|
Chris Argyris (1923- ) has been nominated to the Coaching Hall of Fame by Abiel Guerra. Some of the facts I have on Argyris is that in the 1950s he created action science, also known as action inquiry, action research, or organizational learning, as a strategy for increasing the skills and confidence of individuals in groups to create any kind of organization and to foster long-term individual and group effectiveness. According to French & Bell (1999), “in 1957, Chris Argyris . . . was one of the first to conduct team building sessions with a CEO and the top executive team [and] interacted with many of the early leaders in the T-group and OD fields” (pp. 35–36).
Bill Berqquist sees Argyris’s and his collaborator Donald Schon, influence on coaching as indirect though there’s a fair amount of people in coaching that are working with individuals about the discrepancy between what they say and what they do‚Äö√Ñ√π.
Abiel Guerra identified Argyris’s The Ladder of Inference and The Left-Hand Column as conversational tools used now by coaches and developed by Argyris. Argyris has contributed to the field of organizational learning / organizational development with his theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational learning, the relationship of people and organizations and action research. You can find more information regarding Argyris, his ideas, work and publications here: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm
Who else uses Argyris’s work in their coaching?
Vikki G. Brock, Ph.D., EMBA, MCC
Leadership & Mentor Coach
Director, History & Archives Division
Tweet This
Email to a friend
There are 5 Responses so far...
I agree with Bill Bergquist that Argyris’ work is only indirectly related to coaching. I think that Schon’s work, as described in The Reflective Practitioner and Educating the Reflective Practitioner is much more directly related to the work of the coach. Shon describes creating the reflective practicum, a safe space in which teacher and learner can experiment and explore the art of a profession. This climate, it seems to me, is exactly what we seek to create with our clients.
Although a number of authors have used Argyris’ Left Hand Column in works addressing clear communication – most notably Senge in The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook and Susan Scott’s adaptation of his model in Fierce Conversations, I don’t see it as a coaching practice. From the perspective of Emotional Intelligence and of coaching the whole person I find Argyris’ insistence on pure data – facts – to be a position that rules out much of the information we urge our clients to be aware of.
Action Science is one of a number of Action Technologies, a broader term that includes Action Inquiry, Action Research, Action Learning and Appreciative Inquiry. It represents Argyris’ most significant contribution to OD, and her has been justifiably recognized as a leader in that field. I do not, however, see him as a leader in this discipline.
Hi Susan,
Thanks for sharing your knowledge on the influence of Chris Argyris on coaching as a field. The broader term of Action Technologies does better represent Argyris’ contribution to coaching. What I take from your and Bill Berquist’s comments, is that the the influence of individuals such as Argyris on the practice of coaching by specific coaches varies considerably. This supports the multi-disciplinary and client-centered characteristics of coaching.
This is the dialogue that deepens the foundation for all. Thanks again for your eloquent and detailed contribution.
Vikki G. Brock, Ph.D.
Director, History and Archive Division
I think that Argyris’ concept of the “undiscussable” and how the existence of something undiscussable is often undiscussable, is, or should be, a significant contribution to coaching. The recent book, “Discussing the Undiscussable” by Bill Noonan is an accessible introduction to how people use defenses in ways that get in the way; I think it can be quite helpful in coaching.
I also think that the distinction between single-loop and double-loop learning, whether we use Argyris’ language or not, should be quite useful when thinking about coaching – are we helping someone to do “X” better or to explore their underlying beliefs and assumptions about doing “X”. Depending on the type of coaching we are doing, isn’t this a potentially useful distinction to keep in mind?
Dear Colleagues:
I am working with a couple of other colleagues internally to the Idaho National Laboratory. Over the past year or so we have seen a very constructive increase in the ownership of the Lab’s operations and individual’s ability to address issues.
However, various interventions are being designed and implemented that leave the question, is this actually impacting people “in the trench, or frontlines”? So my manager has asked if there is some good training out there on coaching for impact and effectiveness?
Any suggestions?
Thank you
Mark Gladstone
I think it is a little disengenuous to suggest that Argyris only had an ‘indirect’ impact on coaching when compared to Shon
Argyris’ early research explored the impact of formal organizational structures, control systems and management on individuals and how they responded and adapted to them. Certainly in the context of business coaching, this is profoundly important to our work. His research led to two books “Personality and Organization”, 1957 and “Integrating the Individual and the Organization”, 1964. The latter should surely be prescribed reading for almost every coach?
Cheers, Graham.