Have you ever noticed that what a person or a company says its beliefs *are* don’t always line up with what it actually *does*? (Hint: United, “fly the friendly skies”.)
Best case, the mismatch is annoying. Worst case, it erodes the trust that we need to build relationships, drive action, and create sales.
And if you’re wondering, no, this isn’t a new topic here. We’ve talked before about the gap between espoused theories (what we say we believe) and theories-in-use (the beliefs that actually drive what we do ). The term comes from Chris Argyris and Donald Schön, pioneers in the field of organizational learning. Recently, a reader asked me to go deeper into this topic, and I’m glad they did—there’s certainly a lot more to talk about! That’s because the more Argyris and others studied people’s theories-in-use, the more they noticed a fascinating pattern: most people operate from the same set of underlying rules (Argyris et al., 1985).
The Hidden Beliefs of Default Thinking (Model I)
The pattern was so common, in fact, that they named it “Model I” Thinking (not very catchy, I know). Let’s try calling it “Default” Thinking, as this set of beliefs—which Argyris called “governing variables”—almost certainly guides what we actually do. That is, unless we deliberately work to spot and break its patterns.
Here are the hidden beliefs that Argyris et al. found—see if they sound familiar:
- Achieve the purpose as you define it. In other words: we’ll almost always act in ways to get what we want, regardless of how open-minded we say (and believe!) we are.
- Win. Don’t lose. Because of #1, we’ll do pretty much whatever we consider necessary to achieve that purpose.
- Suppress negative feelings. To make ourselves and others feel better about what we’re doing as a result of #1 and #2, we’ll also soften language, rationalize, and soothe (both for yourself and others) so things feel, you know, less icky, stressful, or tense.
- Emphasize rationality. This one shows up in two ways. First as having a clear, “rational” explanation for why you want what you want and are acting in such a way to get it. Second, it shows up as either structuring the conversation, implying, or even saying right out loud that the outcome you want is what smart, rational people would choose. (And yes, that absolutely violates principle #4 in my second book, Say What They Can’t Unhear.)
Now, these will undoubtedly be MUCH easier to spot in other people. But the more you spot them in others, the more likely you may be to spot them in yourself, as well. One hallmark of Default (Model I) Thinking is what Argyris et al. call “easing in.” You’ve probably experienced it: someone wants you to change or accept feedback, but instead of saying it outright, they ask a string of leading questions designed to guide you to their preferred conclusion. It feels manipulative—because it is. It also is likely to raise the very defensiveness it’s meant to avoid.
Argyris and Schön noticed something else: once people became aware of Default Thinking and tried to change it, they often went to what they called “opposite” or “counter” Model I as their default theory-in-use.
Control-Default vs Consensus-Default
Here’s how Argyris (1979) described the governing variables of this counter version:
-
- Participation of everyone in defining purposes.
- Everyone wins, no one loses.
- Express feelings
- Suppress the cognitive intellective aspects of action (My translation: make sure it “feels good” to everyone, even if it isn’t actually or objectively the best option.)
For hopefully obvious reasons, I think of this “opposite” version as Consensus-Default Thinking, because the emphasis is on, well, everyone agreeing. If you’ve ever been part of an organization that uses this default, as I have, then you know this approach can be just as frustrating and unproductive as the main version, which I’ll now call Control-Default, since that one’s all about controlling the situation.
Enter Deliberate Thinking (Model II)
If Default Thinking is what we actually do, Deliberate Thinking (Model II) is what we aspire to—and it’s often what we say we believe in when it comes to interacting with others. Its governing variables look very different:
- Valid information. Full honesty, transparency, and authenticity. No hiding information or feelings; no hiding behind words. Every description (“you’re being unfair!”) must be accompanied by observable data (“you gave more airtime to that person than to this one.”)
- Free and informed choice. Here you’re making your purpose clear, but also giving others both the context and agency to choose for themselves, without threats, implied or otherwise..
- Internal commitment. Focusing on what’s necessary to generate genuine belief in the idea or action. In other words, doing what you can to ensure action comes from something that “makes sense” to others both emotionally and intuitively.
These sound good, right? And they are! In fact, these are often the very things we say we want and need to lead, collaborate, and make change. We’re not wrong: in my experience, actually living these beliefs is far more effective at creating lasting impact and even transformational change in thinking and behavior.
So why the gap? Well, as you can see, Model II thinking requires a deliberate, ongoing awareness of not only what’s happening in a situation, but also about how you’re thinking about it, and what your actions reveal you actually think in any given situation. That’s why I think of Model II Thinking as Deliberate Thinking. And so, yes, it takes work at the beginning, and tools like the Core Case that can make reasoning visible and testable can make that work more efficient and more effective.
What This Means for Change Agents
- If you help drive change—whether inside organizations, with clients, or with communities—understanding, recognizing, and working to change Default Thinking to Deliberate is critically important, for two big reasons: Humans are wildly attuned to intent. We notice when there’s a gap between words and actions, when you say you believe Deliberate approaches, but operate from Default ones. Worse, the bigger the gap, the less we trust the person displaying it. Thankfully, the reverse is true: the more your deeds AND words match Deliberate Thinking, the more believable and effective you are. But that leads to a second challenge:
- It’s really, really hard to fake alignment. And, thanks to #1, above, people can almost always tell when you do. It’s even harder to do it successfully over time. “The truth,” as Shakespeare said, “will out.” The only long-term approach is to be aligned, which starts with recognizing what it is you actually believe, based on what you actually do. That means digging past easy answers like “because it’s cost-effective.” Keep asking: Why do we believe this? What makes it cost-effective? What’s the real reasoning?
(Or, to United Airlines: “Would our customers actually agree that we’re friendly? Why or why not? If not, why are we actually saying that? What’s actually driving our behavior? How can we use that as a positive brand pillar instead?” You’re welcome.)
When you align what you say with what you do, your message is more effective because your words and actions reinforce each other rather than work against each other. The result? The change you’re working toward becomes far more possible.
Hat tip to Argyris and Schön for reminding us: notice when you’re operating in Default Thinking choose to be Deliberate, instead.