Essay About Double-Loop Learning And Double-Loop

Single and Double Loop Learning
Essay Preview: Single and Double Loop Learning
Report this essay
Einstein said that the definition of insanity is constantly doing the same thing, yet expecting different results. Both single and double-loop learning helps to combat ‘insanity’ by reacting to feedback and changing action plans. Organisational learning is defined by Argyris as “a process of detecting and correcting error” (Argyris,1977, p. 2). Though centred towards organisations, it is also applicable to my life as an SMU student whose primary objective is learning. It is pertinent to me, to not only go through the motion of everyday rudimentary lessons but to also focus on continuous cyclical learning in both single and double-loop learning allowing me to correct my errors. This topic sparks my interest in breaking down the learning process that is often seen as insignificant, simplistic and innate in nature that causes most people to take it frivolously. This essay will cover my own take in using single and double-loop learning individually and as an organisation and the interconnected nature of this topic. The core process of learning is continuously cyclical in nature. Single-loop learning is corrective in nature compared to double-loop learning which is generative (Nevis, DiBella & Gould, 1995). We practice this subconsciously in our everyday life even when tackling a minute problem. When facing my worst subject, Mathematics, I often hit a stumbling block where my answers are incorrect. Through single-loop learning, I re-attempt the questions using a different method. Though tedious, striving to alter the situation usually works and through perseverance, my answer would ultimately be correct. However, if I am constantly unable to reach answer it, it is essential that I employ double-loop learning in testing and changing the underlying assumption. The underlying assumption could be an incorrect answer written in the answer key requiring me to consult my teacher or peers on how I should proceed onwards. Though this example is more individualistic in nature, this style of learning is also personally applicable as a leader. Double-loop learning is necessary when instead of merely scolding a subordinate due to his failure in completing a task, it is essential to change that mindset and focus on the “Why?” by questioning the assumptions to find out the underlying reason for the failure of that task; being sensitive to his problems as there is often a concealed rationale to a person’s actions. We should change our own individual mental model in our generalisations and assumptions as it may lead to the unintended consequence of miscommunication and instead employ double-loop learning when required in our daily lives.My view towards firms has also become more insightful.  Most firms are increasingly knowledgeable on how to effectively use single-loop learning (Argyris,1977). However, double-loop learning in companies is still lacking due to the primary inhibiting loop of withholding and covering up information and secondary inhibiting loops of taking a defensive stance to prevent people from challenging their actions as seen in Model 0-1, inhibiting the company’s ability to detect and correct errors (Argyris, 1977). The familiar phrase “easier said than done” comes to mind when applying these theories. The need to challenge the status quo is often hindered by the fundamental culture of a firm and the innate self-interest of individuals. It is ironically compelling that we are preventing ourselves from improving, leading me to think that humans are increasingly rigid in nature, struggling with the demands of change. In fast-paced Singapore, the primary focus has always been on efficiency, in both paper-chase and outputs in a company. This places little concern in re-evaluating and thinking about bigger issues such as power and social equation dynamics. This provokes me to ponder that most successful companies or people tend to lose sight of their goals when going through the motion of life. They end up inflexible, needing a reality check to question the “Why” of double-loop learning. Despite organising workshops or increasing the openness of company culture, firms remain inflexible as personal interest still impedes our thinking. Furthermore, with a more open and flexible culture, social loafing may occur like in my group project where certain people requires a strict detailed outline to work effectively.  An insight would be that nascent firms probably have an easier time of utilising double-loop learning as they presumably have greater flexibility in just starting off so employees play an active part towards forming the company’s culture.