The first part in this series introduced the idea of espoused theories and theories in use. It also raised the possibility that the principles each of us consciously support might not be what are actually shaping our behavior and decisions.
But what does this look like in practice?
In our consulting work we were once presenting these concepts when the CEO of a heavy manufacturing firm jumped from his chair and hurried out of the room.
Returning a few minutes later, he explained that while he profoundly believed that all employees were trustworthy partners in a common enterprise, he had scheduled time clocks to be installed on the floor of his factory that very day.
Despite the egalitarian beliefs he espoused, he said, he realized that his actions revealed a theory-in-use that factory workers could not be trusted as fully as office workers.
Dismayed and unwilling to accept the double standard implied by his behavior, he had stepped into the hall to cancel the installation.
Because all of us sincerely believe the values we espouse, we rarely spot contradictions within ourselves. We are biased toward a logical and consistent view of our actions, and we therefore tend to see just about what we expect to see in our behavior.
But here is the rub: just as we clearly see the disconnects in other people—the “open door” supervisor who hates interruptions, the “give me honest feedback” associate who prickles at any perceived criticism — those same people see the discrepancies that exist within us.
It’s important to again stress that these incongruities should not be mistaken for hypocrisy. The classic case of the manager who champions the cause of employee empowerment while micro-managing in actual practice provides a good example.
Though some might pay lip service to empowerment for the sake of “optics”, most mangers honestly support it and think they practice it. It just happens that, in actual fact, they do not. The strength of their espoused theories fools them into thinking that their behavior is something other than what it is.
The challenge facing all of us, therefore, revolves around the idea that the things we ardently believe in might have little or nothing to do with the choices we make in our day-to-day interactions.
It is not only possible, but likely, that in certain areas of life, we really don’t know how we act. Or, more accurately, that our perception of our behavior differs significantly from the perceptions of everyone else with whom we interact.
Building greater coherence between our espoused theories and our theories in use is therefore one of the central aims of the discipline of reflective leadership.
The third and final installment of this series will explore ways to pursue this coherence between beliefs and behaviors.