The readings this week suggested something that changed my perspective entirely, and that is the theory of double loop learning. The learning process itself is quite simple, instead of using one process to every problem which would most likely results unsatisfactory results, you engage a deeper learning strategy by finding alternative solutions to the problems using reflective learning. What really caught my eyes was the role of failure played in this process; according to Argyris (1991) failures are good, because you can learn from it, he argued that due to the fact that “smart” or professional people rarely fails, which prevented them from learning from them. Therefore reflective learning process could not take process. In my example my team encountered a minor setback this week, I was unhappy about it at first, but now I think this is a great opportunity to learn from this opportunity. Based on this week’s results we could make new assumptions and develop new strategies and reach out goal, we are not even half way through the rollovers it is best we encounter some setbacks now than later (Synnott. 2013).
What I don’t agree with the readings however is the fact that they seem to ignore the effect of success have upon the learning process. I agree the fact that learning from success is not as useful as learning from failures and setbacks, but I think the fact that if you can understand the fact why you have succeed and reason behind it you could use that knowledge for future benefits. Also it found it particular hopeful by learning from other people’s success, for example, studying the strategy of a winning team could be useful for my team as well. Therefore I do not agree that success is the biggest obstacle to continuous improvement (Argyris. 1991), it should be ego
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Reflections, 4(2), 4—15
Synnott, M. (2013). Reflection and double loop learning: The case of HS2. Teaching Public Administration, 31(1), 124--134. doi:10.1177/0144739413479950