This article, Single-Loop and Double-Loop Models in Research on Decision Making, was written by Chris Argyris and was published in Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 21
Single-loop decision making is the norm within most organizations, and people are encouraged to learn so long as they do not come to question the fundamental design, goals, and activities of their organizations. This is effective for general organizational issues, however limits the ability to explore other options of business activity. In Double Loop learning, one is able to postulate about changing the fundamental aspects of the organization itself. Being able to ask questions and posit counter- examples allows for the creation of a more “innovation-friendly” environment.
As stated earlier, single loop is a behavior strategy in organizations to control the environment, protect the group and ensure that work is done according to the established protocols. While the authors don’t use the term, they state that in business conditions that are similar to those of the 4th Industrial Revolution that this is a quick way to start to lose. The negative effects of single-loop decision making means proper indicators can get ignored, new market factors can be missed, and business opportunities passed by. Unfortunately as the collective effect of these missteps start to come to light, they could be doubled down on and becomes hard to put back in the proverbial bottle: Under these conditions, top administrators tend to start engaging in a number of non-optional, emotionally driven attitudes: such as becoming “frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the decision-making process and react by striving to increase control, by increasing secrecy about their own strategies, and by demanding loyalty of subordinated that borders on complete agreement with their views.”
In Single-Loop decision making personal ideologies, cognitive rigidities and the concept of loyalty inhibits the generation and communication of valid and meaningful information to upper levels more so than double-loop. Additionally, key officials will repeatedly and privately attribute motives to others, which then influences the information that the officials give and the estimation of its importance and direction with how they receive it. This, obviously, is a problem.
Since the double loops strategy for decision making involved sharing power with anyone who has competence, and with anyone who is relevant in decision or implementing the action, or in the definition of the task , or the control of the environment that this need not happen. Rather than decision being about asserting power, it is about building viable decision-making networks in which “the major function of the group would be to maximize the contributions of each member so that when a synthesis was developed, the widest possible exploration of views would have taken place.”
That this article was written in 1976 and is advocating for an inquiry-based model of decision making is to me impressive. While stating that the ability to quantitatively test transitions from one model to another are difficult – he stated that it would also be a longer process as it involved exploration of an organizations basic values and feelings that requires a shift in the behaviors of individuals, intergroup dynamics and organizational processes. Making the time to do this, however, can lead to large organizational learning gains. Management, for instance, come come to see that their sense of a need for unilateral control is part of a self-fulfilling prophecy as they do not do a good enough job providing themselves or encouraging the transmission or pertinent information.
Group discussions are, however, expensive and given that theories-in-use of individuals and groups within an organization require significant effort – what then to do? The authors suggest multiple advocacy. Admitting that it is a difficult balancing act to follow – it means that “advocates” form for specific positions to take regarding a firm’s strategy and tactics. The decision making strategy is similar to the British magisterate system, and is a great example of how staging and theatrics can highlight the concept of embodied knowledge. The Multiple Advocacy process presumes three conditions: (1) No major maldistribution of power, information, analytical resources, competence (2) persuasive skills amongst member and participation fo the Chief executives (3) time for adequate exchange of ideas. People then debate it out and a winner is chosen. I, unsurprisingly for a debate teacher, prefer this. I have a high tolerance for competition and am typically averse to getting into the “in-group” mindsets but instead seek to chart a clear intellectual path based on available evidence.