Alarid / ARGYRIS’S THEORY
POLICE QUARTERLY (Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1999)
LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS
AS LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS:
ARGYRIS’S THEORY AS A
FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTING
COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING
LEANNE FIFTAL ALARID
University of Missouri–Kansas City
Over the past 45 years, Argyris contributed significantly to human relations
and organizational learning theory by recognizing the power of individuals
to induce change within their work environment. Through an interdisciplinary approach to effective problem solving using double-loop learning,
Argyris believed that individuals and organizations could eventually overcome defensive reasoning. A sample of Argyris’s books and articles were
compared by content analysis to explore two theoretical issues—personality
within the organization and organizational learning—for use as a framework
for police agencies implementing department-wide community policing.
The 1994 Crime Control Act has already contributed to a significant amount
of technological advances in law enforcement and research and evaluation
of community policing efforts. An abundance of research exists on various
aspects of community policing as it relates to philosophy, community partnerships, and effectiveness. However, only a handful of studies focus on the
implementation of department-wide organizational change from a traditional department to an organization that is ready to fully embrace community policing through its mission/goals, structure, policies, and procedures
(see Dolan, 1994; Greene, 1993; Malone, 1994; Zhao, Thurman, & Lovrich,
1995). Essentially, community-oriented policing researchers have dedicated their efforts to externally focused change (partnerships and programs)
and have allotted scant attention to internally focused change, or barriers to
POLICE QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 3, September 1999
© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.
321–337
322
POLICE QUARTERLY (Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1999)
change within the organization itself (Zhao et al., 1995, p. 14). Through a
nationwide survey of police chiefs, Zhao et al. found that internal organizational barriers were of more concern to administrators than relationships
with the community.
As researchers have consistently found, organizational readiness is necessary to maintain community policing as a core purpose of police in our
society (Rosenbaum, Yeh, & Wilkinson, 1994, p. 350). For law enforcement
personnel to fully support organizational changes to community policing
and for organizations to implement and sustain these improvements, the
learning process must be an essential and integral component of the entire
organization (Geller, 1997). Senge (1990) called these places of employment “learning organizations.” A learning organization is “an organization
that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future” (Senge, 1990,
p. xv). To create a learning organization in criminal justice, particularly in
law enforcement departments, it is important to explore the theoretical
underpinnings of human relations theory tied to organizational learning.
In law enforcement administration, the human relations perspective focused on individual needs within the organization, a preference for an informal
style of organizational interaction, and a concern for motivating factors to
improve productivity in the workplace. Human relations encouraged such
participative management practices as quality circles, problem-solving groups,
and vertical staff meetings for more effective organizations (Gaines,
Kappeler, & Vaughn, 1997). Participative management styles are one of the
fundamentals of the learning organization and of the community-oriented
policing philosophy. Research found that police officers, supervisors, and
administrators supported the use of participative management in policing
(Witte, Travis, & Langworthy, 1990; Wycoff & Skogan, 1994).
Not all research, however, found such a smooth transition to community
policing. Malone (1994) examined why law enforcement officers, supervisors, and police chiefs resisted inevitable organizational change by measuring different modes of thinking. Malone found that the majority of police
chiefs lacked an integrative and futuristic approach to planning. These findings did not explain why these modes of thinking were absent and how to
change shortcomings in thinking that impeded change.
Dolan (1994) examined organizational “internal backlash” characteristics that accompanied organizational change to community policing, such
as professional jealousy, problems with staff recruitment and training, and
change resistance. Sadd and Grinc (1994) found that common organizational
problems included lack of middle management assistance and endorsement,
Alarid / ARGYRIS’S THEORY
323
which contributed in part to patrol officer confusion about the purpose and
significance of community policing. Of all the studies examining internal
organizational change barriers, the suggestions for change were not based
on theoretical reasons for why these behaviors occurred in the first place.
A human relations theoretical framework is meaningful to make sense of
why the suggestions proposed by Dolan (1994) are important. Of all the
human relations theorists—including Douglas McGregor (1960), Abraham
Maslow (1954), Frederick Herzberg (1968), and Rensis Likert (1967)—
Chris Argyris was best known for his principles of organizational learning
(Kennedy, 1991). Thus, this research will focus on the works of Argyris to
draw attention to an organizational theorist not commonly cited in criminal
justice literature. Although Argyris never specifically wrote on community
policing or law enforcement, his theories can be applied to any type of
agency. Argyris’s ideas later served as the basis of Senge’s (1990) learning
organization. The central argument of this article is that organizational
learning is a necessary component of organizational change, such as that
of altering traditional law enforcement organizational structure to community-based policing. Based on this premise, it is important to examine the
theoretical roots of the learning organization.
METHODS
Content analysis and comparative methods were used to analyze a sample of 18 journal articles and four books authored by Argyris that spanned a
40-year period from 1957 to the present. Each published work was examined for general content, central issues, and whether earlier writings had a
different flavor from later writings. When major themes emerged, a representative sample of articles were drawn to more specifically identify the theoretical framework. Argyris’s two themes, that of personality within the
organization and organizational learning, will be explored to answer the following question: How can individual personality within the organization
and organizational learning be used as a theoretical framework for law
enforcement agencies that are in the process of change from a traditional
department to a philosophy of community policing?
PERSONALITY AND THE ORGANIZATION
One of Argyris’s (1957) classic books, Personality and Organization,
predated the works of most other human relations thinkers and writers of the
324
POLICE QUARTERLY (Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1999)
time. Two of his later books, Integrating the Individual and the Organization (1964) and Organization and Innovation (1965), further cultivated personality and organization theory.
Argyris (1973, 1974) specified two theoretical assumptions of personality and organization theory. The first assumption was that organizations have a life of their own. Organizations exist because goals become too
complex for one individual to achieve. Large traditional organizations are
inflexible in supporting individual change and growth and encourage
dependence, apathy, and compliance.
A second assumption was that individual traits, abilities, and needs exist
on a continuum rather than in a vacuum. This means that individuals are
complex and have changing needs requiring appropriate organizational
responses to fulfill individual maturational perspectives. These two
assumptions also fit the community policing philosophy, which assumes
not only that the individual worker has changing needs inside the organization but that the outside community in which the officer serves has unique
problems and developments.
Personality and organization theory focused on both the individual and
macro levels. This theory was also interdisciplinary because it combined
psychology and sociology in an administrative context. Argyris merged a
symbolic interactionist approach of the individual worker with the influence of the organizational workplace. To measure how individual worker
personality is affected by the organization, Argyris observed how a manager
reacted to actions of individual workers and how subordinates responded to
the manager’s initial reaction. The ideal subordinate reaction, termed a
mode of worker adaptation, contributed to maintenance of good work habits and positive growth and development. Unhealthy organizations, on the
other hand, had workers who responded negatively to managers by behaving apathetically, using defense mechanisms, actively fighting the organization (i.e., creating a union or striking), or leaving for another job.
As one of the first authors to use the term organizational behavior in
print, Argyris stressed the disharmony and dissatisfaction of the individual
within a traditional organization. He predicted that the individual worker
would be more satisfied when a more productive relationship between the
individual and the organization existed. However, Argyris (1973) argued
that organizations developed this relationship in an inappropriate way by
adding work responsibilities through job enlargement.
Alarid / ARGYRIS’S THEORY
325
JOB ENLARGEMENT
Job enlargement was originally designed to increase an individual’s feeling of importance while circumventing worker passivity and organizational
dependence. Many city-supported agencies, including local law enforcement departments, expanded the beat officer’s job so that the officer would
feel valued. Job enlargement was used during the professional “super cop”
era of August Vollmer and O. W. Wilson in the 1920s. Although technological advances such as the telephone, two-way radio, and the automobile
assisted officers, political pressures mounted to improve the image and
performance of the police. The police officer role continued to expand
through the 1960s as society became increasingly dependent on the police
to solve its problems. Yet a 1969 Chicago survey found that when compared
with other city employees, Chicago police officers had lower morale and
trust in their employer. Researchers in the study questioned the feasibility of
the police military model to meet the needs of the modern organization
(Franz & Jones, 1987).
Research found that job enlargement did not significantly increase the
overall quality of life at work because job enlargement expanded responsibilities across the departmental hierarchy but did not increase autonomy
and independence (Argyris, 1973). If we applied this line of inquiry to the
development of community policing, job enlargement might be an outcome
if community policing is initially developed as an auxiliary unit rather than
department-wide. As an auxiliary unit, a small number of community officers may tend to feel overworked and underappreciated, especially if this
unit is assigned code enforcement, grants, and any community-related project that does not involve immediate arrest. Policing in this context may not
be understood by other law enforcement officers in the same department
who view themselves as performing the “real police work.”
Organizational theorists such as Herzberg recognized the downfall of job
enlargement. Herzberg (1968) developed the idea of job enrichment as a
way of increasing individual worker satisfaction.
JOB ENRICHMENT
Job enrichment linked work duties to Maslow’s (1954) higher order
needs of autonomy, self-respect, recognition, achievement, individual
growth, and status. Argyris concurred with Herzberg’s (1968) ideas about
326
POLICE QUARTERLY (Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1999)
job enrichment, and proceeded one step further. The job should be enriched
vertically so that it “enhances opportunity for the employee to experience
greater autonomy and control . . . lengthens the time perspective, and
decreases dependence and submissiveness upon the superior” (Argyris,
1973, p. 150).
Studies on job enrichment in policing suggest that the job could be
enriched by improving the quality of equipment, providing motivators for
professional growth, recognizing achievement, and increasing officer input
in decision making to decrease role stress, role conflict, and alienation
(Johnson, 1993; Souryal, 1981). An example of utilizing job enrichment
techniques in one federal law enforcement records unit increased worker
productivity by 63%, decreased absenteeism by 20%, and cut job turnover
in half (Witham & Mitchell, 1985).
How can community-oriented policing be internally structured and sustained to enrich the job of the street officer? Argyris would contend that
community policing must be initiated department-wide, so that all officers
are community police officers. Though job enrichment has been successful
in some areas of law enforcement, personality and organization theory did
not answer the question of why organizations and the workers within them
are slow to change to ideas and practices that are likely to increase job satisfaction, worker productivity, and decrease turnover.
What were the factors behind organizations that were slow to change?
Because it was not the organization itself that was slow to change but the
individuals inside the organization who impeded progress, the next step was
to determine the reasons why some individuals inside organizations did not
change, grow, and learn. In other words, why do some officers resist the
change and sometimes attempt to sabotage a department-wide change to
community policing? In an attempt to explain individual change resistance,
Argyris and Schon (1974) formally expanded personality and organization
assumptions into a theory of organizational learning that incorporated such
concepts as espoused theories of action, theories-in-use, single-loop learning, double-loop learning, and an individual’s master program.
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THEORY
Argyris devoted the greatest proportion of his research to developing and
testing concepts that distinguished various types of individual learning and
their subsequent influence on behavior. Argyris (1976a) defined learning as
“the detection and correction of errors” (p. 365). Error detection and
Alarid / ARGYRIS’S THEORY
327
correction had to be present together or else the learning process would be
inhibited. Furthermore, the amount and quality of learning depended on two
factors: (a) the amount of valid information available to monitor a decision
and (b) the existence of feedback. In many departments, community police
officers are still evaluated on traditional measures, such as arrest rates and
clearance rates. The individual, Argyris would argue, is not receiving the
proper feedback by the organization.
Argyris’s theory of organizational learning can be best explained by
examining the following three concepts: (a) theories of action versus theories-in-use, (b) single- loop versus double-loop learning, and (c) organizational defensive routines.
THEORIES OF ACTION VERSUS THEORIES-IN-USE
In their book, Argyris and Schon (1974) distinguished between espoused
theories of action and theories-in-use. Espoused theories of action were philosophies of behavior that consciously guided individual actions. In contrast, theories-in-use were unconscious and predictable reactions or mental
models determined by how people actually behave. The ideal goal is for
every worker in the organization to make their theories-in-use the same as
their espoused theories of action. Argyris (1982b) explained the difference
between the two theories in this way: “Although people do not behave congruently with their espoused theories [what they say], they do behave congruently with their theories-in-use [their mental models]” (p. 159). For
example, in law enforcement, an espoused theory of action would be the
training that new officers receive in the police academy. A theory-in-use,
then, would be the classic example of the field training officer who tells the
new recruit to “forget everything you learned in the academy.”
According to Argyris, workers with incongruencies between their
espoused theories and theories in use typically fall in two categories: either
they were not cognizant of their own discrepancies or they were aware of the
inconsistency but refused to change. When asked, most employees reported
that their coworkers had theories-in-use that were incongruent with
espoused theories in action (Argyris, 1975, 1976b, 1982a). Being unaware
was first thought to be caused by lack of feedback or a lack of training about
consistent values and behaviors. When both of these reasons were refuted,
Argyris and his colleagues turned to refusal to change as the main reason
why workers and managers who had received in-service training reverted
back to their old habits and ways of thinking in the workplace. In other
328
POLICE QUARTERLY (Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1999)
words, in a police department that is undergoing a change to community
policing for the first time or in an agency that is attempting to progress
toward a department-wide community police strategy, why do some
frontline and ranking officers, after having received training through seminars and workshops, knowingly return to traditional law enforcement philosophies and behaviors?
Argyris (1976a) concluded that theories-in-use were the most powerful
barrier to organizational change. He elaborated on three possible consequences of the hidden power of theories-in-use. First, people are perceptive
to the fact that they are being manipulated and controlled. Thus, working
environments tend to become more secretive and people are more apt to
behave in ways that move away from values that they genuinely support. A
second reason why theories-in-use continue to be applied is that new learning behaviors are difficult to test. The most pervasive reason was that even
when individuals know their old problem-solving methods are ineffective,
they continue to use these same methods because they are familiar, comfortable, and do not require conscious effort to change.
In organizational learning theory, one reason why some departments
claim that they are doing community policing but have not changed the
essential components to fully implement a lasting philosophy is that the key
individuals in the organization have not changed their old theories-in-use to
new community policing theories of action. The key players of the police
department to initiate organizational change begins at the top. To further
illustrate the applicability of the learning concepts, Argyris also introduced
Model I /single-loop and Model II /double-loop learning.
SINGLE-LOOP VERSUS DOUBLE-LOOP LEARNING
Model I theories-in-use are directly connected with single-loop learning,
the predominant model of most formal organizations including the military
model used in law enforcement. A single-loop learning environment is
laden with secrecy, unspoken mistrust between workers and supervisors,
defensiveness, unilateral control, and implicit loyalty to the boss (Argyris,
1976a; Franz & Jones, 1987). In unhealthy single-loop organizational environments, unilateral control, the “mini- Machiavellian” style of leadership,
inhibited adequate feedback and contributed to poor decision making. As a
result of the perceptions of the decision-making process, top administrators
reacted by further tightening control and secrecy (Argyris, 1976a).
Alarid / ARGYRIS’S THEORY
329
To avoid the negative consequences of a single-loop environment,
Argyris presented a double-loop model of learning. Double-loop learning,
or Model II behavior, consists of valid information, adequate feedback,
internal commitment, and free and informed choice. Furthermore, unilateral leadership is replaced by an open confrontation management style,
such as participatory management, to comprehensibly explore a wide range
of options and make the most effective decision possible.
The goal, then, in Argyris and Schon’s (1974) organizational learning
theory was to start with the individual by synthesizing personality and organization theory into a learning model. In other words, individuals had to
learn how to change Model I behavior to Model II behavior by means of
double-loop learning. To move from Model I to Model II behavior, it was
strongly recommended that individual workers and managers enlist the help
of an outside interventionist expert to recognize and question their own theories-in-use. In this way, the experienced consultant would work with small
groups of people or alone with each individual in a neutral manner irrespective of rank or position in the department.
Through his training experiences with organizations of different sizes
and types, Argyris (1975) found that most upper level administrators had
the capability to “develop irreversible changes toward Model II with four
weeks of full-time training” (p. 485). This was the case because the vast
majority of job behavior was assumed to be a product of the work environment rather than an innate trait. It is interesting to note that Argyris found
that people in top management positions learned double-loop methods at
the same rate as line workers. Thus, the rate of learning depended not on
organizational position but on individual desire to change inconsistent
espoused theories of action that control behavior.
In an effort to further refine how to change at both the individual and
organizational levels, Argyris (1983) introduced action science, a philosophy influenced by the work of Lewin (1952). In the action science plan,
Model I theories needed to be “unfrozen” to learn the desirable Model II
behavior. Learning occurred “whenever a match exists between intentions and outcomes and/or an individual detects and corrects an error—a
mismatch—between intention and outcome” (Argyris, 1982b, p. 116). The
ultimate goal of learning using action intervention was to know the appropriate situation to invoke Model I or Model II behavior. These concepts
assure us that in any organization wishing to make a change, including
police agencies, changing philosophical thinking and behavior inconsistencies must start at the top and descend by rank. Argyris also supports the use
330
POLICE QUARTERLY (Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1999)
of an outside consultant to work individually with each employee and in
small groups to make these changes.
Argyris stresses the importance of change in all areas of the organization:
selection, hiring, initial training, organizational mission, organizational
goals and objectives, in-service training, and evaluation for promotion and/
or merit. The intended change will not be achieved if any one of the areas
and/or individuals of the organization are not fully altered. For example,
some departments neglect the integration of community policing in the full
academy training. Rather, these departments retain the existing structure of
the academy, merely adding a section on community policing. Other departments neglect the evaluation component. Rather than evaluating officers on
numbers of problems solved, annual community surveys, and/or the contribution of problem solving to calls for service or the crime rate, officers are
evaluated on traffic citations, arrest rate, and index crimes. Many top
officials in organizations say they are “doing community policing,” but
one or more of the essential organizational components to make this philosophical transition is missing.
The next section builds on Argyris’s learning theory by addressing his
later research on barriers to valid information for effective organizational
decision making.
ORGANIZATIONAL DEFENSIVE ROUTINES
In 1985, Argyris first introduced the concept of organizational defensive
routines as a chief obstacle against change toward Model II behavior. Organizational defensive routines are “routinized policies or actions intended to
prevent the experience of embarrassment or threat” (Argyris, 1987, p. 456).
Defensive routines are not to be confused with such individual defense
mechanisms as denial, suppression, repression, displacement, and cognitive dissonance. Organizational defensive routines produced distorted or
mixed messages or “noise” over truthful, valid information required of
Model II behavior. Noise can be produced by either individual defense
mechanisms or organizational defensive routines, despite the fact that
new workers are hired to replace workers who leave the organization. An
example of noise in policing is the powerful influence of the officer
occupational subculture. Codes and norms such as cynicism, rigidity,
authoritarianism, and conservatism remain a large part of this impervious “Blue Code of Secrecy” that is reinforced by peer pressure (Skolnick,
1994). Many of these characteristics create a situation that makes change
Alarid / ARGYRIS’S THEORY
331
very difficult, especially because individual officers who operate outside
the blue code are ostracized by coworkers.
To demonstrate the harmful effects of organizational defensive routines
in the corporate world, Argyris used the case study method to design and
implement a learning strategy to be used by company leaders. The goal of
the strategy was to decrease organizational defensive routines and become
aware of discrepancies in individual thinking and behaviors. Argyris
believed that reasoning productively should begin at the top and continue
through the hierarchy to achieve overall organizational change. The first
step, therefore, was for leaders to acknowledge that organizational defensive routines existed in their organization. Second, leaders needed to be supportive of the idea that all individuals had inner discrepancies between
beliefs and actions. The overall goal of the training, therefore, was to produce lasting change on both individual and organizational levels.
While further explaining the shortcomings of organizational defensive
routines, Argyris (1989) explained mental models or master programs that
all individuals have as coping strategies for embarrassing or threatening situations. Although training will not erase individual master programs, individuals who are motivated to change will learn how to reason productively.
Productive reasoning meant that workers and managers separated personal
experiences and biases from the logical process of decision making at work.
In this way, a decision was open to scrutiny and questioning by others as to
what factors affected how the solution was attained. If the work environment is already based on double-loop learning, the decision maker will not
feel threatened by other colleagues or officers who question the decision
openly and honestly. Analytical analysis or productive reasoning was found
to be more effective than when individuals attempted to control a threatening situation (Argyris, 1990). Furthermore, workers who are not threatened
by questioning also develop strong beliefs of self-efficacy, attempt to master challenging tasks, and optimistically view error as an opportunity to
learn from past mistakes (Argyris, 1990). In this way, goals are accomplished and individuals feel a sense of control over the outcome.
What this means for police organizations is that department leaders have
to be willing to acknowledge that the officer subculture exists and to use the
subculture to support the initial change to community policing. Obtaining
group support is important, but the training must be on an individual level or
by using small groups of people who are not members of the same subcultural
group (e.g., mixing officers from different shifts/divisions or mixing sworn
officers with civilian personnel, different departments, and/or various ranks).
332
POLICE QUARTERLY (Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1999)
Grouping people who are less familiar with each other is advantageous
because there typically is less reputation to protect. If an attempt is made to
break the subculture apart, officers will more adamantly resist the change.
This approach would support Lord’s (1996) study, which found that the
higher the level of social support, the greater the individual ability to cope
with job stressors associated with organizational change. In some organizations, however, the subculture is so harmful to the department that it must be
disbanded before any positive change can occur at the individual level.
In two articles, “Education for Leading-Learning” (1993) and “Teaching
Smart People How to Learn” (1991), Argyris devoted a practical guide to
teaching top administrators (such as police chiefs) how to overcome learning blocks, defensive reasoning, and how to turn energy toward genuine
openness and overcoming a fear of failure. Research findings indicated that
the most successful administrators and managers tend to have high motivation and aspirations for success. However, unlike most people, top executives are “productive loners” and have not experienced the embarrassment
and threat that comes with failure. When faced with the possibility of failure, some of the most motivated and productive individuals tend to fall apart
because they lack productive reasoning skills (Argyris, 1991, 1993).
Argyris (1993) offered productive people with practical solutions. By
combining his research on a sample of almost 6,000 individuals studied in
the past 20 years, Argyris (1993) found that regardless of personality traits,
age, gender, ethnicity, education, and position in an organization, the vast
majority of individuals had difficulties in dealing with double-loop learning. Furthermore, organizations and managers in both capitalist and socialist countries had the same problems with organizational noise, invalid information, and single-loop learning (Argyris, 1978). Argyris’s research
supports the fact that learning problems in American organizations are not a
product of capitalism, nor do organizational defensive routines exist in isolation in this country. Many of the solutions Argyris provides are applicable
to both profit and nonprofit organizations around the world.
DISCUSSION
Community policing has been one of the most pervasive organizational
changes in policing in the past decade. The purpose of this article was to
provide a theoretical framework for explaining organizational barriers to
change. Argyris’s theory of individual personality within the organization
and organizational learning was suggested as a theoretical framework for
Alarid / ARGYRIS’S THEORY
333
law enforcement agencies in the process of adapting to community policing
philosophies and practices. In particular, Argyris’s theory suggests why
organizational change is important, possible barriers to organizational
change, and suggestions for overcoming change barriers. Once these obstacles are identified and understood, members of the organization can then
learn how to conquer their own inconsistencies before motivating others.
Organizational change is important to transform a Model I, single-loop
learning environment to a Model II, double-loop learning work environment. As a result of double-loop learning, Model II behaviors encourage
independent action based on valid information and free choice. The decision maker does not feel threatened by other officers or supervisors who
question their decision openly and honestly. Because there is a theoretical
presumption that learning leads to changes in actions and not merely comprehending new information, when individuals learn Model II behaviors of
questioning routines and outcomes, change is hypothesized to occur at the
organizational level. That is why recognizing the gap in what officers say
(theories-in-use) and what they do (theories in action) is critical to the learning process. Until this happens, no learning and lasting change will occur at
either the individual or the organizational level.
Well-planned, gradual change was viewed in this study as the least disruptive and most productive way toward organizational change. Incremental, piecemeal change was supported for departments implementing community policing (Strecher, 1997). Before implementing a department-wide
change to community policing, departments may wish to collect information about officer attitudes so that individuals who are more resistant to
change can be identified (Lurigio & Skogan, 1994). Furthermore, a baseline
study of such organizational factors as work environment, coworker relations, managerial relations, and job satisfaction is meaningful. Argyris’s
theory suggests that organizational factors have more impact on work satisfaction and worker adaptation than individual characteristics (Argyris,
1957).
This study explored the main reasons for organizational resistance. Two
reasons why some departments claim they are doing community policing
but have not changed the essential components to fully implement a lasting
philosophy is first, despite training in what community policing is, key individuals in the organization have not committed themselves to changing
their old theories-in-use to new community policing theories of action. A
change parameter resulting from this theory is that reasoning productively
starts at the top and continues through the hierarchy to achieve overall
334
POLICE QUARTERLY (Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1999)
organizational change. Leaders must first admit that organizational defensive routines exist in their organization, and they should also support the
idea that all individuals, including themselves, have inner discrepancies
between beliefs and actions. It is recommended that department chiefs be
the initial change instigators and not leave the implementation responsibility to other coworkers. Police chiefs should also manage the speed at which
the incremental change occurs (Glensor & Peak, 1996).
Second, organizational defensive routines, which prevent the experience
of individual embarrassment or threat, trap otherwise intelligent officers
and administrators into a state of skilled incompetence (Argyris, 1985).
People who are in a state of skilled incompetence never expose their own
thinking out of fear that others will find errors or to protect someone else
from criticism. Thus, skilled incompetence workers also prevent group
learning and contributions to groupthink. Furthermore, the blue code of
secrecy dictates that officers should protect and tolerate other officers at all
times, even when some have engaged in misconduct. To go against this code
and embarrass or expose incongruent behaviors of fellow officers creates a
stressful and isolated existence for individuals who wish to act as change
agents. To overcome these barriers to change, Argyris’s theory suggests that
individuals recognize and question their own theories-in-use and conquer
their own skilled incompetence with the help of an outside interventionist
expert. Organizational learning can be used at all levels in the organization
and it is possible for anyone in any position to decrease discrepancies in
their own behavior.
A final change principle for the learning organization is through team
building and collective learning to
recognize when people are not reflecting on their own assumptions, when they are not
inquiring into each other’s thinking, when they are not exposing their thinking in a
way that encourages others to inquire into it. . . . It is not the absence of defensiveness
that characterizes learning teams but the way defensiveness is faced. (Senge, 1990,
pp. 256-257)
How can these theoretical concepts be applied to research in criminal justice agencies? To study organizational phenomena, criminal justice researchers should be aware of the existence of theories of action (what
should be happening) and theories-in-use (what is really happening). This
underscores the need to understand the organization before the survey or interview instrument is developed so the researcher is clear on the nature and
extent of the problem.
Alarid / ARGYRIS’S THEORY
335
Researchers conducting future studies within criminal justice agencies
may wish to pay closer attention to internal organizational factors as important determinants in inducing change in worker job satisfaction and police
community relations. Most importantly, researchers should not overlook
Argyris’s most central premise of all—the capability of the individual to
induce lasting and productive organizational change.
Must all departments change their philosophy to community policing?
Argyris’s theory suggests that police departments would have more productive and satisfied workers making more effective organizational decisions if
police departments moved away from the military model, which Argyris
would most likely consider an archetype of futile, empty, and unproductive
Model I learning. At the same time, Argyris’s theory does not suggest that
community policing is the only direction for organizational change.
Argyris’s theory of organizational learning challenges administrators and
researchers to consider that police departments can be learning organizations by creating a functional Model II, double-loop learning environment
and achieving an institutionalized philosophy of community policing.
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: Harper.
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: John Wiley.
Argyris, C. (1965). Organization and innovation. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Argyris, C. (1973). Personality and organization revisited. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 141-167.
Argyris, C. (1974). Personality vs. organization. Organizational Dynamics, 3, 2-17.
Argyris, C. (1975). Dangers in applying results from experimental social psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 469-485.
Argyris, C. (1976a). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 363-375.
Argyris, C. (1976b). Theories of action that inhibit learning. American Psychologist, 31,
638-654.
Argyris, C. (1978). Is capitalism the culprit? Organizational Dynamics, 6, 20-37.
Argyris, C. (1982a). The executive mind and double-loop learning. Organizational Dynamics, 11, 5-22.
Argyris, C. (1982b). Reasoning, learning and action: Individual and organizational. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. (1983). Action science and intervention. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
19, 115-135.
Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy, change, and defensive routines. Boston: Pitman.
Argyris, C. (1987). Bridging economics and psychology: The case of the economic theory of
the firm. American Psychologist, 42, 456-463.
336
POLICE QUARTERLY (Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1999)
Argyris, C. (1989). Strategy implementation: An experience in learning. Organizational
Dynamics, 18, 5-15.
Argyris, C. (1990). Inappropriate defenses against the monitoring of organization development practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26, 299-312.
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69,
99-109.
Argyris, C. (1993). Education for leading learning. Organizational Dynamics, 21, 5-17.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dolan, H. P. (1994). Coping with internal backlash. Police Chief, 61, 28-32.
Franz, V., & Jones, D. M. (1987). Perceptions of organizational performance in suburban
police department—A critique of the military model. Journal of Police Science and
Administration, 15, 153-161.
Gaines, L. K., Kappeler, V. E., & Vaughn, J. B. (1997). Policing in America (2nd ed.).
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Geller, W. A. (1997, December). Suppose we were really serious about police departments
becoming learning organizations? National Institute of Justice Journal, 2-8.
Glensor, R., & Peak, K. (1996). Implementing change: Community-oriented policing and
problem solving. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 65, 14-21.
Greene, H. T. (1993). Community-oriented policing in Florida. American Journal of Police,
12, 141-155.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business
Review, 46, 53-62.
Johnson, R. A. (1993, January). Culture, mission, and goal attainment. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 24-25.
Kennedy, C. (1991). Instant management. New York: William Morrow.
Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. In T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley
(Eds.), Readings in social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 459-473). New York: Holt and Company.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lord, V. (1996). An impact of community policing: Reported stressors, social support, and
strain among police officers in a changing police department. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 503-522.
Lurigio, A. J., & Skogan, W. G. (1994). Winning the hearts and minds of police officers: An
assessment of staff perceptions of community policing in Chicago. Crime and Delinquency, 40, 315-330.
Malone, M. V. (1994). Key thinking strategies for future problem solving. Police Chief, 61,
29-35.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rosenbaum, D., Yeh, S., & Wilkinson, D. (1994). Impact of community policing on police
personnel: A quasi-experimental test. Crime & Delinquency, 40, 331-353.
Sadd, S., & Grinc, R. (1994). Innovative neighborhood oriented policing: An evaluation of
community policing programs in eight cities. In D. Rosenbaum (Ed.), The challenge of
community policing (pp. 27-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Alarid / ARGYRIS’S THEORY
337
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Skolnick, J. H. (1994). Justice without trial: Law enforcement in democratic society (3rd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Macmillan.
Souryal, S. S. (1981). Kojak Syndrome—Meeting the problem of police dissatisfaction
through job enrichment. Police Chief, 48, 60-64.
Strecher, V. G. (1997). Planning community policing. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Witham, D. C., & Mitchell, D. T. (1985). Higher performance through organization development. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 54, 7-11.
Witte, J. E., Travis, L. F., & Langworthy, R. H. (1990). Participatory management in law
enforcement: Police officer, supervisor, and administrator perceptions. American Journal of Police, 9, 1-23.
Wycoff, M. A., & Skogan, W. G. (1994). Effect of a community policing management style
on officers’ attitudes. Crime & Delinquency, 40, 371-383.
Zhao, J., Thurman, Q. C., & Lovrich, N. P. (1995). Community-oriented policing across the
U.S.: Facilitators and impediment to implementation. American Journal of Police, 14,
11-28.
Leanne Fiftal Alarid is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology/Criminal Justice & Criminology at the University of Missouri–Kansas
City. She received her Ph.D. in criminal justice from Sam Houston State University in 1996. She has published manuscripts in Justice Quarterly, Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Policing, and Journal of Correctional
Health Care. Her current research interests include community policing, theory, women offenders, and correctional policy.