Double Loop Learning

I wanted to share my thoughts about how a concept called double loop learning might be applied to a Positive Discipline practice.

This was triggered after attending an Agile software development presentation by Derek W. Wade called “Uncover Your Frames” that showed how to apply the theory to technical teams, but it was originally described by Chris Argyris, a prominent business theorist, in his work regarding organizational learning.  A summary of several of Argyris’s contributions to the field of experiential learning, including single- and double-loop learning, can be found here: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm

The root of Argyris’s theory suggests that learning involves detecting errors in knowledge, and then correcting those errors.  When applied to a person’s behavior, and the results of that behavior as observed by someone else, the single-loop learning model describes ‘making inferences about another person’s behaviour without checking whether they are valid and advocating one’s own views abstractly without explaining or illustrating one’s reasoning’ (Edmondson and Moingeon 1999:161).

In other words, we tend to draw conclusions about the reasons for another’s actions that are based in our mindset and past experience, and then act based on those unsupported conclusions.

As a parent, I find myself often using this model to explain my son’s behavior.  For example, if my son is playing when I let him know that it’s time for dinner, and he doesn’t come to dinner, I assume that he heard my request and chose to ignore it, when in fact the request might not have even registered because he was so wrapped up in his play. Continuing to use single-loop learning, I might apply another assumption about the reasons for my son’s behavior based on past experience or my current mood or mindset, which leads to yet another unsupported conclusion, and an unsupported reaction.

So the single loop learning model can easily result in misunderstanding his reasons for his behavior, and consequently I am prone to making mistakes in my reactions to his behavior.  This often leads to a defensive reaction on my son’s part, and eventually a power struggle or some other form of negative reaction that then becomes the focus for the situation.

In the double-loop learning model, rather than allowing assumptions to determine the observer’s reaction to the actor’s behavior, the observer takes one step further backward in the cause and effect chain to examine and challenge their own beliefs about the reason for the behavior, allowing an opportunity for the actor’s actual intentions to be considered, which might lead the observer to react differently based on new knowledge that is more aligned to the context of a particular situation.

Context is often hidden, but it always matters.

A child’s beliefs and goals lead to the child’s behavior, which leads to the effects of that behavior.  But as parents, we often make unvalidated assumptions about the reasons for a child’s behavior, and react based on the behavior alone, without trying to “get into the child’s world” to understand what motivated them, which might lead us to a different reaction.

As described in Derek’s presentation (modified slightly here), the observer might instead use a framework such as:

“I noticed that (observable fact).  I’m surprised because (reason for surprise).  I’m curious about what you were thinking when (above observable fact). Could you share it with me?”

Double-loop learning is reflective, and can be initiated by the practice of stating observations without blame, shame, or pain, and asking curiosity questions, as encouraged by Jane Nelson and her co-authors in the Positive Discipline materials.

Using my earlier example, after observing my son’s behavior (continuing to play rather than come to dinner), rather than assume he had ignored me, I might connect with him, engage his attention, and say:

“I noticed that you are still playing.  I’m surprised because I’ve asked you to come to dinner, and we’ve already talked about having dinner on time, so that we have time to play a game later.  I’m curious about what you were thinking when you kept playing… could you share it with me?”  I might then find out that he didn’t hear me when I asked because he was focused on what he was doing, and reflect that I hadn’t actually been certain of his attention at the time.

Which offers an excellent opportunity to avoid an unnecessary power struggle.

If for no other reason than that, we might consider trying to make a practice of double loop learning in our parenting. I can think of a few potential keys to success in this practice:

1. Avoid preemptive judgements.
2. Avoid assigning blame, shame, or pain.
3. Approach the situation with genuine curiosity.

I’d invite you to try it, at least once. While reflecting on the results, try to have some curiosity about what might have influenced those results. Then, maybe, try it again.

That’s right… you’ll be applying double loop learning to the practice of double loop learning!