Types of Organisations

CHAPTER THREE: ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING

3.2 Types of Organisations

Argyris and Schon (1978) put forward a number of perspectives of organisations. Although, probably not a complete list, it is useful to discuss them here, as they form a foundation for understanding their concept of organisational learning. Argyris and Schon (1978) state the following:

"An organisation is:

• a government, or polis,

• an agency,

• a task system.

Each of these perspectives will illuminate the sense in which an organisation may be said to act. Further, an organization is:

• a theory of action,

36

• a cognitive enterprise undertaken by individual members,

• a cognitive artifact made up of individual images and public maps.

Each of these descriptions will reveal the sense in which an organization may be said to know something, and to learn" (p. 12).

Before we move into a discussion on the above perspectives of an

organisation, it will be useful to present a number of foundational concepts

with regards to Argyris and Schon's (1978) theory of organisational learning.

These are:

1. Espoused Theory: What we say that we do in situations. It is what

we believe we would do in a situation or to solve a problem. The view that we tell the world what we would do.

2. Theory-in-Use: What we actually do in the situation. The fact that the espoused theory and theory-in-use are not congruent is generally not evident to the person. The theory-in-use is often at a tacit level and generally takes some deep reflection to recognise it.

It can often be quickly observed by someone else but difficult to

point out to the person in question.

(Argyris & Schon, 1978).

To illustrate these concepts further, we can refer to the following:

"When someone is asked how he would behave under certain

circumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory

of action for that situation. This is the theory of action to which he

gives allegiance and which, upon request, he communicates to

others. However, the theory that actually governs his actions is his

theory-in-use, which may or may not be compatible with his

espoused theory; furthermore, the individual may or may not be

aware of the incompatibility of the two theories" (Argyris & Schon

1974, p.7 in Argyris & Schon 1978, p. 11).

With this in mind, we return to our discussion on organisations. Argyris and Schon (1978) distinguish between a collectivity and an organisation in the following ways. A collectivity will begin to evolve into an organisation when it has established rule-governed ways of deciding, delegating and setting the boundaries of membership. When this happens, it is said that this newly formed entity is capable of acting. Moving on from the concept of 'acting' on

behalf of others for a common goal, it is argued that the new entity has become political, or, as Argyris and Schon (1978) call it, "a polis" (p. 13). The

authors argue that it is true that individuals decide and act for the members,

but they do so in accordance with the rule-based governing values for decision making, delegation and membership (Argyris & Schon, 1978).

If the entity described above continues on an ongoing basis, Argyris and Schon (1978) call it an "Agency" which is "an instrument for continuing collective action" (p. 14). The authors argue that once an agency is established, it is possible to develop a "theory-in-use" for the agency from the observable action that is taking place within the agency. An agency is said to continually perform a set of complex tasks, to fulfill the function or goal of the

overall organisation.

In order to do this, the organisation has to develop a "task system" (Argyris &

Schon, 1978, p. 14). This comprises the way different organisational components interact and "is at once a design for work and a division of labor"

(Argyris & Schon, 1978, p. 14).

Argyris and Schon (1978) talk about an instrumental theory of action. This is bound up in the norms, strategies and assumptions that guide the organisation on its path towards its overall objective. This is where Argyris and Schon's argument begins to really take shape. The idea is that there are generally two theories of action in place within an organisation. The first one is to be found within formal organisational documentation, including

organograms, policy and procedure documents and job descriptions. This

theory of action, referring back to our earlier definitions, is the espoused

38

theory of the organisation. It is what it tells the world what it does (Argyris &

Schon, 1978).

The crux of Argyris and Schon's argument is that the espoused theory and

theory-in-use, the second theory of action, are generally not congruent. Not

only are they incongruent but as a result of the tacit nature of the theory-in-

use, the incongruency is undiscussable. Not only is it not discussable, it usually is not even seen. Another interesting aspect of Argyris and Schon's

(1978) argument is that it is the theory-in-use that is the major force in

constructing organisational identity.

To begin to discover this theory-in-use, we must observe what really happens inside the organisation and not what the official documents tell us about what happens. Argyris and Schon (1978) make a distinction here between an outside view, just described as an observation of what happens, and an internal view, described as "When members carry out the practices appropriate to their organisation, they are also manifesting a kind of

knowledge. And this knowledge represents the organisation's theory-in-use as

seen from the inside" (p. 16).

3.3 Images and Maps

Argyris and Schon (1978) make an interesting point with regards to organisational learning and the construction of personal images of the organisation. Basically what is said to take place is that each individual in the organisation is continually constructing a representation of the organisation as a whole. A little later in our discussion, I will reflect on this aspect with regard

to mental models and organisational learning.

Due to the fact that our interpretations and representations will be influenced

by our worldviews, the representation that each individual constructs is argued

to be incomplete. Argyris and Schon (1978) state that as individuals continue

to investigate the organisation and themselves in relation to the organisation,

these images of organisation change. They argue that each individual is doing this kind of inquiry all the time. These inquiries, which become embodied in the way people do things in the organisation, form the basis of the organisations theory-in-use. It is also argued that, dependent on how well these individual images are integrated into a organisational image on a continual basis, forms what Argyris and Schon (1978) have termed, "an organisation's knowledge of its theory-in-use" (p. 16).

What appears next in this text is a very interesting analogy of an organisation, which is another way of saying 'Metaphor'. Argyris and Schon (1978) describe an organisation as an "organism" (1978, p. 16). They go even further than this with the following statement, "Organization is an artifact of individual ways of representing organization" (Argyris & Schon p. 16). These statements capture the underlying assumptions of the authors' views towards organisations. It becomes understandable then, that if an organisation is viewed through an 'organic' metaphor and seen as the integration, to put it simply, of each individual's image of the organisation, that Argyris and Schon (1978) come to the following conclusion:

"Hence, our inquiry into organizational learning must concern itself

not with static entities called organizations, but with an active process of organizing which is, at root, a cognitive enterprise.

Individual members are continually engaged in attempting to know the organization, and to know themselves in the context of the organization. At the same time, their continuing efforts to know and to test their knowledge represent the object of their inquiry.

Organizing is reflexive inquiry" (pp. 16-17).

The authors go further and say that individual inquiry is necessary but not sufficient for the type of learning we are talking about. In order for individuals to compare, contrast and debate personal images, some form of external, public images must be developed. Argyris and Schon (1978) call these public images, "Organizational Maps" (p. 17). These maps describe the actual way things are done in the organisation and can include diagrams of workflow, compensation charts, statements of procedure etc "Whatever their form,

40

maps have a dual function. They describe actual patterns of activity, and they are guides to future action ... Organizational theory-in-use, continually

constructed through individual inquiry, is encoded in private images and in

public maps. These are the media of organizational learning" (Argyris &

Schon, 1978, p. 17).