When a project or event is not going as planned, it’s not uncommon for advisors to hear their chapter officers complain
“It’s not our fault . . .”
“If only we had more involvement from the members.”
“We’ve tried everything . . .”
“People are just too busy . . .”
“We don’t have the money . . .”
Negativism takes hold and everyone seems to either shoot down new ideas to jump start things or receive the ideas with a lukewarm, non-committal shrug of doubt.
Harvard Management and Leadership scholar Chris Argyris calls this a defensive reasoning mindset. Its presence can be dangerous for an organization because it becomes the underground modus operandi and a vicious cycle when the defensive reasoning itself prevents success — prophesies become self-fulfilling — and the group must continue its defensive posturing. A group can even end up defending being defensive! The results can be disastrous. A recent example of an organization in which defensive reasoning played a role in its destruction is Enron. Argyris says that defensive reasoning creates a “syndrome against learning.” If we carry the syndrome analogy out — if a group doesn’t learn any more, it can develop incurable illnesses.
The opposite of a defensive reasoning mindset is a productive mindset. With a productive mindset, a group seeks validatable knowledge and informed choices, and checks assumptions and tests claims — all as transparently as possible. Members have to alter their personal ways of looking at others in the group and outside of the group and stop seeing the world as a “zero sum” game. Competitiveness, desire for unilateral control or power, and complete certainty about the defensive claims the group advances are signs of a defensive reasoning mindset. It follows that to develop a productive mindset a group has to reduce competitiveness and become more comfortable with collaborative control. Argyris suggests that this process should begin with the following steps:
- Begin with a commitment to seek as much valid information about a project as possible. Divide the work of information-gathering if necessary.
- Schedule conversations — not debates — about the information. Conversations should be frank and clear about what each person is thinking and trying to determine. The environment should be one of inquiry not advocacy.
- Be on the look-out for claims or assumptions that need testing. To get people used to this, try pairing up and ask each member to identify and explore an assumption or claim of the other member of the pair.
- Ensure that everyone perceives that their views and their assessments are considered and that they have truly had an opportunity to participate and influence the process of making decisions that are the best for the group.
When a group gets in the habit of beginning projects this way, they create a productive mindset, rather than a defensive reasoning mindset.
Sources: Argyris, Chris. Reasons and Rationalizations: The Limits to Organizational Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press USA, 2004.
Garvin, David A., and Michael A. Roberto. “What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions” in The Harvard Business Review, September, 2001. Also appears in Unit Five of Phi Theta Kappa Leadership Development Studies 3rd Edition, pages 173 – 179.
[Monika Byrd, March 2006]
Questions or Comments about Phi Theta Kappa Leading Leaders articles may be directed to Monika Byrd, Director of Leadership Development Programs.
