| Applying models of action science for self-improvement Reading Time: 7 minutes (1003 Words) Learn, unlearn and relearn. This being the mantra of today's learning process, undeniably action science plays a crucial role in learning. Action science! Sounds purely scientific, but it has more to do with transformative learning. What is action science? Action science is merely a strategy to cultivate individual and group effectiveness. The strategy helps create a learning organisation by increasing employees' skills and confidence. Action science is applicable in individual, interpersonal as well as organisational contexts, wherein employees take up great challenges in critical situations. Role of action science Action science is a three-in-one research area focusing on theory, method and practice as the basis for mental models. It has two basic models. Both models are absolutely tangential, if not completely opposite. However, action science aims to bring a transformation from Model I to Model II that resolves complex problems. Objectives Apart from improving participants' problem-solving skills and helping them identify opportunities and eliminate threats, action science helps employees - Develop a readiness to change
- Focus on learning new frameworks
- Design strategies to avoid undesirable outcomes
- Shift from defensive reasoning to productive reasoning
Differentiation Implementation of action science calls for differentiation between mundane problems and the non-routine problems. Challenges such as leadership development, innovation and creativity, employee participation and reducing prejudiced opinions, amongst others, differentiate non-routine problems from the routine ones. Owing to the changes these two types of problem could bring about, action science could be explained in two different models. The main difference that action science brings about is in the theories of action. A theory of action is a master programme. It comprises a set of predetermined rules or value propositions that people use to achieve desirable outcomes. These theories of action are the governing variables that distinguish the two models. Theories of action Two theories of action have been identified. The first called Model I is also known as the technical theory. It includes competitive strategy analysis, quantitative analysis and micro-economic analysis. Referred to as the human theory Model II relies on interpersonal relationships, group dynamics, culture, leadership etc. Action science makes effective use of both the theories to bring about professional effectiveness. Ineffectiveness can however, be brought down by shifting from using Model I to Model II. Model I Model I is the theory-in-use. This involves single-loop learning, a learning process that incorporates traditional learning and lack of systems perspective. This model inhibits employees from identifying and correcting threats posed by the external environment. Defensive reasoning Model I promotes anti-learning behaviour. It is also called the defensive reasoning process. Lack of clarity in communication results in mixed messages. This model supports diplomacy and tact in communication besides caring and concern thus preventing criticism from surfacing. Constructive conflict is constantly avoided making resolution of complex problems difficult.
Typically, in a defensive reasoning process, employees recognise the mixed message passed on. Nevertheless, they overlook the message and avoid discussion over the matter. Mixed messages There are two levels of mixed messages: Level I is the denial routine, where employees identify a mismatch between intentions and outcomes. Level II is the bypass routine or the evasion routine, where they cover-up or evade the topic under discussion. The defensive reasoning model relies on deterministic causality. It claims, "A will cause B". The gaps between stored knowledge and required knowledge are unrecognised. Repetition of innovative actions leads to difficulty. Integration of theory and practice becomes impossible. Governing factors and consequences The theory-in-use emphasises the defining of goals and achieving them unilaterally. Employees in Model I are task-owners. Such governing variables give rise to defensiveness, unhealthy competition, low commitment and low freedom of choice. All these consequences reduce employee effectiveness. Model II Model II, also called the espoused theory, involves double-loop learning. Systems perspective deserves mention in this type of learning. This model promotes usable knowledge by standardising goals and testing the validity of claims. Productive reasoning Model II reduces the wide gaps between stored knowledge and usable knowledge. Productive reasoning is the forte of employees in Model II. Such reasoning relies on probabilistic causality, which claims "A will probably cause B". It allows for uniqueness of concrete situations. Model II employees believe that innovation needs constant monitoring. Actions are repeated and initiatives publicised. Problem solving supplements basic theory and the latter gets incorporated into practice. Governing factors and consequences This human theory focuses on high degree of interpersonal openness, thereby, maintaining trust and interdependence. The governing variables in Model II are maximised information and free choice for all concerned, along with a great degree of commitment. There is joint ownership of tasks as well. All this results in minimised interpersonal conflict, effective problem solving and decision-making, trust and cooperation, to mention just a few. These increase employee productivity. Actionable data To facilitate a transfer from Model I to Model II, action science also focuses on actionable data, which is beyond descriptive data. Descriptive data does not specify which actions will lead to what outcomes. Actionable data, on the other hand, involves a triad. Descriptive data is teamed with normative and prescriptive research. While the former describes the possible alternate frameworks, the latter educates the employees to advance from the present framework to a better one. Descriptive research activates the theories-in-use. Implications - Action science helps employees develop the capability of authoring their own work
- Actions are framed in a strategic context
- Action is based on rational analysis; it must not be a habituated decision
- Action must be circumstance specific
- Analyse relationships between situations and proposed actions
- Manage the construction of individual "self"
- Help them self-evaluate and self-rectify
Thirst for knowledge Therefore, training is not the only remedy to skill enhancement. Self-motivation, initiation and self-evaluation are necessary to achieve the much-needed success. Action science helps employees differentiate between routine and non-routine problems, create a new level of consciousness and design actionable strategies to quench an individual's persistent thirst for learning and knowledge.
Published by TheManageMentor. Contact us at memberservices@cnkonline.com
This is a CLASSIC Knowledge Mailer. Bindu Madhavi
Related Reading: 1. What is Action Science? Chris Argyris
2. Action Science? What is it?
3. Foundations of Action Design: Theory and Practice, Robert Putnam. Top
| 
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment