Action Science

I work in the upstream oil and gas industry and over the last few years the Society of Petroleum Engineers has generated some great discussion about decision making under uncertainty. This is a very relevant topic for an industry that excels in extracting oil from harsh environments in hard to reach locations and from politically challenging regions. The extraction of oil requires international, multi-company, multi-agency, multi-discipline, mega projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars to achieve its goals. All this leads to a high level of uncertainty around project outcomes and a requirement for good decisions to be made with limited knowledge.

I have found this exchange of ideas fascinating on both professional and personal fronts, but here I am going to deal mainly with the personal side. If you have looked at my pansapien website you will know that I grew up as a Christian and later in life I changed my mind. The earlier decision I had made no longer held water for me. My original decision was one made under uncertainty and I hadn’t properly applied a confidence level/likelihood to my conclusion. After revisiting that decision and applying new evidence and an associated uncertainty/confidence level my mind has been changed.

An important aspect to decision making in uncertain conditions is to understand human cognitive biases and seek to recognise our personal biases and reduce them as far as possible. To make the best decisions we need to use the best evidence available, not our own pre-existing preferences and views. But this is not something we humans do naturally as highlighted by 'Action Science' as developed by Chris Argyris.

Actions science suggests that we have an espoused theory of action which describes our values and how we like to think we behave (and normally do in everyday decisions of little importance). The ‘Espoused Theory’ is contrasted with the ‘Theory in Use’, which describes how we actually behave and make decisions when things are particularly threatening or important to us or there is a lot at stake. The table below compares these contrasting ways that we act.

Theory in Use (Model I)	Espoused Theory (Model II)
Used in threatening or important situations or where there is a lot at stake	Used in non-threatening situations or where there is not much at stake
Try to ‘win’ and to be in control	Try to be fair
Seek data that supports your objectives	Seek and value valid data
Act unilaterally in ways that inhibit inquiry Involve only stakeholders that agree with us	Involve other stakeholders in decision making

Ideally we would all use model II all of the time, but clearly that is not the case. Model I kicks in when something is very important to us and we want to be in control. When we operate using model I, or rely on others who are displaying model I behaviour, we are more likely to make errors of judgement. The consequence being that when we need to be our best we are often our worst at making decisions. Typically when operating in model I we will:

• Espouse our values (Model II behaviour)
• Act in ways that conflict with our espoused values
• Deny that a contradiction exists
• Make the subject un-discussable (and the fact it is un-discussable is also un-discussable)

An article in the Society of Petroleum Engineers magazine highlights that model I behaviour is especially apparent among religious groups because some issues are intensely important to a faith traditions. The table below shows how model I behaviour interferes with both religious and business behaviour for a single similar espoused value.

Typical Model I Behaviour	Model I Behaviour in Religion	Model I Behaviour in Business
Espouse values	Love your fellow man	People are our most important asset
Actual behaviour contradicts espoused values	Strive to control lives and beliefs of others	Layoffs in bad times; re-hire in good times Minimal training budgets
Deny that contradiction exists	Deny that contradiction exists	Deny that contradiction exists
Make contradiction un-discussable	Claim heresy Persecute dissenters (while proclaiming tolerance on all views and outwardly encouraging free and open discussion)	Persecute dissenters (“not a team player;” withhold promotions)

The intention of a person who displays model I behaviour is to exhibit confidence and reassurance, but they actually come across as inconsistent and incompetent. I don’t think someones judgement can be relied upon in the area where they display model I behaviour.