Many years ago I read Agryris and Schon (1996) Organisational Learning II, Theory Method and Practice. It is a transformational book.
Agryris and Schon explained that we all hold beliefs, ethics, values, ontologies and orientations that are rarely articulated. They called these ‘espoused theories’, even though these beliefs are often not spoken. These are beliefs that are given away in the language people speak, in Poetics. You just have to be attuned to listening and hear what people say. For example, I have a friend who talks a lot about charity work and caring for others but this is mixed in with constant talk about money and economics in his private life. In his private life his vice is very much about greed and accumulation yet his espoused theory is about charity.
A sure give away of beliefs (espoused theory) is hidden in the metaphors we use. In this regard Metaphors We Live By is a must read. We speak metaphors unconsciously, without much awareness of what we are really saying. For example, one can use all kinds of aspirations about blame, care, helping and safety but then contradict those aspirations with metaphors that are mechanistic and technicist in nature (https://safetyrisk.net/safetys-hidden-metaphors/). I see this all the time in Human Factors (HF) discourse. Despite the use of the language of ‘human’, most of what is espoused is mechanistic, behaviouristic and systemic in nature. So much of the Discourse is about the power of control and the controls of power, not about persons.
So, even with all the language in HF discourse, there is complete silence about many critical ‘’factors of about the existential and phenomenon nature of being human. This is illustrated in the following diagram.
So many of the critical factors of being a whole person are not part of Human Factors discourse. This is evident in the dominance of language that is technicist in nature. It’s drive by an ideology of measurement not, an understanding of the human person.
This is also evident in the language of HOP, where the ideology of ‘safety performance’ dominates most of the aspirational discourse. Whilst its slogans (not principles) are adored by Safety, much of its language is about traditional safety. Moreso, the nature of HOP is such that it has no clearly articulated methodology or methods. Much of its language and semiotics are brain-centric and contained within a traditional safety approach to training.
On the other side of the ledger to ‘espoused theory’ is ‘theories-in-use’. These are the practices of those beliefs, the doing and methods that often reveal belief or incongruence with belief.
You can read more about the work of Agryris and Schon here: https://aral.com.au/resources/argyris2.html
Agryris and Schon argued that congruence between ‘espoused theory’ is ‘theories-in-use’ was essential for effective messaging and learning.
What is also associated with the work of Agryris and Schon are three modes of learning, this is called ‘Triple Loop Learning’. We have discussed this before in many of our books (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/risk-makes-sense/) and here: https://safetyrisk.net/culture-silences-in-safety-language/
In Single Loop Learning is the type of learning that compels you to tweak or adjust a method and, in so doing, make incremental or sustaining change. It ensures that you’re “doing-things-right”. And it happens in the moment, as a result of tracking and monitoring. You can elicit Single-Loop Learning by defining KPIs and targets. Single loop learning is mostly instrumental ‘training’ NOT learning. It just achieves the adjustment of concepts and ideas but nothing really moves.
In Double Loop Learning is the type of learning that compels you to rethink your strategy and, in so doing, make a substantial or breakthrough change. It ensures that you’re “doing-the-right-thing”. And it happens as a result of analysis and insights into cause-and-effect. You can elicit Double-Loop Learning by developing comprehension of ideas.
- Triple Loop Learning compels you to fundamentally rethink your purpose and, in so doing, push towards disruptive or transformational change. It ensures you’re “doing-what-matters”. And it happens as a result of reflection, mindfulness, and personal growth. Triple loop learning is evidenced in change in orientation, energy and direction. Without movement, there is no learning.
These three loops in learning are best symbolised by Ashhurst:
We see the same kinds of loops and movements in the development of anti-fragility (https://safetyrisk.net/fragility-resilience-and-antifragility-in-risk/).
Much of this discussion has to do with congruence between what is said and what is done.
It is also about the congruence of methods with what is said.
The challenging question for any of the fads and spin that floats about safety has to be: ‘OK, but what do I do?’
Once the conference is ended and the entertainment dies down and the noise ceases, you return to work in safety and what do you do? A change in attitude or language must also be anchored to a change in method. If your slogans don’t generate movement in learning then it’s just a collection of ideas at a conference with stories, entertainment, aspirations and anecdotes but no learning has occurred. There is no change or movement on Monday.
If you are interested in a new methodology and learning you can see what SPoR does and ask for coaching here: admin@spor.com.au
If you want to learn about Holistic Ergonomics and what it offers for change in HF methods you can register for the Conference in February here: https://novellus.solutions/mec-events/social-psychology-of-risk-conference-spor-europe-2026/
This is a conference where you will walk away with practical and positive methods that will change the way you do risk.
If you want to learn more about the way language affects risk, you can attend the free two-hour Poetics workshop to be held this Wednesday 10 December (https://safetyrisk.net/free-2-hour-workshop-poetics-with-dr-long/) you can register for this free workshop here: admin@spor.com.au
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- Supervision, Managing the In-Between, On-line Program - January 12, 2026
- The Blame Game in Safety - January 12, 2026
- Safety Investigations – Are they VUCA, BANI, or Wicked? - January 12, 2026
- Using The Label of ‘Science’ to Validate Safety Mythology - January 9, 2026
- Who is Responsible? - December 27, 2025
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below