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.

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 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?

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

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.