INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE: BOSS AND SUBORDINATE

Following the work of Chris Argyris

Dick Heimovics

Y X

One-way Unilateral Didn’t listen Blunt Insensitive Tried to stay in control Tried to act rational to

remain in control of the argument …………….

and made X defensive

Here’s what we say about Y. Y was:

Defensiveness in X, most of the class agreed, results in at least one of the following. X predictably might:

Withdraw Turn-off Passively resist Turn inward/self destruct Argue Deny Attack

Nonetheless, when asked “what would you say to Y”? In one way or another most folks say, “Y, you were:” Blunt Insensitive Prescriptive Judgmental and evaluative

Here are examples of what we typically say to Y: “When you are so confrontational,

it just won’t work.” “Fix this Y, (however often

unstated: “because you screwed up.”)

“If you believe that what you just said to Y will change X’s behavior, you are wrong. All you’ll do is make him defensive. Now here is what you should do….”

“Let me tell you how I did it with someone else who was just like X.”

DISCUSSION QUESTION

How can you explain the tendency  for individuals (most of us included) to deal with Y the same way Y dealt with X, i.e., to use Model 1 strategies immediately after just concluding that they lead to defensiveness, aggression, passive aggressiveness or other dysfunctional and/or not so helpful behaviors. 

An Example of Model I in Disguise Called “Easing In”) “Y, if you criticize people's

performance, you are just going to make them defensive. It is doubly traumatic to have someone jump right into it like you did. It would be more effective if you would ease in a bit. Start with a little small talk ("How's the family? How's your golf game coming?"). Then tell X some of the things that you have liked about X 's performance in the past to balance off the negative message. End with the criticism, but invite X  to talk about any feelings or thoughts that she may have. Finish by assuring X that you are there to provide help and invite X  back to talk at any time.”

Here’s What Model I Bosses Do (In the language of Reframing) We argued the merits from our point

of view not the other’s point of view. Put it another way, we “frame” an answer from our “narrow” point of view not theirs.

We developed a private, unilateral diagnosis and solution

We try to get Y to change on basis of the facts/ logics of our diagnosis (frame) and used rational persuasion (we believe we are rational) as the means to try to convince him/her.

We then intensify our efforts when Y doesn’t respond to our logics (our frame).

When Y doesn’t change, we then conclude it’s not our fault, we tried and Y just couldn’t understand our “frame.”

Discussion Question

What’s the Difference between Espouse Theories and Theories-in Use?

  Why is it so difficult to

aligned our espoused theories with our theories-n-use?

Espoused vs. In-Use Theories of Action

We espouse certain modes of behavior.

But we often use modes of behavior quite opposite to those that we espouse.

These modes of behavior are called “theories-in-use” or theories of action.

There is a Fundamental Discrepancy:

Espoused: Manager’s usually see themselves as and assume they are rational, open, concerned with others and participatory.

In-use: However, these action’s are usually viewed by subordinates as competitive, controlling, and defensive

Learning happens only when we detect this discrepancy and see others as they see us.

What is Model I?

Action Theory

Model I Theory-in-Use: Governing Variables

Stay in full unilateral control

Win, don’t lose

Avoid negative feelings

Define (frame) the problem from our point of view of what is right and/or wrong with the behavior of the other person

Act rational (i.e., anything outside your definition –frame- is less logical and/or unacceptable)

Actions Strategies in Model I

Advocate your position

Keep your reasoning private

Don’t ask others about their reasoning

Ease-in, or approach subjects obliquely

Keep all these strategies private

Consequences of Model I Behavior

Defensiveness/ mistrust Low freedom of choice Low internal commitment Low risk taking. Little public testing of notions about

why others behave as they do, what they need, etc.

Misunderstanding and escalating error (built on untested inferences)

Self-fulfilling, self-sealing prophecies, “single-loop" learning

Limited learning Decreased quality of the relationship

Discussion Question

  Why is Model I so

pervasive in organizations?  

Chris Argyris’s Model II Theory-in-Use: Governing Values..a very different set than in Model I

Valid information

Free and informed choice

Internal commitment

What is Model II?

Action Strategies in Model II

Explain your reasoning Ask others about their

reasoning (e.g., one could have asked Y, “help me understand what you think happened.” or “What are your major concerns?”

Begin with them not you Be specific - use examples Discuss undiscussable issues

DISCUSSION QUESTION If Argyris is correct in believing

that almost everyone is programmed with Model I strategies, isn't it unrealistic to expect that managers can be reprogrammed to Model II? Or is Model 1 too much engrained in how we "do things"? We get locked into our own points of view, our own frames, our own ways of seeing things and we can see little else.

What do you think?

Consequences of Model II Behavior Reduced self-fulfilling, self-

sealing, error-escalating processes.

Increased learning/quality of work life.

Minimally defensive interpersonal relations.

Open confrontation on difficult issues.

High freedom of choice. "Double-loop" learning (includes

questioning of goals) Processes can be disconfirmed Public testing of theories and

attributions. Increased long-run effectiveness.

Model II Creates a Double Loop and Requires ReflectingUpon Our Own Behavior

The Consequences of the Models I and II Theories-in-Use

The consequences we see exhibited in both Model I and Model II Theory-in-Use result from the strategies employed (actions) based upon the core governing values informing those strategies.

Discussion Question

The Paradox: In situations that people find

threatening or potentially embarrassing, people almost rarely use a Model II approach even though it would most likely yield the results they want. They are much more inclined to rely on Model I approaches.

Why do you think this is so?

Whence This Paradox?

Model I theory-in-use behaviors are not innate, they are learned early in life. “Don’t cross the street without looking. You may get hurt.”

Model I behaviors comply with not being in control or feeling responsible for another person’s actions.

What Happens When Virtues and Actions Collide? In Model I behavior, we begin

by acting in ways that indicate support for others.

These behaviors indicate good intentions…until…

It appears we are not in control…then…

We employ strategies…in order to remain in control.

Skilled Incompetence

We use Model I behaviors adeptly and spontaneously.

The resulting errors, then, are not caused by ignorance but by our very skill in Model I actions.

We all are quite good at Model I …lots of practice and lots of examples from others dealings with us

But What About the Organization?

Argyris and others have shown that organizations also have defensive routines that come from the Model I behaviors of members of the organization.

The actions are so common and so pervasive that they become our organizational norms and part of the culture.

Think of classroom and organizational experiences you have had.

YIKES!! WHAT TO DO?

Admit that defensive patterns exist.

Commit to surfacing them. Make learning the motivator:

new skills and concepts are needed to change the relationship.

First change yourself.

DISCUSSION QUESTION What are the essential

elements of implementing a Model II strategy in a situation like the Older Officer Case?

Model II and Y: A Different Way of Reasoning Which is a Lot like “Reframing.”

Phase 1 UNDERSTAND Y’s FRAME FIRST

First frame the problem as Y sees it. This includes the factors and relationships that define the problem for Y, and Y’s relationship with all the systems of the organization.

Phase 2 SET THE “TONE” Remember the governing variable of Model II: Valid information, free and informed choice internal commitment

Creating a climate of mutual trust and respect for each other’s points of view. Use double loop learning and with an emphases on problem solving.

Phase 3 HELP Y REFRAME WITHOUT MAKING Y DEFENSIVE

How do you help Y reframe (the internalization of the frame by Y). Reframe yourself. Through inquiry and advocacy work with Y to develop a comprehensive frame for which Y can accept ownership responsibility.