Adopting the Model I – Model II framework

Argyris and Schön (1974) explain that the concepts of “Model I” and “Model II” represent the behaviour of people with contrasting theories-in-use. People who operate according to a Model I theory-in-use tend to take a competitive and defensive stance to the world. People who operate according to a Model II theory-in-use tend to take a more collaborative and less defensive stance. The shift from Model I to Model II behaviour requires “double loop learning” – learning that involves the questioning of basic assumptions and values. This enables people to shift from reasoning that is characterised by defensiveness to what Argyris (1990) calls “productive reasoning”. (See pages 133–137.)

New Zealand ISTE Eileen Piggott-Irvine (2003) suggests four stages for helping participants in action research make the shift from Model I to Model II behaviour:

1. Map the problem and how it is dealt with, by examining and exposing participants’ espoused theories and their theories-in-use.
2. Diagnose the extent to which participants themselves create and maintain problems. (The dissonance this creates can be a catalyst for change.)
3. Take productive reasoning from an espoused theory to a theory-in-use so that participants learn to conduct conversations that are simultaneously critical and collaborative.
4. Reinforce the practice in new learning situations with support from peer coaching.

Argyris (2000) suggests a number of methods for helping people to understand how they might espouse Model II behaviour but practise Model I behaviour. These require people to review their interactions to discover areas in which Model II behaviour would have produced better outcomes.

In the “left-hand and right-hand case exercise”, the method is to divide a page into two columns. In one column, the inquirer recounts a frustrating conversation as he or she remembers it. In the other column, the inquirer writes the corresponding thoughts and feelings that he or she didn’t express at the time.

Argyris (2000) also advocates recording interactions. A recording provides an unbiased replay of a meeting or other interaction. Members of a learning community can return to it on repeated occasions to note places in which Model I behaviour was obvious and produced negative effects.

ISTEs who use electronic recording tools find that as they become more practised in their use, they move from observing and commenting on the superficial aspects of interactions to digging deeper into the theories-in-use that their recordings reveal. This can be an uncomfortable process, even when the ISTE has support from a colleague or critical friend. However, this process can enable the double-loop learning associated with substantive change.

Case 3: Effective Communication within Learning Interactions

Catherine’s inquiry was focused on how she could conduct conversations with teachers so that each participant felt that they could openly and respectfully discuss challenging issues. Her thinking about communication was underpinned by the Model I – Model II framework.

Catherine felt that Jack was not engaging in the learning she was facilitating and was really just paying lip service to the concepts they’d been discussing. She shared her problem with her colleagues, Michael and Allan, and enlisted their help in devising a strategy for analysing her interaction with Jack. She began by reconstructing the dialogue from memory and annotating it, in line with Argyris’s left-hand and right-hand case exercise. See:

Then through a series of role plays and practice conversations, Michael and Allan helped Catherine to deconstruct her original conversation, surface the theories-in-use that had led to its ineffectiveness, and both shape and practise a more effective model of communication. For example, in the analysis of one moment from the conversation, they explore Catherine’s reluctance to “check in” with Jack as the conversation proceeds (see video Clip 10). They then role-play an alternative dialogue that is more in keeping with Catherine’s belief in the value of Model II behaviour (see video Clip 11).

See also the learning stories:

• “Building a culture of inquiry”, page 90;
• “Being a critical friend”, pages 128–129;
• “More haste, less speed”, page 138.

Recommended reading

Argyris, A., Putnam, R., and McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
You can also link from the website to an Action Science forum, where you can participate in discussion on the book and on action science more generally.

Piggott-Irvine, E. (2003). "Facilitating Openness and Learning Partnerships in Action Research". Paper presented at the Action Learning, Action Research, and Process Management (ALARPM) 6th World Congress, University of Pretoria, South Africa, 21–24 September.
New Zealand ISTE Eileen Piggott-Irvine describes a process based on the Model I – Model II framework that can be used to help educators develop the high trust and open relationships that enable problems to be discussed and resolved.

Return to top