Person
Chris Argyris
Organizational theorists of double-loop learning and reflective practice in professional work.
Why this matters
Argyris and Schön extend correction beneath single-loop fixes—when teams protect the assumptions that hurt them.
Works3 sources
book
Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice
Argyris, Chris, and Donald A. Schon. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996.
View Source →
book
On Organizational Learning
Argyris, Chris. On Organizational Learning. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999.
View Source →
book
Overcoming Organizational Defenses
Argyris, Chris. Overcoming Organizational Defenses. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1990.
View Source →
Related concepts6 concepts
Concept
Contestability
Contestability names the condition where dispute can reopen without threatening shared coherence—where challenge does not mean collapse. It becomes important when legitimacy depends on more than coercion, when correction and revision matter for trust and adaptation. It helps preserve the capacity to learn from reality and adjust to changed conditions, but it thins when authority relocates legitimacy beyond ordinary revision—when sacred framing, canon, or procedure makes questioning feel dangerous. Contestability depends on whether revision feels survivable or indistinguishable from rupture. When small groups operate under mutual visibility, authority can be argued for even after it is obeyed. But under pressure—breakdown, threat, or instability—dissent begins to read as moral failure rather than political disagreement, and the range of acceptable interpretation narrows. Contestability thins while inherited certainty still coordinates; systems can run on compliance long after persuasion fades. It marks the moment just before certainty becomes difficult to question at all.
View Concept →
Concept
Correction
Correction names the lived work of narrowing the gap between what was assumed and what is actually happening. It becomes important whenever systems, beliefs, or coordination can drift while still feeling operational. It helps preserve shared reality and learning, but can fail when every correction spawns new framing instead of updated contact with conditions. It differs from repair because correction updates belief and behavior; repair addresses damaged standing and trust. It differs from revisability because correction is the act; revisability is the designed capacity to keep correcting.
View Concept →
Concept
Erosion
Erosion names the direction in which a group, system, or relationship moves when adaptability shrinks—when influence stops changing direction under pressure, when correction channels narrow, when insulation builds while the surface still looks coordinated. Scalability then determines whether that erosion remains coordinated or also loses reach. It becomes important because erosion is structural rather than dramatic; systems can erode long before they visibly fail, and what looks like stability from inside the room may be thinning fit unseen. Low scalability alone does not mean erosion: a group may still renew while struggling to coordinate at scale, just as it may stay highly coordinated while losing the ability to change course. It helps to notice erosion early—before learning collapses, before disagreement is recoded as disloyalty, before temporary workarounds outlast the emergency they were made for. Erosion often appears as ordinary choices that teach people correction is costly: warnings that travel farther but change less on arrival, exceptions that start appearing in training materials, harm that gets buried in vague wording. The question erosion raises is: is adaptability shrinking, and is coordination holding or fraying as that rigidity sets in? What ordinary patterns are teaching people that speaking up carries cost? Erosion differs from decay in that erosion names the process of thinning, while decay names the end state.
View Concept →
Concept
Feedback
Feedback names how systems stay in contact with their own effects. It becomes important whenever action and consequence are separated by time, scale, or abstraction. It helps preserve learning, correction, and trust in ongoing coordination, but can fail when dashboards stay green while lived harm accumulates off the ledger. It differs from trust because feedback is the returning signal itself; trust is the bridge that lets people act before every signal arrives. It differs from correction because feedback is what returns; correction is the work of updating in response.
View Concept →
Concept
Repair
Repair names the work of mending what authority, coordination, or relationship has strained—not merely explaining, apologizing, or documenting harm. It becomes important after drift, betrayal, or structural decoupling has weakened the link between action and answerability. It helps preserve legitimacy and renewed participation, but can fail when repair language persists while traction disappears—or when more interpretation accelerates rather than constrains authority. It differs from correction because repair addresses damaged standing and trust, not only mistaken belief; it differs from accountability because repair seeks restoration, not only exposure; it differs from witness because repair still aims to change the scene, not only preserve record.
View Concept →
Concept
Thinking
Thinking names reflective interpretation, explanation, and deliberation made possible by enough stability, time, and distance from immediate constraint. It becomes important when coordination is secure enough that action can be accompanied by—or followed by—reflection on why, not only what. Thinking is not detached from action; it is a way of slowing response enough for judgment to form, for alternatives to be considered, for consequences to be imagined before they arrive. It helps preserve discernment, learning, and moral reasoning, but it requires conditions: distance from urgent threat, cognitive and social surplus, shared language for deliberation, and enough stability that questioning does not destabilize survival itself. Under severe pressure, coordinated action may precede explanation—people act together before they renegotiate why, and meaning accumulates later, if at all. Roles can precede reasons when constraint is visible; practices can work before they are explained; certainty can coordinate when explanation is too slow for the problem at hand. Thinking thins when scale or urgency removes the conditions it requires—when no one can trace harm, when managed doubt persists far from those who wait, when compliance replaces judgment because discernment has become too costly. The question thinking raises is: what must hold before there is time to think? Where is thinking a capacity scale has not yet removed? The counterbalance is to notice coordination before explanation without calling early arrangements irrational, to recognize thinking as conditioned by structure rather than absent by nature, and to ask what held long enough to live before asking what is true.
View Concept →
Related books3 books

Book
When Accountability No Longer Expires
How Legitimate Authority Learns to Survive Harm
An institutional lens on why legitimate authority can persist after harm. Organizations learn to survive scandal without resolving it.
View book

Book
When Others Look to You
Renewal and Erosion in Leadership
A leadership field guide to how influence forms, how trust is renewed, and how erosion begins when responsibility drifts from practice.
View book

Book
When Others Look to You: Companion Edition
Forming, Renewing, Eroding, Repeating
How leadership influence forms, renews, erodes, and repeats across the full cycle of responsibility in practice.
View book
