Join Your Exam WhatsApp group to get regular news, updates & study materials HOW TO JOIN

Chris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University Notes

Chris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University Notes

Chris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University : Here we provide direct download links forChris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University notes in pdf format. Download these Chris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University Complete notes in pdf format and read well.

Chris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University Notes

Chris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University : Chris Argyris (July 16, 1923 – November 16, 2013) was an American business theorist, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School, and held the position of “Thought Leader” at Monitor Group.[2] Argyris is next to Richard Beckhard, Edgar Schein and Warren Bennis known as co-founder of organization development, and known for seminal work of learning organizations.

Download here Chris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University Notes in pdf format 

Chris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University Notes

Chris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University :  Born into a family of Greek immigrants to the United States in Newark, New Jersey, Argyris (pronounced AHR-JUR-ris) grew up in Irvington, New Jersey and Athens, Greece. In World War II he served in the U.S. Army Signal Corps. After his service he studied psychology at Clark University, where he met Kurt Lewin. He obtained his MA in 1947, and joined the Kansas University, where he obtained his MSc in Psychology and Economics in 1949. In 1951 received his PhD from Cornell University, with a thesis on the behavior in organizations under the supervision of William F. Whyte.

In 1951 Argyris started his academic career at Yale University as part of the Yale Labor and Management Center where he worked under its director and an early influence, E. Wight Bakke. At Yale he subsequently became appointed Professor of Management science. In 1971 he moved to Harvard University, where he was Professor of Education and Organizational Behavior, until his retirement. Argyris was active as director of the consulting firm Monitor in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Chris Argyris received an Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from the University of Toronto in 2006. He also received a Doctor of Science award from Yale University in 2011

Chris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University Notes

Chris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University : Chris Argyris’ early research explored the impact of formal organizational structures, control systems and management on individuals and how they responded and adapted to them. This research resulted in the books Personality and Organization (1957) and Integrating the Individual and the Organization (1964). He then shifted his focus to organizational change, in particular exploring the behaviour of senior executives in organizations (Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness (1962); Organization and Innovation (1965).

From there he moved on to an inquiry into the role of the social scientist as both researcher and actor (Intervention Theory and Method (1970); Inner Contradictions of Rigorous Research (1980) and Action Science (1985) – with Robert Putnam and Diana McLain Smith). His fourth major area of research and theorizing – in significant part undertaken with Donald Schön – was in individual and organizational learning and the extent to which human reasoning, not just behavior, can become the basis for diagnosis and action (Theory in Practice (1974); Organizational Learning (1978); Organizational Learning II (1996) – all with Donald Schön). He has also developed this thinking in Overcoming Organizational Defenses (1990) and Knowledge for Action (1993).

Adult personality

Argyris believed that managers who treat people positively and as responsible adults will achieve productivity. Mature workers want additional responsibilities, variety of tasks, and the ability to participate in decisions. He also came to the conclusion that problems with employees are the result of mature personalities managed using outdated practices.

Action science

Argyris’ collaborative work with Robert W. Putnam, (not to be confused with Robert D. Putnam), and Diana McLain Smith advocates an approach to research that focuses on generating knowledge that is useful in solving practical problems. Other key concepts developed by Argyris include ladder of inference, double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön 1974), theory of action/espoused theory/theory-in-use, high advocacy/high inquiry dialogue and actionable knowledge and the study of adult personality.

Argyris’ concept of Action Science begins with the study of how human beings design their actions in difficult situations. Human actions are designed to achieve intended consequences and governed by a set of environment variables. How those governing variables are treated in designing actions are the key differences between single-loop learning and double-loop learning. When actions are designed to achieve the intended consequences and to suppress conflict about the governing variables, a single-loop learning cycle usually ensues. On the other hand, when actions are taken, not only to achieve the intended consequences, but also to openly inquire about conflict and to possibly transform the governing variables, both single-loop and double-loop learning cycles usually ensue. (Argyris applies single-loop and double-loop learning concepts not only to personal behaviors but also to organizational behaviors in his models.)

Model 1 illustrates how single-loop learning affects human actions. Model 2 describes how double-loop learning affects human actions. The following Model 1 and Model 2 tables introduce these ideas (tables are from Argyris, Putnam & Smith, 1985, Action Science, Ch. 3). Other key books conveying Argyris’ approach include Argyris & Schon, 1974 and Argyris, 1970, 1980, 1994).

Table 1, Model 1: Theory-In-Use: defensive reasoning

Governing VariablesAction StrategiesConsequences for the Behavioral WorldConsequences for LearningEffectiveness
Define goals and try to achieve themDesign and manage the environment unilaterally (be persuasive, appeal to larger goals)Actor seen as defensive, inconsistent, incongruent, competitive, controlling, fearful of being vulnerable, manipulative, withholding of feelings, overly concerned about self and others or under concerned about othersSelf-sealingDecreased effectiveness
Maximize winning and minimize losingOwn and control the task (claim ownership of the task, be guardian of definition and execution of task)Defensive interpersonal and group relationship (dependence upon actor, little additivity, little helping of others)Single-loop learning
Minimize generating or expressing negative feelingsUnilaterally protect yourself (speak with inferred categories accompanied by little or no directly observable behavior, be blind to impact on others and to the incongruity between rhetoric and behavior, reduce incongruity by defensive actions such as blaming, stereotyping, suppressing feelings, intellectualizing)Defensive norms (mistrust, lack of risk taking, conformitment, emphasis on diplomacy, power-centered competition, and rivalry)Little testing of theories publicly, much testing of theories privately
Be rationalUnilaterally protect others from being hurt (withhold information, create rules to censor information and behavior, hold private meetings)Little freedom of choice, internal commitment, or risk taking

Table 2, Model 2: Theory-In-Use: productive reasoning

Governing VariablesAction StrategiesConsequences for the Behavioral WorldConsequences for LearningConsequences for Quality of LifeEffectiveness
Valid informationDesign situations or environments where participants can be origins and can experience high personal causation (psychological success, confirmation, essentiality)Actor experienced as minimally defensive (facilitator, collaborator, choice creator)Disconfirmable processesQuality of life will be more positive than negative (high authenticity and high freedom of choice)
Free and informed choiceTasks are controlled jointlyMinimally defensive interpersonal relations and group dynamicsDouble-loop learningeffectiveness of problem solving and decision making will be great, especially for difficult problemsIncrease long-run effectiveness
Internal commitment to the choice and constant monitoring of its implementationProtection of self is a joint enterprise and oriented toward growth (speak in directly observable categories, seek to reduce blindness about own inconsistency and incongruity)Learning-oriented norms (trust, individuality, open confrontation on difficult issues)Public testing of theories
Bilateral protection of others

Chris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University Notes

Chris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University : There has been a lot of debate recently about the factors that make companies competitive. Some management thinkers have suggested that competitiveness rests in the way companies organize themselves around their core capabilities and competencies. Others have said that it has to do with the way a company innovates, focuses its strategy, manages within its business ecosystem, orients itself to its customers or simply handles costs. The debate is ongoing, with no end in sight.

hris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior

Chris Argyris, the James Bryant Conant Professor Emeritus of Education and Organizational Behavior at Harvard University, would not necessarily dispute the importance of any of these notions. He might, however, add that a good deal of the debate is taking place on the wrong level. Companies fail, he would say, because they have created cultures that inhibit their ability to learn.

In Professor Argyris’s view, as articulated in “Knowledge for Action” (Jossey-Bass, 1993), one of his many books, there are two types of organizations, which he calls Model I and Model II. Though they may look the same from the outside, these two types differ significantly in the way they learn and, as a result, in their ability to perform over time and compete.

Model I organizations have institutionalized a form of self-censorship that is defensive and limits real communication. Instead of telling the truth, people in Model I organizations, which Professor Argyris believes make up the majority of businesses, express only those views that the institutional culture deems appropriate. If individuals working in Model I companies believe they will be penalized for conveying bad news at a department meeting, for example, they will refrain from doing so.

As a result, the organization will receive what Professor Argyris calls “invalid” knowledge about its condition. When that happens, companies find themselves drifting further and further from reality. And when they get into trouble, they often do not understand why. Because self-censorship does not go away when a company is in distress, the ability of the business to repair itself is impeded by the same forces that got it into trouble in the first place.

Model II companies, on the other hand, manage their conversations better. Rather than censor knowledge, they have found a way to promote it and get it heard. Model II companies — of which there are very few, in Professor Argyris’s view — differ from Model I organizations because they deal in valid knowledge. As a result, they are able to assess reality more correctly and solve problems as they occur.

All of this explains why Model I and Model II companies differ markedly in the way they learn. Since Model I companies are not dealing with knowledge as effectively as Model II companies are, they are less likely to understand true cause and true effect.

At the heart of the learning gap is the difference between what Professor Argyris calls “theories espoused” and “theories in use.”

Consider what happens when a group sits around a table to discuss a business issue in a Model I company. The group members may even say, “Let’s be as open and honest about this one as we can be,” which is the theory that is espoused. However, since the real culture of the organization makes certain statements dangerous, leading to self-censorship, the theory espoused is at variance with the theory in use. As a result, group members often say one thing while believing another.

A graphic example of this type of behavior are the discussions that took place within the central planning units in the old Soviet Union. Not only did leaders there fail to admit that they had economic problems, they even produced data supporting the view that everything was fine. The Soviet Union fell, in large measure, because its organizational culture forced it to deal almost exclusively with invalid knowledge.

Real learning takes place, Professor Argyris says, not simply when an organization refines its processes, which he calls “single-loop learning,” but when it refines its theories and assumptions about the way the world works, engaging in “double-loop learning.” Breakthroughs occur when theories are overturned, updated or replaced. But if companies are locked into situations in which their theories in use differ from their theories espoused, nothing gets overturned and no conceptual breakthroughs can occur. Real learning — the kind that charts new paths and strategies — is blocked.

Creating Model II companies takes work and discipline. People must feel secure about offering information, meaning that organizations must be transformed into places where it is safe to tell the truth. When that happens, managers can go about their real business, which is managing a company’s knowledge, through its people.

Chris Argyris Behavior Patterns For Organisational Theory And Behavior MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University Notes

Cakart.in provides India’s top MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University faculty video classes – online & in Pen Drive/ DVD – at very cost effective rates. Get MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University  Video classes from www.cakart.in  to do a great preparation for primary Student.

Watch  MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University  sample video lectures
Watch  MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University sample lecture books  
Watch MCOM Sem 1 Delhi University free downloads  

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *