The discipline of reflection-in-action, as developed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schön, emerged as a response to real-world failures in leadership, learning, and professional practice — particularly in organizations, education, and government. While it builds indirectly on foundational ideas from Craik, Kant, and Plato, Argyris and Schön charted new territory by focusing on action, learning in real time, and the social-emotional barriers that block insight.
Let’s explore:
🧩 What Led Argyris and Schön to Develop Reflection-in-Action
1. Professional Practice vs. Real Change
- Argyris (originally trained in organizational behavior and psychology) noticed that smart, well-trained professionals and managers failed to learn from their own actions — especially in moments of failure or tension.
- Schön (an urban planner and philosopher of design) observed that learning in professional settings rarely matched formal training — people improvised, adapted, and learned by doing.
They asked: What makes learning from experience so hard — even for highly educated people?
2. Single-Loop vs. Double-Loop Learning (Argyris)
- Single-loop learning: Making changes without questioning the underlying assumptions (e.g., tweaking tactics).
- Double-loop learning: Questioning and modifying the governing variables (beliefs, values, assumptions) behind actions.
This is where mental models come in: what we do is governed by what we believe — but these beliefs are often invisible to us and fiercely protected.
3. Reflection-in-Action (Schön)
- Schön observed that effective practitioners engage in real-time reflection while acting — improvising, and thinking while doing.
- He called this “reflection-in-action”, in contrast to “reflection-on-action” (which happens after the fact).
- This was especially vital in messy, real-world contexts where no rulebook exists — what Schön called “the swampy lowlands” of practice.
Intellectual Roots: How They Connect to or Depart from Craik, Kant, and Plato
| Thinker | Core Idea | Argyris & Schön’s Relation |
|---|---|---|
| Plato | We live in a world of appearances; reason uncovers truth. | Related: They, too, seek to uncover deeper “governing variables” behind surface actions — but they bring this into social practice, not abstract reason alone. |
| Kant | The mind structures experience; we know only appearances, not things-in-themselves. | Related: They acknowledge that perception is structured by mental models, but they focus on making those structures explicit and testable in action. |
| Craik | The mind builds internal models to simulate and act. | Direct precursor: Argyris & Schön extend this into interpersonal and organizational learning, showing that internal models are not only cognitive but socially reinforced and emotionally protected. |
Key Innovation:
Argyris and Schön brought reason, perception, and simulation into a practical, action-oriented framework:
- Not just how people think, but why they protect certain ways of thinking.
- Not just internal models, but how they’re played out in conversation, power, and relationships.
Why Their Work Was Revolutionary
They revealed defensive reasoning — how people protect themselves from embarrassment or threat by avoiding reflective learning.
They introduced tools (e.g., Ladder of Inference, Left-Hand Column, Case Method) to surface and test mental models in practice.
They reframed learning as a social act, not just an internal process.
In Summary:
| What Drove Them | How They Built on Earlier Thinkers |
|---|---|
| Persistent failure of smart people to learn from their actions | Built on Craik’s mental models (internal simulation), Kant’s structured perception, and Plato’s pursuit of deeper truth |
| The need for real-time adaptation in complex, uncertain environments | Departed by grounding theory in action, interaction, and reflection-in-action, rather than abstract thought |
| A desire to build learning organizations and reflective professionals | Their discipline became a toolkit for self-awareness, organizational change, and systemic learning |
ROOTS, DIVERGENCE AND COMPLEMENTARITY OF ARGYRIS & SCHON’S WORKS TO COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
Chris Argyris and Donald Schön’s work (mainly from the 1970s–1980s) shares a parallel evolution with the rise of cognitive psychology through figures like George Miller, Ulric Neisser, Noam Chomsky, and Donald Broadbent. But while they all dealt with mental processes, the orientation, domain, and purpose of their work differ in important ways.
Let’s unpack this in terms of roots, divergence, and complementarity.
1. Where Argyris & Schön Are Rooted in Cognitive Psychology
Shared Foundations
| Cognitive Psychology | Argyris & Schön |
|---|---|
| Humans process internal representations to navigate the world | People operate from internal theories-in-use (mental models) that guide their actions |
| Focus on how information is selected, stored, and retrieved | Focus on how assumptions shape what people perceive, say, and do |
| Concept of bounded rationality (Miller, Broadbent) | Organizational members rarely operate from full awareness; much behavior is automatic or defensive |
So we can say that both traditions emerged from the post-behaviorist “cognitive turn”, rejecting stimulus-response models in favor of internal mental processes. In that way, Argyris & Schön are intellectually indebted to this cognitive lineage.
2. How They Deviate from the 1950s–60s Cognitive Pioneers
| Thinker | Focus | Argyris & Schön’s Difference |
|---|---|---|
| George Miller (1956) | Human memory capacity; quantifiable units of cognition (“7 ± 2”) | A&S focus on meaning, espoused vs. actual reasoning, invisible assumptions, not capacity or storage |
| Ulric Neisser (1967) | Defined cognitive psychology as information processing | A&S reject individual information-processing models as inadequate to explain organizational learning |
| Noam Chomsky (1959) | Innate grammar; language as structured cognition | A&S focus on language in action, e.g., how people construct or avoid conversations that challenge assumptions |
| Donald Broadbent (1958) | Attention and filtering of stimuli | A&S expand beyond filters to explore emotional avoidance, power, and self-deception |
In short:
- Cognitive psychology was largely laboratory-based, individual, and mechanistic.
- Argyris & Schön were practice-based, interpersonal, and focused on learning under stress, threat, and conflict — the very situations where cognitive control often fails.
3. Complementarity: How the Two Fields Inform Each Other
- Cognitive psychology gave legitimacy to the idea that internal mental processes shape behavior — a concept Argyris & Schön adopted wholeheartedly.
- But they extended it into the messy world of interpersonal dynamics, real-time feedback, and organizational learning.
- For example:
- Where George Miller said memory has limits, Argyris asked: Why do people forget what challenges their image of competence?
- Where Chomsky explored deep structure in grammar, Argyris & Schön explored deep structure in belief systems.
- Where Broadbent analyzed attention filters, A&S examined reasoning filters — how people filter out anything that threatens their governing values.
Summary Table
| Dimension | Cognitive Psychologists (1950s–60s) | Argyris & Schön (1970s–80s) |
|---|---|---|
| Unit of Analysis | Individual mind | Individual-in-action, in social/organizational setting |
| Focus | Cognition as information processing | Learning as reflection on mental models-in-use |
| Key Concern | How do we perceive, store, recall information? | Why do we avoid learning that threatens our sense of self or authority? |
| Mode of Study | Controlled experiments | Action research, reflective case studies, intervention |
| Methods | Memory tasks, language analysis, reaction times | Ladder of Inference, Left-Hand Column, reflective interviews |
Final Thought
Chris Argyris and Donald Schön:
- Stood on the shoulders of cognitive psychology by accepting that human behavior is guided by internal structures (mental models).
- But pioneered a new terrain — asking not just how the mind works, but why it defends itself, and how we might learn despite those defenses.
Systems Thinking Research & Leadership Development Institute (STRLDi) 