Edd 8102 Action Science Principles
Running Head: ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 1
Action Science Principles
Tiffany Hall
EDD 8102
Foundations of Educational Leadership and Management II
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 2
Introduction
Effective communication is an essential factor in creating an environment where people can work together, problem solve, and implement solid strategies in an effort to take their company from good to great. According to Collins (2001) creating a climate where the truth is heard and where brutal facts can be confronted is essential to great leadership. Unfortunately, creating such a climate is difficult due to innate self-preservation; most people do not say how they really feel when confronted with tasks, problems, or concerns. Although the act of effective communication seems to be a straightforward endeavor, in practice it is filled with a multitude of issues: inconsistencies, half-truths, lies, assumptions, and misconceived notions.
In their literary work, Organizational learning II: Theory, learning, and practice, Argyris & Schon (1996) identify some of the ways individuals in the work place communicate with each other and how sometimes what we do does not often correlate to our actions. They present four key …show more content…
concepts in analyzing and understanding organizational context and how it impacts our communication. Those concepts are: espoused theories versus theories-in-use, single-and double-loop learning, defensive routines, and Model I and Model II behaviors, and the theories-in-use that support them. The use of the aforementioned concepts among leadership at Rainbow Lake Elementary School will be analyzed and evaluated in an effort to grasp the current reality of communication and to offer recommendations for improvement.
Espoused Theory compared to Theory-In-Use
According to Argyris & Schon (1996), espoused theory is the words we use to convey what we do or what we would like others to think we do, and theory-in-use refers to the actual action taken at the time of a particular situation or circumstance. For example, how an individual says they would react is the espoused theory and how they actually react is the theory-in-use.
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 3
These two theories bring to mind several popular sayings that relate to espoused theory and theory in use: “If that was me, I would…”, “Walk a mile in my shoes before you say what you would and wouldn’t do”, and “I’d never thought I’d…” These sayings embody the triangle of what we think we would do, what we say we would do and what we actually do in a given situation.
An example of espoused theory versus theory-in-use among leadership at Rainbow Lake is evident when dealing teacher support regarding parents. The espoused theory among leadership is that they support the teachers and give the teachers autonomy to implement whatever rules they feel are necessary for their classroom environment. However, the theory-in-use is more parent/student focused than teacher supported. If a parent goes to administration and complains about a classroom rule that they disagree with, administration will then go and question the teacher about his/her policies. This practice undermines the teachers’ control over their classrooms which leads to distrust and disrespect amongst teachers, parents, and administration. On several occasions, administration has undermined the teachers’ rules and allowed whatever behaviors that were not allowed to be allowed. For example, Mrs. Goody had a rule that students were not allowed to chew gum in her classroom. She explained to the students and parents why gum was not allowed; it gets stuck on their fingers because they play with it, it becomes a distraction if they start blowing bubbles or popping it, and after finishing the gum many students would stick their gum under their desk. Administration said “No problem. We understand why you do not want students to chew gum in class.” One particular student proceeded to come to Mrs. Goody’s class chewing gum although the rules had been made clear. After numerous incidents, Mrs. Goody called the parents and asked the parents to please stop sending their child to school with gum and that she was sending the child to the office for disobeying classroom rules. The parent replied that this was “ridiculous.” They didn’t see what
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 4 the big deal was about chewing gum and that they would speak to the principal about this situation. After the parent called the principal, the student was sent back to Mrs. Goody’s class and she was informed by the principal that she needed to pick her battles and that the student missing out on instruction because of gum chewing would not be permitted. From that day on, Mrs. Goody basically said “forget it” and allowed students to break her classroom rules because she felt like she would not be supported in her decisions by administration.
Single Loop Learning compared to Double Loop Learning
Single-loop learning occurs when problems are solved by changing actions or strategies for achieving a desired result without changing or addressing the underlying problem. Double-loop learning is an alternative response to single-loop learning; and in this situation there is cyclical reflection as to the effectiveness of a decision that is made. Double-loop learning requires participants to ask in-depth questions to get to the root of a problem in an effort to produce an effective solution and not to just put a band-aid on the problem. According to Argyris and Schon (1996), single-loop learning involves following routines and some sort of preset plan, and it is less risky for the individual and the organization, and affords greater control. They also state that double-loop learning is more creative and reflexive, that reflection is more fundamental and that basic assumptions behind ideas and policies are confronted.
Single-loop learning and double-loop learning have been implemented at Rainbow Lake Elementary School. The leadership within the school has an open door policy. This allows parents and teachers to voice their concerns. Once those concerns have been voiced, the principal and/or the assistant principal usually either “solve” the problem themselves or they bring the problem to the staff and ask for possible solutions.
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 5 The dismissal process at Rainbow Lake Elementary is pure chaos; students are running down the halls in various directions, the noise level is high, and parents of car riders often complain that the process of picking up their child takes too long. Instead of applying the double loop learning process and asking thought provoking questions concerning the dismissal process, the administration simply implemented an action strategy of changing the way students are dismissed. The “new way” of dismissing students has not produced the intended outcome of a smooth dismissal procedure and therefore the consequence of the action strategy was mismatched. As we are approaching the end of the school year with the new action plan in place, dismissal is still chaotic. Although administration did not utilize double loop learning the first time they implemented an action strategy for this problem, they have now brought the issue before the staff and sought out possible solutions. Numerous solutions are now being discussed amongst teachers within their own grade level meetings. During these meetings, teachers are being honest about what some of the existing problems are with dismissal, some of which place the blame on other grade level teachers. It will be interesting to see if those problems will be discussed when the teachers meet as a whole to come up with a new strategy for dismissal to implement in the upcoming school year.
One situation in which we applied double-learning was during our attempt to create an action plan for our RTI (Response to Intervention) process.
The process of identifying students who were currently at-risk for failure or facing learning difficulties, and implementing strategies to assist them was proving to be a challenge for many teachers. We were all frustrated and ready to throw our hands up. To develop an RTI plan that was effective, my principal, assistant principal, resource teachers, and classroom teachers collaborated and created an RTI (Response to Intervention) committee. The committee’s purpose was to create a plan that every teacher could use to: identify at-risk students, implement suggested strategies, collect data
on
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 6 student progress, involve parents, and monitor student progress continuously to reevaluate the effectiveness of each student’s interventions. The committee confronted the brutal facts that teachers were frustrated, students were failing and parents were being left out of the loop. We did not place blame on each other, instead, we collaborated on different ideas that were feasible for each of us to use in our classroom. The RTI process has been revamped and based on the monthly RTI report that we receive, we are all doing much better.
Defensive Routines Argyris & Schon define defensive routines as actions or policies enacted within an organizational setting that are intended to protect individuals from experiencing embarrassment or threat, while at the same time, preventing individuals or the organization as a whole from identifying the causes of embarrassment or threat in order to correct the relevant problems. Defensive routines are very apparent at Rainbow Lake Elementary School. There is a saying among some of the teachers regarding the principal, “She has a plan and if you get in the way of her plan, you will feel the wrath.” It is clear that the principal at Rainbow Lake is positioning herself to be promoted to assistant superintendent or superintendent. She has implemented some great changes at the school and as a result of her leadership the school has been spotlighted in the community and received numerous major awards. She is a woman on a mission and public persona and community support are imperative to her reaching her next goal. Therefore, she is known to be “hell on wheels” if anyone does something that “embarrasses” her or brings any form of negativity to the school. A recent altercation took place between the principal and the counselor. The counselor was left in tears after the principal chastised her in front of students, teachers, and parents due to some chaos at an end of the year awards breakfast that the counselor had coordinated for honor students and their parents.
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 7
As a result of her defensive actions, the counselor now feels a sense of helplessness. She’d just coordinated a fantastic career day and awards program, but all of that was overshadowed by her misstep with the honors breakfast. After speaking with her, she mentioned that this incident has made her want to back away from coordinating programs for students and parents out of fear that she will be embarrassed again herself although she knows that this would adversely affect the students and their desire to get acknowledgement for their academic achievements.
Model I and Model II Behaviors
Model I according to Argyris and Schon (1985) is the belief that everyone employs a common theory-in use when faced with problematic situations; the primary action strategy looks to the unilateral control of the environment and task plus the unilateral protection of self and others. Model 1 behaviors often lead to defensive routines and governing values such as: win, do not lose, suppress negative feelings, and emphasize rationality. These values then lead to dire consequences, such as: defensive relationships (like the one displayed between the principal and counselor), low freedom of choice (like the one displayed in Mrs. Goody’s classroom) and little public testing of ideas (like the single-loop concept used with trying to address after school dismissal).
In contrast, Argyris & Schon (1985) describe Model II behaviors as the ability to call upon good quality data, to make inferences, and to include the views and experiences of participants rather than seeking to impose a view upon the situation. Model II behaviors often lead to governing values such as: valid information, free and informed choice, and internal commitment. These values lead to effective consequences, such as: minimally defensive
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 8 relationships, high freedom of choice, and increased likelihood of double-loop learning (like the one displayed in the RTI process).
Recommendations for Improvement
Argyris and Schon (1996) believe that it would be in the best interest of organizations to move people from Model I to Model II behaviors to foster double-loop learning, increase effective communication, and emphasize common goals and mutual influence. As shown in the examples above, Rainbow Lake has work to do regarding effective communication and should be cognizant of moving from Model I behaviors to Model II behaviors. Although there is some double-loop learning taking place, there are still numerous situations where single-loop learning is applied, theory-in-use and espoused theory are conflicting, and defensive routines are negatively impacting the entire organization. In order to make some necessary changes, teachers and administration must be willing to let down their defensive routines and take an honest look at their actions and interactions, problem solving strategies, and communication techniques.
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 9
References
Argyris, C. (1985) Action Science, Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Argyris, C. (1994, July). Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 77–85.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, learning, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. New York,
NY: Collins Business.
Action Science Principles
Tiffany Hall
EDD 8102
Foundations of Educational Leadership and Management II
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 2
Introduction
Effective communication is an essential factor in creating an environment where people can work together, problem solve, and implement solid strategies in an effort to take their company from good to great. According to Collins (2001) creating a climate where the truth is heard and where brutal facts can be confronted is essential to great leadership. Unfortunately, creating such a climate is difficult due to innate self-preservation; most people do not say how they really feel when confronted with tasks, problems, or concerns. Although the act of effective communication seems to be a straightforward endeavor, in practice it is filled with a multitude of issues: inconsistencies, half-truths, lies, assumptions, and misconceived notions.
In their literary work, Organizational learning II: Theory, learning, and practice, Argyris & Schon (1996) identify some of the ways individuals in the work place communicate with each other and how sometimes what we do does not often correlate to our actions. They present four key …show more content…
concepts in analyzing and understanding organizational context and how it impacts our communication. Those concepts are: espoused theories versus theories-in-use, single-and double-loop learning, defensive routines, and Model I and Model II behaviors, and the theories-in-use that support them. The use of the aforementioned concepts among leadership at Rainbow Lake Elementary School will be analyzed and evaluated in an effort to grasp the current reality of communication and to offer recommendations for improvement.
Espoused Theory compared to Theory-In-Use
According to Argyris & Schon (1996), espoused theory is the words we use to convey what we do or what we would like others to think we do, and theory-in-use refers to the actual action taken at the time of a particular situation or circumstance. For example, how an individual says they would react is the espoused theory and how they actually react is the theory-in-use.
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 3
These two theories bring to mind several popular sayings that relate to espoused theory and theory in use: “If that was me, I would…”, “Walk a mile in my shoes before you say what you would and wouldn’t do”, and “I’d never thought I’d…” These sayings embody the triangle of what we think we would do, what we say we would do and what we actually do in a given situation.
An example of espoused theory versus theory-in-use among leadership at Rainbow Lake is evident when dealing teacher support regarding parents. The espoused theory among leadership is that they support the teachers and give the teachers autonomy to implement whatever rules they feel are necessary for their classroom environment. However, the theory-in-use is more parent/student focused than teacher supported. If a parent goes to administration and complains about a classroom rule that they disagree with, administration will then go and question the teacher about his/her policies. This practice undermines the teachers’ control over their classrooms which leads to distrust and disrespect amongst teachers, parents, and administration. On several occasions, administration has undermined the teachers’ rules and allowed whatever behaviors that were not allowed to be allowed. For example, Mrs. Goody had a rule that students were not allowed to chew gum in her classroom. She explained to the students and parents why gum was not allowed; it gets stuck on their fingers because they play with it, it becomes a distraction if they start blowing bubbles or popping it, and after finishing the gum many students would stick their gum under their desk. Administration said “No problem. We understand why you do not want students to chew gum in class.” One particular student proceeded to come to Mrs. Goody’s class chewing gum although the rules had been made clear. After numerous incidents, Mrs. Goody called the parents and asked the parents to please stop sending their child to school with gum and that she was sending the child to the office for disobeying classroom rules. The parent replied that this was “ridiculous.” They didn’t see what
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 4 the big deal was about chewing gum and that they would speak to the principal about this situation. After the parent called the principal, the student was sent back to Mrs. Goody’s class and she was informed by the principal that she needed to pick her battles and that the student missing out on instruction because of gum chewing would not be permitted. From that day on, Mrs. Goody basically said “forget it” and allowed students to break her classroom rules because she felt like she would not be supported in her decisions by administration.
Single Loop Learning compared to Double Loop Learning
Single-loop learning occurs when problems are solved by changing actions or strategies for achieving a desired result without changing or addressing the underlying problem. Double-loop learning is an alternative response to single-loop learning; and in this situation there is cyclical reflection as to the effectiveness of a decision that is made. Double-loop learning requires participants to ask in-depth questions to get to the root of a problem in an effort to produce an effective solution and not to just put a band-aid on the problem. According to Argyris and Schon (1996), single-loop learning involves following routines and some sort of preset plan, and it is less risky for the individual and the organization, and affords greater control. They also state that double-loop learning is more creative and reflexive, that reflection is more fundamental and that basic assumptions behind ideas and policies are confronted.
Single-loop learning and double-loop learning have been implemented at Rainbow Lake Elementary School. The leadership within the school has an open door policy. This allows parents and teachers to voice their concerns. Once those concerns have been voiced, the principal and/or the assistant principal usually either “solve” the problem themselves or they bring the problem to the staff and ask for possible solutions.
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 5 The dismissal process at Rainbow Lake Elementary is pure chaos; students are running down the halls in various directions, the noise level is high, and parents of car riders often complain that the process of picking up their child takes too long. Instead of applying the double loop learning process and asking thought provoking questions concerning the dismissal process, the administration simply implemented an action strategy of changing the way students are dismissed. The “new way” of dismissing students has not produced the intended outcome of a smooth dismissal procedure and therefore the consequence of the action strategy was mismatched. As we are approaching the end of the school year with the new action plan in place, dismissal is still chaotic. Although administration did not utilize double loop learning the first time they implemented an action strategy for this problem, they have now brought the issue before the staff and sought out possible solutions. Numerous solutions are now being discussed amongst teachers within their own grade level meetings. During these meetings, teachers are being honest about what some of the existing problems are with dismissal, some of which place the blame on other grade level teachers. It will be interesting to see if those problems will be discussed when the teachers meet as a whole to come up with a new strategy for dismissal to implement in the upcoming school year.
One situation in which we applied double-learning was during our attempt to create an action plan for our RTI (Response to Intervention) process.
The process of identifying students who were currently at-risk for failure or facing learning difficulties, and implementing strategies to assist them was proving to be a challenge for many teachers. We were all frustrated and ready to throw our hands up. To develop an RTI plan that was effective, my principal, assistant principal, resource teachers, and classroom teachers collaborated and created an RTI (Response to Intervention) committee. The committee’s purpose was to create a plan that every teacher could use to: identify at-risk students, implement suggested strategies, collect data
on
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 6 student progress, involve parents, and monitor student progress continuously to reevaluate the effectiveness of each student’s interventions. The committee confronted the brutal facts that teachers were frustrated, students were failing and parents were being left out of the loop. We did not place blame on each other, instead, we collaborated on different ideas that were feasible for each of us to use in our classroom. The RTI process has been revamped and based on the monthly RTI report that we receive, we are all doing much better.
Defensive Routines Argyris & Schon define defensive routines as actions or policies enacted within an organizational setting that are intended to protect individuals from experiencing embarrassment or threat, while at the same time, preventing individuals or the organization as a whole from identifying the causes of embarrassment or threat in order to correct the relevant problems. Defensive routines are very apparent at Rainbow Lake Elementary School. There is a saying among some of the teachers regarding the principal, “She has a plan and if you get in the way of her plan, you will feel the wrath.” It is clear that the principal at Rainbow Lake is positioning herself to be promoted to assistant superintendent or superintendent. She has implemented some great changes at the school and as a result of her leadership the school has been spotlighted in the community and received numerous major awards. She is a woman on a mission and public persona and community support are imperative to her reaching her next goal. Therefore, she is known to be “hell on wheels” if anyone does something that “embarrasses” her or brings any form of negativity to the school. A recent altercation took place between the principal and the counselor. The counselor was left in tears after the principal chastised her in front of students, teachers, and parents due to some chaos at an end of the year awards breakfast that the counselor had coordinated for honor students and their parents.
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 7
As a result of her defensive actions, the counselor now feels a sense of helplessness. She’d just coordinated a fantastic career day and awards program, but all of that was overshadowed by her misstep with the honors breakfast. After speaking with her, she mentioned that this incident has made her want to back away from coordinating programs for students and parents out of fear that she will be embarrassed again herself although she knows that this would adversely affect the students and their desire to get acknowledgement for their academic achievements.
Model I and Model II Behaviors
Model I according to Argyris and Schon (1985) is the belief that everyone employs a common theory-in use when faced with problematic situations; the primary action strategy looks to the unilateral control of the environment and task plus the unilateral protection of self and others. Model 1 behaviors often lead to defensive routines and governing values such as: win, do not lose, suppress negative feelings, and emphasize rationality. These values then lead to dire consequences, such as: defensive relationships (like the one displayed between the principal and counselor), low freedom of choice (like the one displayed in Mrs. Goody’s classroom) and little public testing of ideas (like the single-loop concept used with trying to address after school dismissal).
In contrast, Argyris & Schon (1985) describe Model II behaviors as the ability to call upon good quality data, to make inferences, and to include the views and experiences of participants rather than seeking to impose a view upon the situation. Model II behaviors often lead to governing values such as: valid information, free and informed choice, and internal commitment. These values lead to effective consequences, such as: minimally defensive
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 8 relationships, high freedom of choice, and increased likelihood of double-loop learning (like the one displayed in the RTI process).
Recommendations for Improvement
Argyris and Schon (1996) believe that it would be in the best interest of organizations to move people from Model I to Model II behaviors to foster double-loop learning, increase effective communication, and emphasize common goals and mutual influence. As shown in the examples above, Rainbow Lake has work to do regarding effective communication and should be cognizant of moving from Model I behaviors to Model II behaviors. Although there is some double-loop learning taking place, there are still numerous situations where single-loop learning is applied, theory-in-use and espoused theory are conflicting, and defensive routines are negatively impacting the entire organization. In order to make some necessary changes, teachers and administration must be willing to let down their defensive routines and take an honest look at their actions and interactions, problem solving strategies, and communication techniques.
ACTION SCIENCE PRINCIPLES 9
References
Argyris, C. (1985) Action Science, Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Argyris, C. (1994, July). Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 77–85.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, learning, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. New York,
NY: Collins Business.