Double Loop Learning

Single and double loop learning is a concept derived from Argyris and Schon’s theory of action (1978) that regards humans as the designer of an action in order to accomplish a certain goal. The action is then closely monitored with the results being assessed to ascertain its overall effectiveness (Greenwood, 1997).

Bateson (1972) claims that it is imperative for organisations to develop a sustainable form of organisational learning. This allows for greater adaptability in a competitive business environment that is both ever-changing and increasing in complexity.

Single Loop Learning

Romme and Witteloostuijn (1999) describes single loop learning as the process of making rudimentary changes and implementing the necessary corrective action.

Through single loop learning, if said action yields an unexpected result, feedback is taken and a different approach will thus be implemented.

Double Loop Learning

Argyris and Schon (1978) describes double loop learning as more of a transformational process. It involves altering an organisation’s prior knowledge and competency base. Snell and Chak (1998) explains this as viewing problems from a different perspective and as a result, develop new goals, policies and perceptions.

Argyris et al. (1985) states that key individuals within the organisation are required to construct conversational processes in which defensive reasoning and behaviour are present. It is however essential that this does not hamper the open inquiry process that is required for double loop learning to occur (Romme and Witteloostuijn, 1999).

Application

It is evident that Nestle first practised single loop learning before eventually adopting the double loop learning process.

Infant Formula

Thus, it dawned on them they lacked a strategic plan for public policy when dealing with such a sociopolitical conflict (Pagan, 1986). This intiated the formation of the Nestle Coordination Center For Nutrition, Inc. (NCCN) in 1981 and within 3 years, the boycott of Nestle products was suspended. Nestle achieved this by compiling information about their critics in order to implement the appropriate strategy to address accusations leveled at the organisation (Solomon, 1981). This in turn led to critics granting Nestle the right to be heard which ultimately allowed Nestle to ease their defensive stance and switch to a more accomodative stance (Pagan, 1986). One method employed by Nestle was by holding dialogue sessions with members of the media and church groups, their main critics at the