it is very costly to you."

There's another type of blind spot--a person's inability to see what is being lost in their efforts to achieve their goals.  Some people are so focused on reaching the finish line that they just can't see how many problems they're creating while running the race.  Again, sharing data that you have from an outside perspective about the costs of their behavior can provide a powerful motive for change. 

This can be a variation on Approach 1, in which you don't simply describe the negative impact of other person's behavior on you but show how it affects them as well.  If in Approach 1 you'd say, "Your behavior is really bothering me," in Approach 3 you'd add, "...and as a result, I'm a lot less motivated to help you succeed."

4) "In what ways am I part of the problem?"

The first three approaches in Bradford and Cohen's framework are presented almost as sequential alternatives: If Approach 1 won't work, try Approach 2, and then move on to Approach 3.  But I don't believe that Approach 4 should be regarded as the final step in this sequence, the last resort if all else fails.  Rather, it's a tool that can be used to complement all the other approaches at any stage of the process.  And given that most of our working relationships are systems in which our reactions to the other person's behavior affect and modify that behavior in turn, it's likely that we are part of the problem at some level.

We shouldn't use this approach as a political ploy.  If you're completely confident that you're not part of the problem, don't ask this question just to seem nicer or more sympathetic; there are more effective and authentic ways to accomplish those goals (and if you're not making a genuine inquiry, the other person will see through it.)  But I've come to realize that when I'm having a problem with another person, it's pretty rare that they're the exclusive source of the trouble.

<><><>

Two final notes: 1) Throughout Bradford and Cohen's approaches to difficult conversations, note the emphasis on behavior.  It's essential to avoid guessing about another person's motives, because we can't know what they're thinking.  Almost everyone believes they're acting rationally, and most of the time they are acting rationally based on the data they possess.  (As Jean Renoir said, "The real hell of life is that everyone has his reasons.")

And 2) Although I've found Bradford and Cohen's work incredibly helpful as a conceptual framework, you can't develop these skills by reading about them.  You have to put them into practice, and one of the best places I've found to do that are the "T-groups" ("T" for "training") that are the basis for Stanford Business School's Interpersonal Dynamics class (which David established.)  The T-group methodology, developed by Kurt Lewin, essentially convenes a group of people who give each other direct--and sometimes quite blunt--feedback (a term coined by Lewin), and it provides a very rich environment in which to experiment with and improve upon these skills.  In addition to the class at the Business School, Stanford's Lifelong Learning program holds T-groups on a regular basis.

Point Bonita Lighthouse

We visited the Point Bonita Lighthouse in the Marin Headlands today.  It's always beautiful, but Saturday, Sunday and Monday from 12:30 to 3:30pm you can actually walk out to the lighthouse itself.  Incredible views, even on an gloomy overcast day like today.  There are a few more shots in my San Francisco album, and here's some audio of the Bonita Cove Surf (MP3, 35 seconds).

Jean Renoir on Coexistance

The real hell of life is that everyone has his reasons.

- Jean Renoir, quoted in Peggy Noonan's column in the Oct. 7-8 Wall Street Journal.

Agreement vs. Alignment

Last week I posted on my conversation with Clinton Moloney of the Trium Group, and his perspective on the components of trust.  (Charles Green has commented on the genesis of that concept.)

A related idea that Clinton discussed was the distinction between Agreement and Alignment in making decisions.  (Here's a larger version of the graphic on the left.)

And here's some explication and a 1-page PowerPoint (23 KB):

1) Agreement = Everyone gets their first choice (difficult and time-consuming to obtain.)	2) Alignment = Everyone can fully support the choice that is made (much easier to obtain.)
3) Extend the Frontier: Why?  In order to make more important decisions more quickly and easily.	4) Extend the Frontier: How?  Increase trust among group members and link personal and group goals.

Clinton Moloney On Trust

I had an interesting conversation with Clinton Moloney of the Trium Group yesterday, discussing their relatively unusual blend of consulting services that span strategy, leadership development, and organizational culture.  Something that stood out was Clinton's definition of trust:

Trust = Motive + Reliability + Competence

In other words, before we can trust someone, we must be assured of their motive, their reliability and their competence.  (Clinton vividly illustrated this concept by considering whether he would trust his mother to do his taxes.  He felt quite confident about her good intentions and her dependability, but the fact that she knows nothing about accounting was an insurmountable barrier to trust in this instance.)

The crucial dilemma is that we often have very good data about others' reliability and competence, but we lack data about their motive, which is the most important component of trust.  Even if we lack direct experience with people, there are any number of signals regarding their reliability and competence, from resumes to performance reports.  But the only way to understand another person's motive is to have a direct and candid conversation with them, and this requires superior communication skills, a keen sense of interpersonal awareness, and a willingness to take risks--all rare qualities.  And in the absence of knowledge about others' motives, we often fail to establish trust when it's needed most.

A relevant example: A friend recently described to me how a colleague continued to undermine him by sharing information indiscreetly.  My friend previously felt that his colleague simply lacked good judgment, but now he wondered whether these indiscretions could be intentional.  If my friend's colleague is lacking in judgment, that's an issue of competence that could be addressed through coaching.  At the very worst, my friend would simply know not to share confidential information with his colleague.  But if my friend's colleague is actually trying to undermine him, no amount of coaching will change his motive, and the relationship will be damaged beyond repair.  How can my friend determine whether his colleague is trustworthy?  The only course is to have a direct conversation, raise the sensitive issue of trust, and gauge the honesty of the responses.

This highlights for me the vital importance of developing the communication skills, interpersonal awareness and courage required to have such a conversation.  By developing these qualities within ourselves, we dramatically expand our ability to establish trust--and to understand where mistrust is warranted.

California Academy of Sciences

Amy and I visited the California Academy of Sciences today--our first trip to the temporary location in downtown San Francisco.  A new facility is under construction in Golden Gate Park--we walk by the site almost every morning and watch it progress day by day.  The temporary facility is a nice afternoon diversion--sort of a pocket museum.  The most interesting thing about the much-hyped dinosaur exhibit is watching the kids ooh and aah over the giant skeletons.  But the real treasures are the animals in the Steinhart Aquarium collection, like the seahorses above--there are a few more shots in my Miscellany album.  We missed the penguin feeding today, but if you can stand lots of squealing from the waist-high audience, I suspect it would be highly entertaining.

David Bradford on Teams, Families and Privacy

What does it mean to be a member of a team?  And what does "privacy" mean in that context?

Yesterday in High Performance Leadership, the class was discussing a role-playing video in which a manager (in a performance worthy of Troy McClure) inadavertantly humiliated a subordinate in a team meeting.

Several class members felt that the manager should have had a separate, "private" meeting with the subordinate to address their differences before the "public" meeting with the rest of the team.

David asked, "But what does 'private' mean?" before launching into a brief discussion about teams and the nature of privacy.  I don't remember it verbatim, but I'll do my best to paraphrase him:

We're often told that managers should "Praise in public and punish in private."  That's well and good.  But think about this: When you did something wrong as a child while your siblings were present, and your parents needed to discuss it with you or discipline you, did they send your siblings out of the room?  Probably not.  What about when your friends were present?  Did your parents wait until your friends were gone to talk to you or discipline you?  Most likely, yes.

That illustrates one of the definitions of family--many, if not most, discussions can be held with everyone present while retaining a sense of "privacy."  I'd suggest that high-functioning teams need to have a similar definition of membership--everyone's in the family, so to speak, and difficult discussions can be held with everyone present.

David wasn't suggesting that there's never a time for a team leader to have a one-on-one discussion with a fellow team member.  He's also well aware that it's hard to build a team so cohesive that "public" meetings feel "private," and that it requires highly developed communication skills (and a commitment to use them) to actually have difficult discussions involving every team member.

But we're not studying Average Performance Leadership, are we?

Willie Nelson on Dreams

Be careful what you're dreamin', or soon your dreams'll be dreamin' you.

-- Willie Nelson, "It's Not Supposed to Be That Way"

I heard this song last night, and that line just stood out and hit me upside the head.