Introduction

This article explores the concepts of single-, double-, and triple-loop learning, drawing on insights from various sources and enriched with my own reflections and examples. It also presents an integrated model that connects performance management frameworks with organisational learning theory. The final chapter offers practical reflections on how organizations can evolve into genuine learning organizations, building the cultural and structural conditions that enable continuous improvement and transformation.

The classical learning cycle

Figure 1 represents the “classical learning cycle” as I chose to call it.

^{Elaborated on the basis of the summaries of , and which build on the learning approach of Bateson (1972) and its further developments by Argyris and Schön (1978). Assumptions classification adopted from .}

Performance management framework of a triple-loop learning organization

Figure 2 presents a synthesis I made from various sources. I believe this model of a performance management framework of a triple-loop learning organisation is applicable for all kinds of organization — especially governmental and not-for-profit, but also to purpose-driven companies and corporations that embrace sustainability as one of their guiding principles.

^{Figure 2 is elaborated on the basis of : the political and administrative planning and performance process ; the conceptual framework of performance ; the impact cycle (logical model) of PHINEO ; the planning and evaluation scheme on three levels of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) in . The short description of the learning loops are adopted from . The names of the areas are inspired by the “spheres” in . Underlined are the OECD DAC evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability). One criterion – coherence – could not be shown here. The origin of the names of the steps in the learning cycle (e.g., Assumptions – Actions – Results; Direction – Execution – Evidence) is given in a table at the end of this article.}

Let’s describe the learning loops.

Single-loop learning: Learning to improve existing strategy execution

Single-loop learning (Figure 3) is the most basic form of organizational learning. It refers to making adjustments to actions or processes in response to deviations from expected results — without questioning or altering the underlying goals, assumptions, or values that guide those actions. Organisational strategy – implicit or explicit – is taken as given .

In single-loop learning, we primarily examine our actions or behaviours. It is learning through trial and error: finding the best set of activities we expect to deliver the desired result. We strive to optimize, go faster, add more effort, and do things better.

Within the performance measurement system, single-loop learning is limited to the identification and correction of errors . We use indicators to understand whether strategic objectives are being implemented, review performance against targets or intentions and take corrective actions if necessary .

Organizations without well-formulated strategic objectives risk becoming fixed on achieving only operational goals (i.e. operational efficiency) and measuring whether planned activities are being achieved (or not) — and how well.

Single-loop learning focuses on doing the things right and challenges operational assumptions. Causality is addressed between actions and results: “What should we do in order to get a given result?” — often assuming that problems and their solutions are close to each other in time and space.

Although it is often said that the key question of double-loop learning is “Are we doing the right things?”, I believe this question—if interpreted narrowly in terms of actions — applies to single-loop learning. The logic is simple: As long as we focus on “doing”—that is, on actions and behaviours—we remain in the single-loop. Thus, even in single-loop learning, causality may be examined between objectives and activities, provided that the objectives themselves are not questioned.

When engaging in single-loop learning, we answer questions such as: “How should we proceed?” or “Who should make what, and how?”. We focus on procedures and rules .

Example of an operational assumption and single-loop learning:

A manager believes in a “healthy workload,” expressed in a specific number of open files per employee, which – if known – could reduce turnover in the team. The manager experiments year after year with different workloads, but high turnover persists. They can either continue experimenting (single-loop learning) or conclude that another factor may be causing the problem—a step toward double-loop learning.

Double-loop learning: Learning to revise and challenge strategy and its assumptions

In double-loop learning (Figure 4), deviations are not merely treated as errors to be corrected or problems to be solved. Instead, we begin questioning our ideas of how change happens and examine our causal assumptions. These reflections often lead to revising at least one strategic objective of the existing strategy.

I believe the fundamental question guiding double-loop learning is: “What are the right things we should aim to achieve, and how are they interconnected?”. Once we answer this question and revise our strategy accordingly, we gain insights into the right actions to take.

In a double-loop learning process, performance measurement information is used to challenge strategy and its components in order to revise or refine them . Causality is addressed between strategic components, such as resources, core competences or customer value proposition.

Example of double-loop learning:

A public administration follows the advice of an external consultant that intangible soft outputs such as trust are measurable (which in itself represents a triple-loop learning step, as it reflects a shift away from their former belief in “objective” indicators” – see next section). They identify and add trust as a strategic objective in their strategy and develop relevant indicators to measure it. They then explore ways to improve trust levels through process improvements and better customer interactions. Ultimately, performance improves, as confirmed by outcome indicators.

Triple-loop learning: Learning to measure and learning how to learn

Triple-Loop learning (Figure 5) is the deepest form of learning and involves principles. An organization questions its fundamental purpose, vision, and mission, as well as its prescriptive assumptions (norms, values, mental models, policies and interests) and paradigmic assumptions (deep beliefs, worldviews and philosophies) (adapted from ). At the same time, the organization develops a deeper understanding of its stakeholders’ evolving needs in a volatile and complex environment.

Triple-loop learning helps refine the lenses through which we see and make sense of the world, strengthening our understanding of the context in which the organization operates. Thus, causality is addressed between the real world and the picture of it that our perceptions generate. It enhances our awareness of our own limitations. The organization is learning how to learn.

A useful analogy is the discovery of wavelengths beyond visible light — perceptible for some animals but not for humans. Triple-loop learning allows us to “see” through others’ perspectives and recognize realities we have not lived, considered or measured.

In the triple-loop learning process, the organization assesses its ability to assess performance with the given performance indicators. It evaluates how good the performance indicators and key performance questions are in helping the organization to improve and learn. The organization learns how to measure.

Engaging in triple-loop learning, we begin to explore deeper questions: What is right? How do we decide what is right? And I would add: Why do we want to achieve the things we aim to achieve?

Example of a prescriptive assumption reflecting a failure of triple-loop learning:

Steve Ballmer, then-CEO of Microsoft, reacted to the launch of the first iPhone by saying: “$500, fully subsidized with a plan! I said, that is the most expensive phone in the world, and it doesn’t appeal to business customers because it doesn’t have a keyboard, which makes it not a very good email machine.”

This reflects a rigid prescriptive belief that mobile phones should have physical keyboards to appeal to business users. Microsoft failed to question whether its assumptions about user needs and value were still relevant. By not engaging in triple-loop learning, they remained prisoners of outdated norms.

Example of a paradigmic assumption reflecting a failure of triple-loop learning:

Consider the worldview that accepted slavery. Throughout the first half of the 19th century, leaders in the Southern U.S. states could not envision a future without the institution of slavery. Meanwhile, the transformative shift of the Northern States toward values like freedom, equality, autonomy, and competitive, egalitarian free-labor capitalism challenged this paradigmic assumption—one the Southern leadership was frightened to confront. (Free interpretation based on the Wikipedia article “Origins of the American Civil War”).

How to become a learning organization

I am aware that the title of this last chapter is ambitious and may seem pretentious. Please consider it an open invitation to build on these ideas.

Learning strategically means thinking strategically

Double-loop learning is also called “strategic learning” (Kaplan & Norton, 1996, in .

To become a double-loop learner, an organization must meet several critical conditions: formulate a clear, results-oriented strategy (see ); align its activities, projects and budget to that strategy; develop genuine KPIs in order to test strategic assumptions; and foster a performance-driven culture or an enabled learning environment (see (; ).

I believe the greatest challenge in transitioning from single-loop to double-loop learning is shifting the mindset from thinking in activities to thinking in objectives. Kurz und Kubek call this approach “impact orientation” and recommend starting from the desired results at outcome and impact levels. This requires learning to “clearly articulating strategic goals in language everyone will understand” and link them causally.

One effective way to assess whether an organization is capable of double-loop learning is to examine its strategy and review its strategic reporting and indicators—both provide strong signals of the organization’s learning maturity.

A learning organization means cultural transformation

I especially appreciate Bernard Marr’s description of an enabled learning environment, summarizing insights from Argyris & Schön (1978), Preskill & Torres (1999) and Peter Senge (1990):

“Most theorists agree that organizational learning takes place when individuals and teams engage in dialogue, reflection, asking questions, and identifying and challenging values, beliefs, and assumptions. An enabled learning environment is an organizational environment in which all employees are actively seeking new strategic insights, which are based on their understanding of strategy and the performance indicators collected, to allow them to challenge strategic assumptions, refine strategic thinking, to make better decisions and to learn. The word ‘enabled’ stresses the fact that employees are also enabled or empowered to use strategic insights. Having insights about how to improve things without the authority to do something about it, is often a source of employee frustration.”

I believe becoming a double-loop learner is not a prerequisite for taking triple-loop learning steps — if anything, the reverse may be true. For example, an organisation must first change its culture to allow employees to seek new strategic insights and challenge strategic assumptions. This means that strategy – and not merely the strategy execution plan (which I often observe in many organizations) – should be explicitly communicated to employees. In other words, to foster the ability to learn, organizations must end the structural and functional division of thinking, doing, and deciding .

One enabler of a performance-driven culture is an uncompromising commitment to honesty and truth: without honesty and truth, there can be no trust, and without trust, there can be no performance-driven culture . Stacey Barr speaks of a high-performance culture that values “undiluted truth as the only way to wisdom”, implying a greater tolerance for accurate bad news than for inaccurate good news .

In a learning organisation, the performance measurement system is not used to control people’s behaviour — because this inhibits learning . Measuring people causes dysfunctional behaviour . Even worse, when people are in a state of fear or defensiveness, they cannot be creative — and without creativity, there can be neither genuine learning nor innovation. Measurement should be used for improvements, not for judgement . High-performance organisations see measures as tools in people’s hands, not rods for their backs .

At this point, I decided to publish the article and continue refining these ideas in the future.

What did I learn while writing this text? That the “classical learning cycle” may itself need adjustment:

Origin of the names of the steps in the learning cycle

Step 1	Step 2	Step 3	Step 4	Source
Assumptions	Actions	Results	Context	The concept of Triple Loop Learning of Argyris & Schön in
Direction	Execution	Evidence	(Decision)	The three leadership habits of evidence-based leadership and The organisational habits that evidence-based leaders inspire
Plan	Do	Study	Act	The PDSA cycle of Deming (1993) in
Objectives	Activities	Indicators	–	The Management Triangle
Thinking	Doing	Reflecting	Deciding	Learning process of Kolb (1984) in , with modified order
Questions	Actions	Observations	Reflections	Action inquiry cycle of learning
Define strategy	Execute strategy	Measure performance	Review and discuss performance	Performance management learning cycles , supplemented

References