ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT ASSIGNEMNT 1

Introduction:
This essay discusses the Organisational Development Implications of moving an organisation
from a Model 1 to Model 2 learning. Its purpose is to examine possibility of issues that may
arise with traditional Organisational Learning to moving to a newly developed school of
thought which will transgress learning methods currently in use with ones that stimulate
transformation of existing norms.
This essay will pay particular attention to the role of the Organisational Development
Practitioner, Espoused theory and Theory in use, Single and Double Looped learning, and
Model 1 and Model 2 learning. It will highlight the strengths and weaknesses while offering
some explanation through real world examples. It will also give special attention to the
negative aspect of Model 1 learning and expound on the potential an organisation may have
by adapting Model 2 learning and experiencing less defensiveness, an openness to change
and feedback, mastery and collaboration with others (Waddell et al, 2014).
Knowledge of Organisational Development has been around for a long time, but it wasnt till
the early 1900s that a formalised study had been conducted to evaluate human behaviour
within organisations and bring about what we now understand as Model 2 learning.
The essay will give a real world example of a family business plagued with management
issues and how the introduction of an Organisational Development Practitioner will help
improve the organisations performance by bringing it eventually inline with Model 2
learning.
Body:
Organisational Development (OD) is the practical application of experientially proven
changes applied to business mechanics which either alters their existing systems or
eliminated them all together and replaces them with fresh way of thinking and doing things
that would show incremental improvement when put into practice and adopted by the
organisation.

Cornell Graduate, Chris Argyris, was at the forefront of the early studies which saw the
consolidation of OD into an area of study in which human reasoning has became the root of
diagnosis and action (Smith, 2013).
OD can be applied to an organisation through an individual or a set of individuals known as a
change agent/s. A change agent is someone who facilitates change that the business requires.
An applied change that may be seen as fresh and innovative to someone working within the
business, this may have been a bluntly obvious to anyone looking at the organisation from an
outside perspective. For example, a company known to consistently give poor customer
experience is usually direct window into what is happening in the board room and is a
reflection of the nature of what policies are made and the type of behaviour that is accepted.
Anyone within the business who saw this type of behaviour usually would have no authority
to share their observations and even less, to voice their opinions. This is where a change
agent comes into the picture.
An OD practitioner may either be internal or external to the organisation.
Waddell, Creed, Cummings and Worley have identified 3 internal change agents:
-

A change agent located within the HR department of the business

Organisational members initiating change within their own department or as a part

of an organisation wide change program OR

Managers or Executives who have gained enough experience within their field to
offer change to the organisation as a whole.

Working internally with a change agent rather that an external individual, may see a discourse
between empathy and as a result act arrogantly while staff become defensive.
I feel that an external change agent, having only his reputation to go by will tend to go
beyond the standard engaging with others and delve deeper into the personalities and their
world and move them from within.
Argyris and Schon (1978: 2-3) describe Single Loop learning as a corrective measure, and is
either on or off. An emphasis on existing techniques and making them more efficient. The
focus of single loop learning stems from the idea that improving on the status quo will bring
about incremental change and reduce the gaps between desired and existing conditions
(Waddell, et al. 2014). Or in simple terms, and emphasis on existing techniques and making
them more efficient. Double Looped learning makes modifications to the norms, policies and

objectives. It aims at changing the status quo to the point where it is radically altered and
leading to transformational change.
OD Practitioners have designed new change strategies adapted for organisational learning
processes. These interventions focus on cognitive aspects of learning and how members can
become more effective learners (Waddel, et al. 2014). With this perspective, organisational
learning is an active process of sense making and organising. It is continually applied within
the organisation as members within the organisation interact and learn from each other and
learn how to organises themselves for productive achievement. Theories in use as Argyris and
Schon have suggested in 1974 is the way in which people actually act and utilise the mental
maps and theories into practice. Some of these theories in use may be faulty and result in
ineffective behaviours and organising efforts. On the contrary, Espoused theory is the notion
that people have a perception of how they think that they are acting. The vast majority of
people take part in Espoused theory, and their actions dont match what they perceive
themselves as doing and even fewer people are aware of the theories in use (Argris, 1980).
Edmondson and Moingeon (1996:161) suggest that most organisations operate at whats
described as Model 1 learning. That is, they come to decisions without ever having them
verified. Participating in Single-Loop learning and unknowingly take part in Espoused
Theory. This comes about through our natural desire to be in control of a situation and avoid
embarrassment amongst our peers.
Model 1 Organisation Learning systems are characterised by defensiveness, self-fulfilling
prophecies, self-fuelling processes, and escalating error (Argyris 1982:8)
Traditionally, business leadership is flawed. With the advent of technology, increasing
competition and altered customer preferences. Being able to to respond dynamically to
changing markets is granted when becoming a Model 2 learning organisation (Senge, 1997).
Early attempts at discussing OD were based on songs of praise as opposed to cold facts, and
the reports that were produced were never detailed enough for anyone who needed them to
understand what they actually needed to do. There was no way of determining how learning
is aided if the company has no standard for comparison. If there is no standard, then how
does anyone truthfully know if anything has progressed? There are many deficiencies that a
business has to rectify in order to become a Model 2 learning organisation. Garvin,
Edmondson and Gino in their 2008 article printed in the Harvard Business Review named Is
yours a learning organisation? provides an original tool for organisations to compare

themselves to other institutions already benchmarked. Knowing how you stack up against
other organisations is where your power lies.
Model 2 learning can be achieved with organisations by adapting their learning modus to the
points identified by Garvin et al, 2008, which are essential for organisational learning and
adaptability:
-

Providing a supportive environment.

This encourages individuals accountability and own up to any mistakes without
the fear of being criticised. Experimentation should be encouraged without the
fear penalties or stigma associated in challenging the status quo. Having people

opening up to different outlooks will help prevent drift and increases motivation.
Concrete learning process and practice.
Information gathering and testing are essential. Staff need to be debriefed and
lessons learned and need to have a way of getting this up and down the chain of

command quickly and also travelling laterally.

Leaders need to provide positive reinforcement.
If the people in the organisation are encouraged to learn, then necessary tasks
associated with learning are likely to flourish.

With the outlook on future growth and performance, a skilled OD practitioner whom
is able to foster a safe emotional environment with an organisation, drive a common
purpose, having management and executives practicing what they preach by leading from the
front, being emotionally receptive to the needs of others, providing a safe environment where
people can question the status quo and following up the results of implemented changes is
destined to successfully transition from Model 1 to a Model 2 learning organisations.
In this real world example, an unnamed family business dealing with the import of leather
goods from India and operating a wholesale and retail business in Melbourne has sought the
consultancy of a high calibre OD Practitioner. It was seen that the business was rapidly
moving away from small time success and was being left behind in the market and moving
into territory where it would soon be unprofitable. The individual as Waddell, Creed,
Cummings and Worley identify as an external change agent who specialises in OD as a
profession (p. 63 from text book). The OD Practitioner was hired upon his impressive resume
of companies he has previously been consulting for. His core skills have been accepted as a

given based on his impressive resume, but as time progresses, his full capability as a mentor
will be made evident.
With the organisation in question, a OD practitioner was called by an executive to help
remediate the symptoms presented by a struggling business, and was actually the cause of a
much greater underlying problem after diagnostics phase was completed. A contract was
signed by the two parties but I still dont feel that the business owner has committed himself
wholly to the operation. There were initial acts that suggested that there maybe future
attempts at sabotage through managements lack of commitment early on, even during the
initial contract signing phase.
Resistance in the attempted change process has thus far been largely negative which may
potentially lead to the organisations demise if the state of the business is not turned around.
This has come about in the form of resistance reinforcing the impact of the hurdles the
business needs to jump in order to change. To deal with this, the OD Practitioner has tried to
set up a means of dealing with this into the future. Though a detailed plan for the future has
been developed, resistance is coming from the owner, so more empathy and support needs to
be exhibited by the participating group and the business coach.
This family owned business is relatively problematic as decisions made are obstructed by the
business founder, current owner and only shareholder. Many disputes have arisen previously
and the traditional use of authority cannot be sought.
Intervention in this business has come in the form of a Third-party intervention aimed at
improving dysfunctional interpersonal relations between the family members. Change has
come difficult to the owner. A business that has been operating as is and unchanged for over
25 years and the hardships that this person has experienced throughout his life is extreme.
This business is this only real enterprising success and letting it go to the control of someone
else is hard to come to grips with, even though the business is having difficulty at the moment
with its existing modus operandi. The OD practitioner employed has many years experience
and his ability to bring change to this organisation is its last hope. Does this mentor hold any
power over the family business development process? Well, time will tell. But, the
organisational members all know what symptoms the business has, yet they have issues
coming into grips with the truth and portraying denial when their Theory in use was
examined and revealed. In this case it is time for the owner has less influence in the business

while distributing power to those that are fully competent, as opposed to having them left
sitting on the side lines.
Measuring the results of the Organisational Development process is the OD Practitioners
responsibility and it has been done through his weekly guidance and objective reports that
have been written up by executives and submitted in confidence directly to the coach.
Thus far, all frameworks that were originally missing from the business have been
established, but, very little of that has been utilised, and now the business has come to the
crossroads and the OD Practitioner is now to determine whether his time spent with this
business will continue or if he feels that the resistance from the owner to change is too great
to be overcome.
Has this small family run organisation managed to become a Double Loop learning
organisation? Sadly, the answer is profusely, no. The same tasks are being performed, much
in the same way. The workings have been slightly refined. Fundamental change has still not
occoured, and adapting Double Looped learning, challenging the status quo will be integrated
with the success of the OD Practitioner. In order for the members of the Melbourne based
organisation to switch to a Double Loop learning organisation and look at doing tasks
differently, more time must be spent by the OD Practitioner to provide support.
The business could be better adapted to by providing the medium for the group to exercise
team building. The most suitable form of team building that would be suited to the small,
family run firm would be Group Level Team Building in an effort to have openness, trust
and risk taking and, therefore the ability to perform more effectively.
Groups within the small family run organisation have become defensive and polarised,
effecting productivity and effectiveness. To help the organisation, the OD consultant has
come in to develop a strategy of open communication, objective criticism and feedback
(Creed, 2016). Unfortunately, it goes back to the OD Practitioner being able to establish
report with the business owner, provide them with enough emotional support and bring down
their resistance in order to move it along into a Model 2 organisation.
Conclusion:

This essay discusses the change in Organisational Development Interventions and the theories
applied to an existing family business and assesses its shortcomings. Much focus has been
given in the aspect of having change come about easily to organisation in adopting Model 2
practices, but is evident from the real world example of hiring an Organisational
Development practitioner, change usually comes with much resistance. Particularly in the
setting of a family business.
Espoused theory is common practice in most organisations and when brought to attention,
most individuals would not know what theory was actually used by them and their actions
dont match what they perceive themselves as doing and even fewer people are aware of the
theories in use (Argris, 1980).With the help of an OD Practitioner, its is likely that the family
business used in the example above will be conditioned to think in a way that would be
coherent with theory in use and bring about an awareness to how they operate within the
organisation and being to change the status quo.
The essay draws on only one example of a business implementing Organisational
Development. The quality of the information provided is accurate and though the OD process
is still in its infancy. The business may need to be reviewed again in another 12 months to
gauge the progress of the OD Practitioners ability to provide emotional support to the owner
and have the business move to a more sophisticated level of business operation.
Moving a business from a Model 1 to a Model 2 learning organisation helps the business
become sustainable in for the long term. Model 1 learning will only maintain the business in
its current form and really leaves it exposed to any technological competition and highly
susceptible in the swings in the market. Its inability to keep up with changing times will have
it wiped out relatively quickly or if the market is stable, it will simply prolong its existence
but the business wont experience any drastic level of positive change.

References:
Argyris, M. and Schn, D. (1974) Theory in Practice. Increasing professional effectiveness,
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Landmark statement of double-loop learning and distinction
between espoused theory and theory-in-action.
Argyris, C., & Schn, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective,
Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Argyris, C. (1980) Inner contradictions of rigorous research, New York: Academic Press.
Argyris, C. (1982) Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Edmondson, A. & Moingeon, B. (1999) Learning, trust and organizational change,
Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage.
Garvin, D. Edmondson, A. Gino, F. (2008),Is Yours a Learning Organisation?, Harvard
Business Review, ed. March, URL: https://hbr.org/2008/03/is-yours-a-learning-organization
Retrieved: 11th April 2016
Senge, P. (1997), The Fifth Discipline, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 1 Iss 3 pp. 46 51
Smith, M. (2013). Chris Argyris: theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational
learning, the encyclopedia of informal education. URL: http://infed.org/mobi/chris-argyristheories-of-action-double-loop-learning-and-organizational-learning/. Retrieved: 17th April
2014
Waddell, D. Creed, A. Cummings, T. & Worley, C. (2014), Learning Organisations,
Organisational Development and Transformation, ed: 5, pp 191 -201