1

Subject : Public Administration

Course : Administrative Thinkers

Title of module : Chris Argyris

Author : C. V. Raghavulu

Module Introduction:

Chris Argyris attempts a detailed exploration of the fundamentals of organisation behaviour

and human interaction in the workplace. Argyris raises profound questions about how

organisations are managed and frequently throws into doubt what is accepted as ‘systematic

theory’ and ‘good practice’. The module presents the new concepts introduced by Argyris

such as organisational adaptation and interpersonal competence; novel techniques of

organisation development such as T-group technique; and unconventional approaches /

strategies pioneered such as learning organisation and intervention strategy. Considerable

attention is devoted in the module to the framework of learning organisation, with analyses of

single loop learning ( Model I ) and double loop learning ( Model II ) with accompanying sets

of governing values, action strategies and learning outcomes of each cognitive programme.

Action research and the methodology of intervention is another component of the module.

Key words: Cognitive approach, Basic incongruence, Interpersonal competence, T-group,

Espoused theories, Theories-in-use, Model I, Model II, Learning Organisation, Intervention

theory.

1. Introduction

Argyris is one of the most respected administrative thinkers whose passionate interest in

management and organisational problems is reflected in his voluminous writings over six

decades. As a behavioural scientist he devoted his attention to understanding and analysis of

2

how employees behave in organisations and how managers learn. His academic training in

psychology, economics and organisational behaviour provided the framework for his research

endeavours. One of the pioneers in intervention research and an ardent believer in the

potential of learning, Argyris rallies his academic energies to analyse organisation behaviour,

to develop strategies and demonstrate how they can transform individuals and organisations

to enhance their effectiveness. In the process, he challenges the assumptions and efficacy of

pre-existing approaches to organisation development. While the advocates of participative

management drew attention to the growing incompatibility between the time-honoured

organisational models and individual need fulfillment, Argyris goes one step further in

emphasizing that organisational adaptation depends upon the recognition of the need for

learning strategies by both individuals and organisations. Argyris advocates a cognitive

approach for intervention in organisations.

A descendant of Greek immigrant parents to the United States, Chris Argyris (1923-2013)

served in the U.S. Army during the second world war. He studied at Clark, Kansas and

Cornell Universities. He obtained his Ph.D. degree in Organizational Behavior (1951) from

Cornell University, under the supervision of Prof. William E. Whyte, who belonged to the

Chicago School of Sociology. He served on the faculties of Yale (1951-71) and Harvard

(1971-2003) Universities. Besides several distinguished awards, including the Kurt Lewin

Award (1997), Argyris was the recipient of honorary doctoral degrees from Universities in

Belgium, Canada, France, Greece, Sweden, U.K. and the United States. Yale has awarded

honorary doctorate to him in 2011. His publications consist of more than 40 books and over

350 papers.

Influence of other scholars on Argyris

Argyris acknowledges that Kurt Lewin had a tremendous influence on him. Lewin was

committed to understanding reality as his participants understood it. He also tested his ideas

by attempting to change the things he was studying. Another major influence was that of

William Whyte, author of the Street Corner Society. Argyris was impressed by Whyte’s

commitment to reliance on observational data and his interest in change. Argyris began

working with Donald Schon, a philosopher, in combining normative theories with description

in their approach to learning organisation.

3

2. Different phases of Argyris work

Argyris’ started his academic journey as a behavioural scientist and as an advocate of the

human relations school in the early 1950s. His book on Personality and Organization (1957)

became a classic text for students of psychology and organisation behaviour. In his early

work Argyris advances three interrelated propositions: (1) For achieving goals organisations

depend on people. (2) In most cases, the organisation itself stands in the way of people

realising their potential. (3) The primary task of the organisation is to ensure people’s

motivation and provide direction to the fulfillment of their potential.

Argyris analyses the impact of formal organisational structures and control systems and

processes on individuals and how the latter responded and adapted to them. The publications

relevant to this phase are Personality and Organization (1957) and Integrating the Individual

and the Organization (1964). In the next phase his interest shifted to organisational change.

This research resulted in an important book: Organization and Innovation (1965). The third

phase of his inquiry was focused on the role of the social scientist as researcher and actor /

interventionist. Two major publications of relevance to this phase are: Intervention Theory

and Method (1970) and Action Science (1985), the latter with Robert Putnam and Diana M.

Smith. From there on he moved to his fourth phase of work on individual and organisational

learning. Donald Schon was collaborator for much of his significant work on organisational

learning. The important books of this phase are: Theory in Practice (1974); Double Loop

Learning (1974); Organizational Learning (1978); and Organizational Learning-II (1996)--all

in collaboration with Donald Schon.

3. Organisation Development and Organisation Change

Along with Edgar Schein and Warren Bennis, he was a co-founder of the field of organisation

development. Argyris advanced the view that the strategy of organisation development is

interlinked with individual development as much as the latter is affected by organisational

environment. He argues that the principles of formal organisation such as task specialization,

unity of direction, chain of command, and span of control and managerial controls, combined

with the impact of directive leadership, would have adverse consequences for individual

growth and organisational effectiveness. A votary of job enrichment, Argyris challenges the

extremes of Taylorism, especially the view that ‘one hires a hand rather than a whole person.’

4

Collating evidence from studies in social psychology and organisation behaviour, Argyris

hypothesizes a basic incongruence between the requirements of formal organisation and

the needs of mature personality. He notes that the application of the principles of formal

organisation would create an environment in which: ((1) the employees are provided minimal

control over their work-day world; (2) they are expected to be passive, dependent and

subordinate; (3) they are expected to have a short-time perspective; and (4) they are induced

to perfect and value the frequent use of a few shallow abilities. Relying heavily on maturity –

immaturity theories, he suggests that these characteristics tend to be incongruent with the

needs of adult individuals. The career development models of organisation further contribute

to a less mature behavior on the part of organisation members.

The net effect of this incongruency increases as (1) the employees are of increasing maturity,

(2) as the formal structure is made more clear-cut and logically tight for maximum formal

organisational effectiveness, and (3) as one goes down the line of command. ( Raghavulu,

2010, 163 ). The emphasis on managerial controls becomes counterproductive as employees

perceive them as instruments of punishment. Evaluative techniques also produce negative

feelings as they are prone to highlight the less benign aspects of individual performance.

From the organisation’s standpoint, the bottom line is the financial costs rather than the

‘human’ costs.

The compounding affects or the various instruments of control lead individuals to become

passive, dependent and submissive. They also generate in healthy individuals feelings of

frustration and failure. As a result, they tend to be indifferent and mechanical. Subordinates

focus their attention on meeting the organisation’s formal requirements, and the leader’s

needs. They neglect their own needs and compete with each other in pleasing the leader.

Argyris concludes that the impact of directive leadership ‘compounds the felony’ that the

formal organisation commits. Authoritarian leadership, notes Argyris, reinforces and

perpetuates the ‘damage’ created by the organisational structure.

Argyris proceeds to link the organisational scenario to the Maslowian framework of hierarchy

of needs. Since individuals are unable to use their abilities in the context of a bundle of

incongruent organisational characteristics and the assumption of the management that the

employees are lazy, uninterested in work and money-crazy and guided by a short term

perspective, the fulfilment of the higher order needs goes haywire.

5

Critique of Herbert Simon:

Argyris is critical of Herbert Simon for his emphasis on the importance of authority

structures, for paying limited attention to the emotional side of man and for ignoring the

negative feelings of a typical employee towards the organisation and its goals. He states that

Simon’s concept of ‘intendedly rational man’, with its focus on the consistent, programmable

and organized thinking activities’ of an employee, accords primacy to goal-relevant

behaviour and ignores the more salient aspect as to how the purpose itself has emerged.

Argyris considers that the concept of ‘satisficing man’ would promote status quo in

organisations. Besides the exclusion of variables like self-actualization, reliance on

mechanisms of organisational influence would tantamount to the view that human beings can

be motivated by the authority system.

4a. Intervention Strategies for Organisational Change

Argyris’ intervention strategies for organisational change emanate from his diagnosis of the

inadequacies of the prevailing forms of organisation and managerial controls (Argyris, 1964,

3-19). His strategy of intervention for organisation development encompasses four core areas.

Firstly, the organisation should provide an environment for the development of the personal

or psychological maturity of the individual. Secondly, a programme for organisation change

should aim at improving the interpersonal competence of the employees. Thirdly, changes

must be introduced to transform the traditional pyramidal form of organisation. Fourthly,

techniques for programmed learning aimed at individual change should be introduced. In

operationalising the strategy in these four areas Argyris relies on the assumptions and

procedures of Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs. Following Maslow’s theoretical model,

Agryris suggests an analytical framework of individual response patterns, linking the

concepts of psychological energy, personality needs and abilities.

6

4b. Improvement of Interpersonal Competence

Argyris finds that hitherto both public and business organisations have been placing emphasis

on improving intellectual and mechanical skills to the neglect of interpersonal skills.

Contrary to this trend, Argyris advocates that organisations function better if their

members are more interpersonally competent. He postulates the requirements for the

development of interpersonal competence. In operationalising the concept of interpersonal

competence, he mentions the following specific kinds of behaviours (Argyris, 1970, 40).

(1) Owning upto, or accepting responsibility for one’s ideas and feelings;

(2) being open to ideas and feelings of others and those from within one’s self;

(3) experimenting with new ideas and feelings; and

(4) helping others to own up, be open to, and to experiment with their ideas and feelings.

4c. Match Tasks and Organisation Structures.

Advocating an open-ended approach, Argyris suggests a match between the requirements of

the task and the nature of decision making on the one hand and the form of organisation on

the other. He notes that the old pyramidal form will be more effective for the routine, non-

innovative activity that requires little, if any, internal commitment by the employees.

However, as the decisions become less routine, more innovative, as they require more

commitment, the newer forms such as the matrix organisation will be more effective.

Accordingly, he suggests various mixes of the organisation with different pay offs.

5. Techniques of Programmed Learning and T-Group

In Argyris’ view programmed learning is a basic tenet of organisational development.

Programmed learning, according to him, should focus on exposure of employees in teams,

organisational diagnosis, renewal and effectiveness. T-group technique or sensitivity training

is an innovative technique suggested by Argyris for improving employee effectiveness.

7

T-Group Technique

The T-group technique is a laboratory programme designed to develop awareness of their self

and acceptance of the sensitivities of others and in the process give and receive feedback.

The T-group is expected to improve self-esteem and interpersonal competence, and

contribute to effective group functioning. The technique was formed to enable participants

to submerge hierarchical differences and develop distributive leadership and consensual

decision making.

Argyris suggests the need for widespread use of T-group training in public administration. In

this connection, he cites the experience of the US Department of State. Since the pathologies

affecting other organisations in the west and non-west are similar application of T-group

training in government bureaucracies is expected to have positive outcomes.

6a. Action Science / theories of action

An important component of Argyris contribution is his approach to action science / theory of

action. It is grounded in his practice as a researcher, educator and interventionist (1978, 1980,

1982). It is also a perspective of mainstream research, which enables him to offer a critique of

others’ work or provide an alternative. Action science envisages a conception of human

beings as designers of action. The design need not always be deliberate, but often implicit.

There is a theory of action behind the design of each programme. Design includes specific

meanings and intentions to each or several of behaviours of the employee. The meanings or

constructs attributed, in turn, serve as guides to action. Further, action is designed to achieve

intended consequences, which are monitored to learn the extent of effectiveness of action.

Implicit in this design is prediction and causal relationships, with ‘a set of complexly related

propositions’. It is also a theory of control envisaging the intended consequences of role

enactment by Managers or other organisation members. Achievement of results is the

expected outcome. The main purpose of action science in Argyris’ view is to identify

which actions are produced by which conditions.

8

6b. Actionable Knowledge

Theories-in-use are often the cognitive maps by which individuals design action. For the

action scientist this is a high level design programme. Actionable knowledge is defined by

Argyris as “information actors could use, for example to craft conversations that

communicate the meanings but leave actors free to select the specific words.” The

theory-in-use relating to face saving is an example of actionable knowledge. It identifies the

action strategies -- bypass and cover-up -- leaving the choice of words to the actor.

Specification of the theories of action held by any individual would be enormously complex

and lengthy. The action scientist’s job involves learning to reflect on reflection-in-action,

making explicit the theories-in-use. The models constructed for this purpose should provide

ways to test and extend the theory, and at the same time, help client systems to reflect on their

theories in use and to learn new theories-in-use. Client organisations can be helped through

actionable knowledge derived from tests of the models of theories-in-use.

6c. Knowledge Management

The art of management, in Argyris’ words, is managing knowledge. That means “we do not

manage people per se, but rather the knowledge that they carry.” And the job of

leadership is to create conditions that enable people to produce valid knowledge. The purpose

of knowledge goes beyond understanding and explaining. Its purpose is action. In Argyris

perspective Knowledge Management has three requirements: (1) to produce valid and

validatable knowledge; (2) to produce informed choices about the ways to use that

knowledge; and (3) to monitor how well one is doing on the first two.

9

7. Model I and Model II

According to Argyris and Schon (1974) “most people utilize a dysfunctional theory-in-use,

called Model 1.” The causal reasoning behind Model 1 reduces sensitivity to feedback and

thus inhibits the detection of error, and “prevents learning about the real causes and

problems.” The salient characteristics of Model 1 are the need for control, maximization of

winning, suppression of emotions, and being rational. Its strategies involve making untested

attributions about others, single-track evaluations and expression of arguments without

openness. Adherence by individuals to Model 1 results in a set of organisational

characteristics (O-1) such as ‘defensiveness, self-fulfilling prophesies, self-fueling

processes, and escalating error’ (Argyris, 1982:8). Furthermore, certain features of Model 1

theories-in-use block “actor’s own awareness of their counterproductive nature”. For these

reasons, theories-in-use cause organisations to malfunction and at the same time O-1 systems

‘cause’ individuals to reason and act as they do. Argyris argues that the blindness about the

tacit sources of ineffectiveness is unlikely to correct itself without inputs from an outside

interventionist.

Argyris suggests Model II as the alternative programme to Model 1. Model II is expected to

change the self-reinforcing dynamics and also help the actors to learn an alternative

cognitive programme. Argyris expects that a Model II theory-in-use would rely on directly

observable data, and would require advocacy to be “supported by illustration, testing and

inquiry into others’ views.”

Argyris notes that it was a bit baffling to find that individuals develop designs to keep them

unaware of the mismatch, especially so when the issues are embarrassing or threatening.

Another finding is that although espoused theories varied widely there was almost no

cross- cultural variance in theories-in-use. Argyris claims that while the behaviour of

10

individuals varied widely the theory they used to design and implement the behaviour did not

vary. For instance, individuals in organisations take recourse to face saving (the actual

behavior) forms of which vary widely. But the proposition to produce face saving is followed

uniformly: when confronted with embarrassment or threat, bypass it and cover-up the bypass.

MODEL ONE THEORY-IN-USE MODEL TWO THEORY-IN-USE

Governing values held by users:

1. Stay in control. Make things happen the way intended.

2. Strive to win and not lose

3. Suppress negative feelings

4. Praise others and don’t confront. Never tell people what you really think and feel.

5. Be as rational as possible

Primary action strategies:

1. Treating one’s own position (views) as obviously correct.

2. Making unillustrated evaluations of self and of others.

3. Attribute causes unilaterally for whatever one is trying to understand.

Governing values held by users:

1. Utilise valid information.

2. Promote free and informed choice by inviting inquiry and self-reflection.

3. Assume personal responsibility to monitor one’s effectiveness.

4. Encourage confronting own ideas, help each other uncover assumptions, and encourage illustration and testing.

Primary action strategies:

1. Design environments where participants can be spontaneous and original and can experience high personal causation.

2. Protection of self is a joint enterprise and oriented toward growth (greater maturity) aimed at reducing one’s own inconsistencies and incongruities.

3. Protection of others is promoted bilaterally.

11

Thus the theory-in-use defined for face saving is an illustration of actionable knowledge.

Argyris notes that it exemplifies the action strategies (bypass and cover-up), leaving the

choice to the actor to decide on the actual words to be used. The following table identifies the

governing values, action strategies and learning outcomes of Model I and Model II.

8a. MODEL I & MODEL II

MODEL-I: WHAT PEOPLE DO MODEL-II: WHAT PEOPLE DO

Learning outcomes:

1. Defensive relationships.

2. Interpersonal environment that promotes misunderstandings.

3. Self-feuling error processes due to limited supply of valid information.

4. Single loop learning / inhibited or limited learning.

Learning outcomes:

1. Minimally defensive relationships

2. Encourages illustration, inquiry and testing of assumptions and ideas.

3. Facilitates high freedom of choice.

4. Increased likelihood of double-loop

learning*

* In model II learning, double-loop learning, you detect and correct an error by first re-examining the underlying values. In Model I you just say, “Oh, something’s wrong. Well I’ll change my words or I’ll change the subject.”

8b. Model I & Model II: Implications for learning

Argyris says that organisations are full of Model I people. So are most of the consultants.

Model I is an approach, which is geared to “reaching agreement than it is to validating truth

of something at issue.” Argyris asserts in this context that “human beings are skillfully

incompetent” (1995, 22). As such, model I can easily put the individual or organisation out of

12

reality. It simply “encourages people to say what they think others would like to hear,”

thereby it avoids confrontation. It also gives the impression that one is caring, supportive and

thoughtful. Another important feature of Model I is that it reinforces defensive reasoning. In

Model I when individuals come across difficult and embarrassing issues they go against

valid knowledge because they attempt a systematic cover-up. In this scenario,

organisation Managers and the rank and file do not have the opportunity to detect and correct

errors. And it overprotects the incompetent. In short, the managers are rewarding the very

processes that need change. Model II “rewards openness, trust and truth-seeking.” But

most people in organisations are unaware of it. They are unaware of the degree to which they

are not trusting and open, of the extent to which they are not what they espouse, says Argyris.

The highflier Management consultants are all Model I. They speak of Model II, but they lack

the skills unless they have had the training. With the result, the bulk of guidance

organisations get about learning and knowledge from these Management consultants is not

actionable, argues Argyris. Conversion to Model II requires an enormous amount of self-

monitoring within meetings and within organisations.

9. Learning

The work of Argyris and Schon has contributed to the emergence of the idea of a ‘learning

organisation’. An organisation develops frameworks, norms and strategies for carrying out its

activity. In a healthy organisation these are continuously being tested, thereby enabling

employees to learn new ideas and practices. As a result, the organisation itself changes /

transforms itself, to be called a ‘learning organisation’. Argyris devotes considerable

attention towards a systematic analysis of learning in organisations. He refers to two types of

learning: (1) single-loop learning (Model I behavior) and (2) double-loop learning (Model II

behaviour). Single –loop learning occurs when a manager responds to a problem by recourse

13

to the routine ‘application of rules’. Double-loop learning takes place when the Manager /

employee questions the assumptions on which the response is based. Argyris explains his

theory in the following words:

Learning can be defined as occurring under two conditions. First, ‘learning occurs when an

organisation achieves what is intended, that is, there is a match between its design for action

and the actual outcome’. Second, learning also occurs ‘when a mismatch between intention

and outcome if identified and corrected, that is, a mismatch is turned into a match.’ Single-

loop learning occurs when matches are created, or when mismatches are corrected by

changing actions. Double-loop learning occurs when mismatches are corrected by examining

and altering first the governing variables and then the actions. Defensive routines are

minimized in double-loop learning, thereby facilitating learning. In this, errors are detected

and corrective action is initiated (Argyris, 1995, 20-22).

10a. Chris Argyris in perspective:

Argyris focuses on phenomena relating to the adaptability and effectiveness of organisations.

His commitment to action science and learning organisation drives him to raise questions

about much of what was accepted as conventional wisdom in management theory. And his

research methodology is highly sophisticated, but somewhat uncomfortable to

managers. Edmondson and Moingeon (1998, 32) argue that in view of the skill and

commitment required to successfully implement such an intervention, it may not be

welcomed by managements, more so in the face of financial and management changes. Other

scholars have drawn attention to the reluctance of organisations to commit to behavioural

change programmes. From the executive’s point of view the concept and framework are not

complicated, but they are considered too difficult to implement. Moreover, the solutions

suggested by him are never simple or easy.

14

In a strategy of intervention that focuses on examining and developing mental models aimed

at behavioural changes towards actionability preseriptive elements tend to have a critical

role. Moreover, policy-oriented changes outlined in the participation category would have

limited effectiveness if underlying sources of resistance embedded in the cognitive models of

organisation members are not addressed. (Edmondson, et al, 1998, 30-34).

Argyris has focused on issues that are controversial within the academic establishment.

One such issue is defensive routines, which is part of his Model 1. It is easy to think about

defensive routines in the abstract or to agree that they exist with other people. But its

pervasiveness is astounding. Therefore, people have not denied the phenomenon nor its

impact.

Organisation theorists also note that the link between Model II theories-in-use and

changing organisational strategy is under-specified. Argyris was also criticized for paying

insufficient attention to the complexity of interacting organisation systems. However, it is

suggested that to overcome the limitations of Argyris’ action science model it should be

integrated with Senge (1990)’s conception of organisations as complex dynamic systems that

emphasizes the interconnections between complex systems with adequate attention to

feedback.

Argyris proposes the deployment of an interventionist to make explicit and correct the tacit

sources of ineffectiveness. His job also involves efforts to facilitate the diagnosis about ‘non-

obvious causal relationships in the system’. The interventionist has to ensure the learning

of Model-II skills by organisation members, especially the leaders, through successful

exposure to reinterpretation of organisational situations, persistent routines and

counterproductive interpersonal dynamics.

10b. Challenges to Intervention strategies

15

With a focus on cognition, Argyris attempts to change the self-reinforcing behaviours of

Model 1. In his later writings (1996) he suggests “the need to work simultaneously with

behavioral and technical issues for successful organizational intervention”. On a theoretical

plane it involves integration of systems thinking with behavioural disciplines. While the

accent of the former is on analysis and prescription, the latter is mainly descriptive. The

intervention strategy itself is superbly elegant, but it is an enormously complex task. To

convince the high fliers (leaders) of organisations about the incisive exercises is one thing

and to map out the cognitive representations of organisation members in the context of the

range of issues addressed is another. It assumes that both leaders and the layers and layers of

members of an organisation are endowed with utmost capacity for self-reflection so that they

identify their defensive mechanisms--of Model 1--backed by an extraordinary commitment to

an eternal value, truth, and an overriding commitment to change. On top of these, the

intervention strategist should be endowed with the combination of core competence of a

scholar in organisation behaviour and an action science professional consultant. The

interventionist should have an extraordinary analytical capacity about organisational

phenomena and for critical reasoning, deep insights and communication skills besides

therapautic abilities -- all integral parts of a learning and action strategy. Another

characteristic is personal accountability for results in a transparent environment. Only a few

scholars like Chris Argyris and Peter Senge fill the bill.

11. Critique of Chris Argyris

There is a subtle inconsistency between Argyris’ commitment to the benign view of man and

his belief in self-actualization on the one hand and his advocacy of the need for flexibility in

finding a match between the nature of the task and the structure of the organisation on the

other. Herbert Simon (1973, 348) takes serious objection to Argyris’ antipathy to authority,

16

which is considered to be without any parallel. According to him the view that ‘structure is

devil’ is influenced by Argyris’ obsession with the need for power. Simon further points out:

Argyris …tended to choose de-emphasis of authority relations as the way out but at

the price of neglecting the consequences for organizational effectiveness…what

corrupts is not power, but the need for power and it corrupts both the powerful and the

powerless.” (Simon, 1973, 349).

Attention has also been drawn to lack of sufficient empirical support to Argyris’ contention

that employees are always antagonistic to authority. On the contrary, there is considerable

support to Herbert Simon’s view that many employees seem to accept authority and

organisation goals because such acceptance is in congruence with their values and interests.

The T-group training experiments initiated in the 1960s by Argyris and several others were

reported to be an astounding success. The experimenter were excited about their power to

unfreeze the rigid, authoritarian behaviour of many managers. However, with the passage of

time and thousands of T-group experiments, it was noticed that the effects of T-groups

experiments were short-lived and the behavior change could not be sustained for long as the

employees reverted to their pre-existing behavior patterns.

12. Argyris’ Academic legacy::

Notwithstanding the criticisms, and the constraints involved in the application of his

concepts, theories and strategies, Argyris leaves an academic legacy of enduring importance.

Argyris’ conceptualisation of interpersonal competence and relating it to organisational

effectiveness is a worthy contribution to administrative theory. It is acknowledged by many

scholars that the abilities concept does have great relevance. It is particularly relevant to the

study of personality and interpersonal style to actually influence organisational effectiveness

17

and how interpersonal competence be thought of as a skill that can be learned. (Raghavulu,

170-71).

Two other significant aspects of the academic legacy of Argyris are in the realms of action

research and learning organisation. Argyris’ commitment not to separate action from research

marks a fundamental departure from the approach of his academic precursors and peers in the

field. With his trenchant criticisms of management consultants and management gurus for

their reliance on single-loop learning, for being trapped in various types of defensive routines

and for their advice not being connected to reality, he was able to set benchmarks for

consultancy work, especially through his insistence on action research and knowledge

management. Lastly, the concept of Learning Organisation represents a paradigm shift from

the pre-existing frameworks for organization development. With Peter Senge, he became a

pioneer in this sphere.

******