Double-Loop Learning

Double-loop learning refers to the distinction between learning that keeps a behavioural system operating within a field of constancy and learning that changes what the system seeks to achieve or to keep constant. It is related to the distinction between first-order and second-order change. The emphasis on learning rather than change highlights the processes by which members of the system seek to improve how it functions. Double-loop learning is an important concept for action research because it focuses on what it takes for people and systems to make fundamental changes.

The distinction between single- and double-loop learning comes from the cybernetic theorist W. R. Ashby. Ashby used the example of a thermostat that turns heat on or off to keep the temperature near a set point. This is single-loop learning. When someone changes the setting, the system engages in double-loop learning.

Chris Argyris and Donald Schön introduced this distinction to the domain of leadership and organizational learning. They defined double-loop learning as behavioural learning that changes the governing variables (values, norms and goals) of one’s theory-in-use: the theory of action that can be inferred from behaviour. They argued that learning processes and research approaches that may be adequate for single-loop learning are inadequate for double-loop learning. They developed the theory-of-action approach, also known as Action Science, to create knowledge that is useful for double-loop learning.

[Page 284]In Action Science, the concept of double-loop learning can be recast in terms of the epistemology of practice developed by Donald Schön in The Reflective Practitioner. Schön emphasized the activity of framing by which we make sense of a situation, setting the problem that we will seek to solve. Double-loop learning can be seen as reframing how we define situations, how we construct our role and what we take to be desirable outcomes.

Single- and double-loop learning can occur at any level of social analysis, including individuals, interpersonal relationships, groups and organizations. For example, as an organization grows, it undergoes changes that may require double-loop learning at several levels. It may shift from a traditional hierarchy to a matrix structure, requiring individuals to learn how to surface and manage conflict across boundaries. It may need to shift from a technology-driven, ‘If we build it, they will buy’ approach to a customer-focused approach that takes account of different needs in different regions. Customary work practices must change, and the changes must become integrated into the professional identities and working relationships of members of the organization.

Double-loop learning is unsettling, almost by definition. When individuals, groups and organizations face challenges, they typically respond with single-loop learning. When these attempts do not succeed, the most common responses are more single-loop learning and blaming others or the environment. Few individuals and fewer organizations are good at double-loop learning.

We can distinguish between behavioural double-loop learning and double-loop learning for instrumental, technical or policy issues. Double-loop learning on technical or policy issues may occur when individuals or small groups have breakthrough insights. Creating a culture conducive to breakthrough insights, however, often requires behavioural double-loop learning. And implementing new policies or strategies may require behavioural double-loop learning.

...