TEACHING SMART PEOPLE HOW TO LEARN by Joel T. Lim

The author, Chris Argyris, argued that highly skilled professionals, who are smart, had very good academic records, even MBA degree holders and had gone to work in business in consulting, still find it difficult to learn. They may have had other kinds of failures, but not academic. Therefore, their muscles for dealing with failure were not very strong. And since they are smart, they have developed all sorts of fancy footwork to prevent themselves from experiencing failure. Some of that footwork included out-talking other people, outgunning them, and so on. They have sophisticated defensive routines. These people did not only fear failure, they feared even thinking of fearing failure. So then they became very brittle. And if they made an error, they overreacted.

They are paid highly because they’re smart. However, they rarely face up to their own defensive routines. Examples abound of where supposedly “smart” people, working in business or public policy, thought they had it figured out and knew the answers. Then the problem persists. Being consumed by your own self-perceived brilliance is in reality a major learning disability, one that not only impedes critical self-reflection but also creativity and innovation. At its worst, it can result in harm to others and more broadly society and the environment.

I remember one young man who made an interesting presentation and the Director said, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” This person became flustered. In order to increase the level of proof he brought in more presentation slides and consequently frustrated the Director even more. His supervisor said to the young man, “I don’t hear him [the Director] telling you that you need more of this kind of information. Why don’t we ask him what it is that he’s seeking, what kind of knowledge could we give him to prompt him to say, ‘Now that is what I want.’ The supervisor was willing to be sensitive to the fears and frustrations of the Director. I don’t think the younger person was willing or capable of doing so at that time. But he learned to become more capable through coaching and experience.

Acting defensively can be viewed as moving away from something, usually some truth about ourselves. If our actions are driven by moving away from something, then our actions are controlled and defined by whatever it is we are moving away from, not by us, and what we would like to be moving towards. Therefore our potential for growth and learning is seriously impaired. If my behaviour is driven by my not wanting to be seen as incompetent, this may lead me to hide things from myself and others, in order to avoid feelings of incompetence. For example, if my behaviour is driven by wanting to be competent, honest evaluation of my behaviour by myself and others would be welcome and useful.

The business consultants Argyris studied were skilled at rationally analyzing and improving their clients’ problems and challenges, but they were defensive and reluctant to ever admit their own contribution to failed engagements.   We are designed to procreate and get out of trouble fast.  In times of perceived danger, our brains are designed to allow the fear system to take control of the brain and to override the conscious, deliberate, rational system.  Argyris’s business consultants are using their rational system when analyzing their clients’ business, yet they are using their fear system when responding to management’s feedback on their own performance. But then the dilemma hits because most people “blames the client” for his lack of effectiveness. Instead, it is their responsibility to look at what they actually did versus what they wanted to do; look at their actual results versus their planned results, and then apply scientific and rational thinking.

In other words, Argyris invites workers to be open to criticism, to be willing to test their claims publicly against evidence, to accept that they too are partly responsible for the problems they are confronted with. The client may or may not be ‘‘stupid,’’ but if such consultant is really keen on learning, the real question is ‘‘what can I do to improve the relationship with the client (or my boss, or anyone else)?’’ It all comes down to individual responsibility, and this is essentially, a moral issue.

The single loop learning is maintenance learning or getting better at what we already know how to do, and double-loop learning is basically asking if we are doing the right thing. The author contends that most successful people are adept at solving problems, but they don't really know how to learn. They are able to solve problems and overcome many organizational obstacles, but when it comes down to examining why there are obstacles and looking at the underneath dynamics of the problem they are unsuccessful. They lack introspection and the ability to see their own part in the problem and hence are not able to learn from it. They are often unaware that they’re doing it, between the way they think they are acting and the way they really act. If you’re playing a good game of tennis and someone says, “Bend your wrist just a bit,” you may say “Aw, come on, let me alone.” If you then start hitting the ball out of the court, it is probably because you have become conscious of how you hold your wrist. The dilemma is that once you are skilful you no longer pay attention to what creates the skill because you have now internalized it. You are unaware of the impact, but the unawareness is due to the skills you have. It’s not an empty hole in your head. The brain is not at all unaware of how to help you be unaware.

This article has made me much more aware of how my own demands on motivation can get in my way. I definitely relate to how easy it is to defer the blame to others when something goes wrong. As a motivated person, I think that sometimes the present situation is better as long as I produce. I have done nothing wrong. But how can just producing be our best? Isn't it better to accept responsibility for problem solving beyond the mere resolution of the issue at hand? Isn't it better for us to learn and understand our internal strengths and use them in a positive forceful way to not only solve problems, but make a contribution to whatever team or project that we are called to be a part of? These questions seem easier to ask than to actually do.