Wiki contents

Journals

2019 Learning journals
2018 Learning journals
2015 Learning journals
2014 Learning journals
2013 Learning journals

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

I found this week’s readings rather interesting, particularly Teaching Smart People How to Learn. The reason I found it particularly interesting is I think some of the points it makes relate to how my the team dealt with our performance in the second real rollover. We didn’t do as well as we thought we should have, and I think the above article is relevant to how we reacted to our performance. 

The issue I think we as a team have is we focused too much on ‘single loop’ learning. Argyris (2002) distinguishes between what he terms ‘single loop’ and ‘double loop’ learning. He describes how ‘single loop’ learning involves reflecting on what went wrong in the external environment (as in external to the team), or in other words, ‘problem solving’. ‘Double loop’ learning, on the other hand, involves critically examining the internal environment, or what happened within the team. In the context of this course, I think ‘single loop’ learning is looking at what went wrong with the simulation. Taking a hypothetical example, say we noticed that a team noticed efficiency was down, the problem was determined to be that we had too much idle time. ‘Double loop’ learning is looking at how the team dynamics allowed that to happen. Using the same example, as well as diagnosing the problem within the simulation, the team also discovered that, during team meetings, operations were being marginalized in discussions and that no one really understood how it affected the bottom line.

So how do we examine whether the processes and dynamics in our team negatively impacted our decision process, and consequently our decisions. I think the problem is being masked be the fact that we are still doing quite well; I simply think we can do much better. Added to this is, I think we have a problem similar to the professionals described by Argyris (2002). That is, it is hard to critically examine our own individual performance when we know our team members eventually have to evaluate our performance. Argyris (2002) asserts that the solution to this is training employees in a company to adopt a different, ‘tougher’ thinking process to the defensive one that is much more common. Aside from feeling like a consulting pitch, ‘your problem is this, this is how I can fix it’, because of the particulars of our situation, this doesn’t seem to be the right solution. I’m find myself wondering if the problem is that we aren’t holding ourselves, and being held, individually accountable for different decisions. Or is the problem an unwillingness to examine our own processes because we are afraid of what we might find. Perhaps it’s something else entirely or a combination of different issues. I have my own ideas, but I think this is something we need to work out as a team. I’m running a round of feedback; perhaps this will make the issue (if any) clearer. So my ‘action’ is to evaluate the feedback in light of this and also to put this to my team.

 

Argyris, C. (2002). Teaching Smart People How to Learn. Reflections, 4(2), 4-15. doi: 10.1162/152417302762251291

 

2 Comments

  1. I found myself in the rather intriguing situation of having to give feedback to myself. I think I used Daudelin's structure relatively well, but my articulation of the 'problem' could have been a bit clearer. Specifically, it almost reads as though I articulated the problem in the first line of my last paragraph. Thus it would appear that my 'reflection' is confined to that paragraph. The 'problem' I meant to articulate was actually in the first line of the second paragraph, but I could have made that clearer. 

    In terms of my use of theory, I think I strongly demonstrated the application stage of Bloom's Taxonomy, and maybe a hint of analysis and evaluation in the final paragraph as well. However I could have used more breadth, there were after all three readings this week. I think my writing style was pretty clear and flowed reasonably well; though it is hard to judge my own writing objectively because I have the benefit of knowing what I was thinking at the time. 

  2. I like the way in which you applied the theory to our team experience so well, using specific examples. It was particularly relevant how you pointed out the potential pitfalls of our lack of double-loop learning and it will be interesting to see if the feedback process sheds some light on this "inability to effectively lean" problem. I though it was good that you related the Argyris (2002) article example of it being "hard to critically examine our own individual performance when we know our team members eventually have to evaluate our performance". I felt it was fitting that you challenged the validity of your own thinking process within your reflection by mentioning that "perhaps it’s something else entirely or a combination of different issues". This showed that your really understood the Argyris's concept. 

    Over all a really good journal and I challenge you to keep your entries to this caliber in the future. Well done (smile)