12.3.1.3 Individual and collective learning

Human beings are complex creatures, hence change at a personal level cannot mechanically be induced. Studies investigating what causes change at an individual level (usually referred to as 'learning')havetocopewiththe dilemma that people do not always 'practice what they preach'. In this context, Argyris and Schön1 discern two kinds of theories as a basis for human action: (i) espoused theories, i.e. based on people's own report explaining the foundations for their action, and (ii) theories in use, i.e. inferred from visible behaviour. Behavioural studies seem to detect discrepancies between these two types of theories. Consequently, people may assert that a certain theory influences their behaviour, but studies reveal that in reality their behaviour is to be ascribed to another theory. If people are not aware of which assumptions drive their behaviour, they are unlikely to change these assumptions Either inconsistencies in behaviour are blamed on external factors, or the behaviour is superficially changed to satisfy others In neither case does this result in structurally new behaviour. This is referred to as 'single loop learning',as opposed to 'double loop learning, where a fundamental change is enacted by changing underlying patterns.

Elaborating on the insights of Argyris and Schön, Swieringa and Wierdsma2 distinguish between three different cycles of collective learning (within organisations):

How can learning be enacted at a fundamental level, i.e. how can a situation be created that allows for discussion on the basic underlying assumptions and orientations? Argyris stresses that for a fundamental change in behaviour, it is necessary to create a space where people feel free to question their own behaviour, e.g. where there is 'no major maldistribution of power weight, influence, competence, information, or analytical resources' and with 'time for adequate debate and exchange of ideas'.3 At the same time, studies show that people more easily detect the inconsistencies in the behaviour of others than in their own behaviour. Wierdsma4 also argues that for organisational learning processes it is important that a group of participants reflect the diversity of the organisation as much as possible. If only the 'usual suspects' participate in the process, it is less likely that new perspectives can be developed and implemented. Furthermore a good and varied level of representation serves the credibility of the outcome of the process.