Managing Diversity Through Triple-Loop Learning

Introduction

In the United States, diversity has been one of the most popular business topics of the last few decades. The rapid development of technology has allowed many companies to expand their businesses globally, and as globalization has become the new normal, diversity has moved to the center of systems, increasing the need for redefining diversity strategies in organizations (Anand & Winters, 2008). Various diversity-related changes and environmental forces (e.g., legislations, demographics, competitors) have functioned as feedback loops for organizations to continuously adapt to those changes, and organizational learning has been an essential approach for going through demands of such adaptive processes.

As a result, companies have experienced a significant change in their mode of practice from promoting diversity to including diversity (Cox, 1991; Wentling & Palma-Rivas, 2000). Specifically, in the initial stage, diversity simply meant observable differences that make individuals unique and differentiated; however, as time went on, its definition started to embrace a range of nonobservable differences as a means for inclusion (Loden & Rosener, 1991). Thereupon, Roberson (2006) attempted to empirically test the constructs of diversity and inclusion, with the goal of examining whether there was a substantial change between the two. The data showed the conceptual distinction between the attributes of diversity and inclusion, providing implications on understanding the current approach that each organization takes to diversity management and identifying strategic ways to create a more inclusive organization from the given state of affairs. However, the current language of inclusion inherently has a blind spot of presupposing the existence and othering of minorities. Also, the prior literature on organizational learning in diversity management has heavily focused on how to maximize learning outcomes from diversity in ways that increase organizational effectiveness, creativity, and innovation; yet, no study has ever tried to understand how organizations have learned to develop, or could learn to proactively change the practice of diversity management (Cox, 1991; Wentling & Palma-Rivas, 2000). These are problematic both theoretically and practically if we were to move beyond the practice of inclusion and really create just and equal workplaces for all.

Then, what is the next paradigm of diversity management where organizations truly embody and enact the value of diversity? What kinds of organizational learning are necessary to move beyond the rhetoric of inclusion? How can we create systems where both diverse individuals and an organization can coexist in mutually transforming ways, and interdependent relationships hold each other for the sake of a greater collective good? These are some of the major questions that this article aims to address. Thus, the purpose of this article is twofold. First, we explain how the meaning of diversity has evolved in organizations along with that of inclusion from the organizational learning perspective, by using the concepts of single- and double-loop learning. Second, we propose that by engaging in triple-loop learning, organizations could open a new era of management and ontologically reshape the existing paradigms of diversity management. To do so, we will first look at three past and current paradigms of diversity management.

Three Paradigms of Diversity Management

In an effort to structurally understand the history of diversity management in various business contexts, Thomas and Ely (1996) provided its three different paradigms: discrimination and fairness, access and legitimacy, and learning and effectiveness. First of all, the discrimination and fairness paradigm emerged in response to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, physical ability, and so on. As a result of its enactment, companies with more than 15 employees had to treat their employees fairly, without any discrimination in all aspects of their operations. This paradigm is characterized by legislation and compliance. If discriminatory actions were taken and subsequently reported, companies had to correct their practices to avoid being accused by the victims of said discrimination. Because companies did not want to be involved in costly lawsuits, which present negative corporate images to customers, training was provided to managers in ways that focused simply on delivering information regarding legal requirements. Diversity training was not deemed as the company’s priority, but something that had to be minimally considered because of its unavoidability. Dass and Parker (1999) described this strategy as the episodic approach, wherein employers view diversity as a marginal issue. Diversity initiatives under this approach are typically isolated from core business functions.

Second, a shift from the discrimination and fairness paradigm to the access and legitimacy paradigm occurred along with the Hudson Institute’s landmark study, Workforce 2000, in 1987. Workforce 2000 predicted that by the new millennium, the demographic composition of the American workforce would include more women and minorities (Johnston & Packer, 1987). Such an analysis enabled the conversation on diversity to progress beyond how to comply with legal mandates to how to better assimilate the increasing number of women and ethnic minorities into the existing corporate culture (Anand & Winters, 2008). Thus, diversity training at that time was primarily targeted to underrepresented groups in the workplace so that they could easily adapt to, and effectively work with, the dominant groups within the current system. Also, in many cases, bilingual minority employees were simply placed in the customer service department, with the market-based idea that as they were more accessible to diverse customers, they could more effectively serve such demographics by using different languages. Dass and Parker (1999) explained this strategy as the freestanding approach. This approach is generally taken by employers who regard diversity as a crucial but still side issue, and so they end up formalizing diversity initiatives without fully incorporating them into core business activities.

Third, since the late 1990s, the learning and effectiveness paradigm has come to gain attention as diversity was understood as one of the most important sources of companies’ competitive advantage. IBM was one of the representative companies that led this market breakthrough. With the growing number of women and minorities in the workforce, companies began to think about ways in which they could cultivate such employees to their fullest potential rather than assimilating them to the existing corporate culture and, thus, limiting their chances to contribute to business outcomes. The notion of diversity was expanded from primary dimensions, which are mostly visible (such as race, gender, physical ability, age, or sexual orientation), to secondary dimensions including education, geography, personalities, or thinking and communication styles (Loden & Rosener, 1991). Companies started to accept, include, and celebrate various forms of differences that individual employees bring to the business table and utilize them as the starting point of creativity and innovation, which are deemed to be the most crucial competences in doing business in the 21st century. Such a perspective of diversity was significantly different from those of the previous two paradigms in that it was a fundamental shift in employers’ mind-sets and assumptions about diversity, whereas the former two at best expected and attempted behavioral alteration. Also, to sustain this change, companies realized that diversity should not be assigned to a few-days-long program, but viewed more as an ongoing business process in which employees constantly learn about diversity and integrate it systematically with core business functions (Anand & Winters, 2008). Dass and Parker (1999) named this strategy the systemic approach, wherein diversity is employed as the core business strategy, and thus spread throughout and embedded into all levels of the organization. Unlike in the episodic and freestanding approaches, all diversity initiatives are actively interconnected under the company’s entire mission and vision. Table 1 offers a wholistic view of these three paradigms adpated from the work of Thomas & Ely (1996), Anand & Winters, 2008 and Dass & Parker, 1999.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Comparison of Three Paradigms of Diversity Management.

	Discrimination and fairness	Access and legitimacy	Learning and effectiveness
Time frame	Mid-1960s	Late 1980s	Late 1990s
Background	Legislation	Workforce diversification	Market breakthrough
Purpose	Compliance to laws and regulations	Assimilation of minority workforce	Attainment of competitive advantage
Criteria of diversity	Demographics	Demographics	Human differences
Level of integration	Minimum	Medium	Maximum
Approach	Episodic	Freestanding	Systemic

Source. Adapted from Thomas & Ely, 1996; Anand & Winters, 2008 and Dass & Parker, 1999.

Single- and Double-Loop Learning

The term single- and double-loop learning was first introduced by organizational theorists Argyris and Schon in 1974. Single-loop learning is defined as an attempt to solve problems with minimal variation in method, without questioning underlying assumptions about how work is supposed to be done (Argyris & Schon, 1974). In the organizational context, it is a mere behavioral change that aims to resolve a problem. Its interest is in finding out what the problem is and ways in which things could be done more effectively, rather than asking why the problem occurs.

In contrast, double-loop learning is defined as a process of inquiring into the assumptions or mental models that govern our actions (Argyris & Schon, 1974). It is a total reframing of our cognitive schema, which could lead to fundamental changes in our behavior. In this sense, behavioral changes derived from double-loop learning are more powerful and transformative than those from single-loop learning because the former entails a deep-level change in our cognitive framework.

From the Discrimination and Fairness Paradigm to the Access and Legitimacy Paradigm: Single-Loop Learning

In the context of diversity management, the transition of companies from the discrimination and fairness paradigm to the access and legitimacy paradigm can be explained by applying the concept of single-loop learning. Thinking about the motivation to change, the impetus here was to cope effectively with increasing numbers of women and minorities in the workforce. Companies would have realized that this growth of a diverse workforce was an inevitable labor market trend and that passively complying with laws and regulations would no longer work as before, when lawsuits were rare and their impact on business was negligible. Companies might have been uncomfortable about this situation as they in fact had little interest in these populations. However, they had to follow these trends because they did not have any control over them. As a result, training was provided with the goal of assisting women and minorities to better accommodate the existing corporate culture and system because this was the minimal effort that companies could make without ignoring or abandoning these minority groups, and corresponded with the original perspective of companies on diversity. The process illustrated above demonstrated single-loop learning in that there was no fundamental change in companies’ understanding of diversity. Although the way companies responded to the problem had changed from compliance to accommodation, it still operated under the same assumption, that diversity was a marginal issue in business, and thus, the possibility of utilizing it as the key business strategy could not even be considered.

From the Access and Legitimacy Paradigm to the Learning and Effectiveness Paradigm: Double-Loop Learning

However, when attempting to proceed from the access and legitimacy paradigm to the learning and effectiveness paradigm, single-loop learning was not sufficient. To accomplish this transformation, double-loop learning was required because companies had to replace their old mentality, that diversity was no use in business outcomes, with a new mind-set that explored its possibility. It should also be noted that the word transformation, instead of transition or change, was intentionally used here to better describe the nature of double-loop learning. Double-loop learning would have started with challenging the underlying logic of the current standpoint on diversity. Companies might have identified high-performing minority employees and asked themselves why they had not perceived these employees as competent enough to make significant contributions to success in the market. Moreover, in constructing the meaning of diversity, they might have challenged themselves by asking why they had been so narrowly defining diversity as a means for differentiating employees. Companies decided to use a broader and more inclusive definition of diversity that encompasses all types of human differences, which could then be applied to everybody. Hence, recognizing the economic value of a diverse workforce, companies strategically integrated diversity with key business activities across all levels of the organization and created an inclusive environment in which all employees could demonstrate their fullest potential.

Figure 1 describes the main argument of this article. As demonstrated, we assert that single- and double-loop learning can explain the paradigm shifts of diversity management, respectively. Although each diversity management paradigm has been outlined in a historical order to help readers understand its background, this does not imply that the development of diversity management practices in all companies has followed such a timeline. We also do not claim that single- and double-loop learning are single factors that affect the paradigm shifts of diversity management. The point here is to conceptually apply organizational learning theories (e.g., single- and double-loop learning) to understand the changes in diversity management practices, and to propose transformation toward a new paradigm with the notion of triple-loop learning, which will be discussed shortly.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Paradigm shifts of diversity management.

Triple-Loop Learning

We will now turn our attention to triple-loop learning and understand what implications could be drawn from this type of complex form of learning in the realm of diversity management. Whereas the conceptualization of single- and double-loop learning is grounded in a firm consensus among researchers, the review of literature on triple-loop learning shows that the definition of the term still varies (Bateson, 1972; Nicolaides & McCallum, 2013; Peschl, 2007; Torbert, 2004; Tosey & Matheson, 2008; Tosey, Visser, & Saunders, 2012). However, despite this lack of agreement, the common understanding of triple-loop learning is that it is a form of learning that goes beyond single- and double-loop learning. It is a form of learning that has the potential to transform the very deepest parts in ourselves. It serves as the basis for processes of the most fundamental and profound change, or in other words, radical innovation in ourselves (Peschl, 2007).

In answering the question of what triple-loop learning means, Bateson’s (1972) notion of four levels of learning provides valuable insights. Learning 0 is a response to stimuli, but no change is made accordingly. Learning I is a change within the same set of alternatives, so this is similar with Argyris and Schon’s single-loop learning. Learning II is about changing the set of alternatives and sheds light on the way meaning is given to behavior by punctuating or organizing experiences differently; thus, this is comparable with double-loop learning. As for Learning III, Bateson (1972) asserted that it occurs “in the sequences in which there is profound reorganization of character” (p. 273), stating that “the concept of ‘self’ will no longer function as a nodal argument in the punctuation of experience” (p. 275). Thereupon, Tosey et al. (2012) explained that Learning III is rather a change in the entire grammar system, a change in the system of sets of alternatives or whatever governs the governing variable of action.

That is, if single-loop learning is focused on the nature of “doing” and figuring out the most effective way to accomplish goals, and double-loop learning is concerned with the nature of “knowing” and challenging what the right goals are to be pursued, then triple-loop learning is related to the nature of “being” and reshaping our intentions, purposes, and motives (Bateson, 1972; Nicolaides & McCallum, 2013; Torbert, 2004; Tosey & Matheson, 2008). It is a conscious effort to purposefully change our way of being that influences our way of knowing and doing. Peschl (2007) explained that the domain of triple-loop learning is extended to the level of existence. Likewise, Nicolaides and McCallum (2013) described this change as a figure ground shift from a binary view of one’s epistemology or one’s ontology, to engaging both paradoxically for the benefit of timely action. It no longer concerns only behavioral revision or cognitive reframing, but transcends both in dealing with adaptive challenges. It occurs at the most profound level within an individual, and thus is so powerful that it frees us from the constraints of ourselves and opens up the possibilities inherent in our choices and actions. In this respect, triple-loop learning is a total re-creation of oneself. It is a process of experiencing the unexperienced and a journey of exploring the unexplored.

Once such an existential shift occurs within us, we become continuously aware of our actions. Torbert (2004) described the process of such an inquiry as reflection-in-action. Reflection-in-action is distinguished from reflection-on-action, which we typically understand as a process of learning from experience, in that it is rather a process of learning within experience (Fisher, Rooke, & Torbert, 2003; Torbert, 1999; Torbert, 2004). Although we critically look back on our past actions through a double-loop inquiry, action and reflection take place simultaneously when engaged in a triple-loop inquiry. Torbert (1999) described the process of triple-loop learning as changing the very quality of one’s present awareness. During the moment of triple-loop inquiry, our level of awareness is so open and powerful that we can even discern the applicability of double-loop learning to our current situation, and take purposeful action accordingly. Thus, this in-the-moment inquiry is phenomenological, real-time, and continuous. Consequently, building a capacity for triple-loop learning and actually being engaged in this process allow us to be transformed constantly, and thus, such transformation is sustainable. This characteristic of continuity and sustainability is why an existential change is derived from triple-loop learning.

However, it is important to understand that the hierarchy of this multilevel approach to learning is not a matter of superiority. Although it might look like triple-loop learning is more sophisticated, and thus more desirable, than single- and double-loop learning, more complex forms of learning, such as triple-loop learning, are not better than other levels of learning in any absolute sense (Bateson, 1972; Tosey et al., 2012). Learning loops occur simultaneously, recursively, and dynamically, not sequentially: The multilevel approach to change is not a hierarchical theory that moves from lower levels to higher levels (Bateson, 1972). The different levels of learning should not be understood as simply linear or unidirectional, rather as increasingly more complex forms of learning where more complex forms of learning naturally entail other levels of learning. Hence, the relationship between single-, double-, and triple-loop learning is potentially interdependent and should be carefully viewed from a holistic perspective (Bredo, 1989).

Another area that requires a cautious and further investigation is the empirical evidence of triple-loop learning. Although the conceptualization of triple-loop learning provided above demonstrates the establishment of a fairly robust understanding of the phenomenon, scant empirical studies have been conducted to test and confirm the effects of triple-loop learning (Tosey et al., 2012). One of the few exceptions is the case of Endenburg Elektrotechniek in the Netherlands analyzed by Romme and van Witteloostuijn (1999); however, neither the concept of triple-loop learning nor its organizational impacts were discussed comprehensively. Rather, their research provided the description of the processes of how this company designed its system where single- and double-loop learning could occur, which they regarded as a feature of triple-loop learning. Therefore, to enhance the theoretical development and practical application of triple-loop learning, more empirical research on its individual and organizational effects must be undertaken. Table 2 summarized the key effects of each form of learning.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Comparison of Three Loops of Learning.

	Single-loop learning	Double-loop learning	Triple-loop learning
Purpose	Effective problem solving	Questioning fundamental assumptions	Continuous inquiry for timely action
Type of question asked	What	How	Why
Process	Revising methods and tactics	Reframing problems and situations	Re-creating visions and intentions
Dimension	Behavioral (doing)	Cognitive (knowing)	Existential (being)

Moving Beyond Inclusion: Triple-Loop Learning

Then, what would companies look like in managing diversity if triple-loop learning occurs? To provide a critical conceptualization of triple-loop learning in the context of diversity management, the following discussion will be based on the empirical framework of Frederic Laloux, who is one of the few futurist management scholars in the world. We chose him, given a limited number of empirical studies available, as his research aligns with the kinds of change that triple-loop learning could bring, even though he did not mention anything related to it specifically. And more important, we thought his key findings serve as a good basis for delineating the impacts of triple-loop learning at individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels and their interrelatedness. In his recent work, Laloux (2014) explored how organizations would look in the future from the evolutionary approach. After providing each stage of human history along with the dominant management paradigm, respectively, he posed the question of what will come next given the current paradigm of cultural management. To answer this question, he located about 20 organizations around the world in various industries, which have been practicing the so-called “emerging management paradigm.” Despite their differences in geographic locations and industries, they surprisingly had several fundamental similarities, which can be summarized as (a) self-management, (b) wholeness, and (c) evolutionary purpose (Laloux, 2015b).

First, self-management is to generate distributed intelligence or authority. Laloux (2014, 2015a, 2015b) pointed out that previous management paradigms had a belief that there should be a single boss who manages his or her subordinates; however, these leading organizations did not have any hierarchy in their systems, and everybody had power, authority, and autonomy to question others’ underperformance as well as to engage in their own work. They somehow created their unique way of decision making and distinctive operating mechanisms without power coming from the top. Triple-loop learning would enable such a practice of power and mutuality between the part and the whole. As diversity comes to an existential dimension of ourselves, companies would transform in ways that simultaneously value various individual differences and secure the maintenance of the system. Self-management is a well-articulated form of the interdependence between the two, which would bring the spirit of egalitarianism to all employees. The respect toward diversity of individuals would serve them to hold each other accountable as well as to be responsible for their own duties so that the entire system does not lose its direction and focus. The distributed authority would also create a horizontal organizational structure and an equal decision-making process, where all voices of employees, regardless of their backgrounds, are carefully heard and reflected.

Second, wholeness has to do with bringing one’s own authentic self to organizational participation. Rather than disguising themselves with professional selves, people are encouraged to come from deeper inner places to be more authentic, trustful, and soulful (Laloux, 2014, 2015a, 2015b). Triple-loop learning would generate the conditions for the presence of authenticity from within the deepest parts of ourselves. By bringing greater attention to the alignment between our intention and action, there would be greater capacity to move beyond the self-protective actions that dominate most organizational participation (Kegan & Lahey, 2016). Wholeness, as a way of participating in organizational life would produce a figure ground shift in the ways diversity is accepted and engaged. Furthermore, this individual transformation would change the nature of employees’ interpersonal relationships. For example, in contrast to common conceptions of coworkers, as those with whom one had to collaboratively work despite various differences and challenges, coworkers could be now viewed as friends bound by mutual trust who happen to work together. In the latter perspective, the willingness to acknowledge and adjust to the differences between employees would be premised in working with them. The possibility of mutuality by bringing open-minded, authentic selves to workplaces could generate a sense of a mini-community wherein mutual inquiry is practiced, deepening our awareness and guiding our actions as we engage with each other (Torbert, 1999).

Third, evolutionary purpose is to view organizations as living organisms that naturally evolve, grow, and develop. All the earlier management paradigms have been characterized by predict and control (Laloux, 2014, 2015a, 2015b), either through power, structures or rules, or scientific strategies. Even culture has been a way to pursue managerial goals to become more engaging, motivating, and ultimately to be more productive. Instead, the examined leading organizations trusted the directions that their organizations were taking to be creative and successful. Triple-loop learning would allow companies to invite more flexible being. In relation to diversity, instead of companies purposefully trying to manage and utilize diversity in ways that maximize its profitability, they would let diversity be embedded in all parts of the system as a crucial process of evolution. True acceptance of diversity would become the heart of the business with the belief that it would lead to success and prosperity even though the how, would be undeterminable. Such an existential shift would also be then demonstrated through the reframing of diversity as integral to the core mission and vision of the company. This is different from most of the companies under the current paradigm of diversity management, who typically view such vision and mission statements as symbolic representations of their willingness to invest in it. Employees would continuously learn from within diversity with genuine attitudes that diversity allows freedom, has potential, and brings possibilities.

Figure 2 describes each form of loop learning in the context of diversity management. Part A shows the result of single-loop learning. Diversity is accepted to legitimize market diversification, yet without full appreciation of its value. Diversity is still a side issue and evaluated solely based on visible demographic characteristics. This type of diversity inclusion is merely a way to effectively cope with changing workforce composition. Part B depicts the outcome of double-loop learning. With the realization that diversity can be a source of a company’s competitive advantage, it becomes one of its most crucial strategies, and thus is placed in the center of the organization. The criteria for diversity are also expanded from simple demographic characteristics to multiple human differences. This type of change is transformative as it is accompanied by a cognitive reframing of diversity. Part C illustrates the potential impact of triple-loop learning. Values of diversity are expected to be embedded in the process of organizational growth through continuous learning moment-by-moment. One possible scenario is that diversity per se is reframed as a mission and vision of the organization. The boundary between majority and minority is collapsed, and diversity becomes the evolving purpose of the organization’s existence; this is why the organization is replaced with diversity in the figure.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Organizational learning in diversity management.

Collaborative Developmental Action Inquiry (CDAI): A Method for Double- and Triple-Loop Learning

We have so far looked at single-, double-, and triple-loop learning in the context of corporate diversity management. The remaining question is then how are conditions for such forms of learning generated so that companies can not only recognize the economic value of a diverse workforce but also view diversity as the critical source of continuous learning. Thereupon, we suggest CDAI as a method for doing so. Before examining the applicability of CDAI as a method for an ongoing integration of these forms of learning, it is necessary to first understand its unique features.

CDAI is itself meant to be a transformational method of inquiry in and on action (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005). Fisher et al. (2003) defined it as

a method to explore a kind of behavior that is simultaneously inquiring and productive. It is behavior that simultaneously learns about the developing situation, accomplishes whatever task appears to have priority, and invites a redefining of the task if necessary. (p. 115)

Specifically, CDAI combines two key theoretical perspectives: action inquiry and developmental theory (Foster, 2012). It is action oriented for the purpose of helping individuals, groups, and organizations to effectively and simultaneously inquire into a situation (from multiple levels and perspectives) and take appropriate action in the moment. Also, this process necessarily involves and requires increased levels of awareness and a more complex meaning-making capacity—hence the developmental focus. Particularly, “the process of collaborative action inquiry involves paying attention to one’s experience on multiple levels to assess whether our actions, in the moment, are aligned with our intentions” (Banerjee, 2013, p. 36). More specifically, CDAI entails attending to and documenting our own changes in our level of awareness and meaning-making capacity (first person), the usefulness and quality of the group as a holding environment (second person), and changes in our level of effectiveness in other areas of our lives (third person). In addition, its evolutionary features emphasizing the importance of one’s developmental capacity in learning and the belief in the potential for cycles of growth and transformation are what explicitly distinguish developmental action inquiry from Argyris’ version of action science (Torbert, 1999). Without adequate developmental capacity, one cannot effectively initiate, learn through, complete, and internalize the various loops of feedback given to them (Nicolaides & Dzubinski, 2016). This is especially important in many interpersonal contexts, in that the lack of developmental capacity of any individual involved in the same situation would make it difficult for mature reflection and true transformation to happen. On top of this, in CDAI, its collaborative nature enables participants to better engage in critical reflection by exposing and encouraging them to consider others’ perspectives, thereby facilitating their transformative learning experiences (Nicolaides & Dzubinski, 2016). Unlike traditional research, collaboration also overcomes the power of the researcher over the participants and creates mutually transforming power among them, which leads to an open and authentic environment where all parties can potentially experience transformative learning and grow (Torbert, 2004).

In short, CDAI is a method that aims for an action that is simultaneously inquiring and productive in personal, interpersonal, and organizational contexts (Fisher et al., 2003; Fisher & Torbert, 1995). What it means to be productive here is, in Torbert’s (1999) view, to seek congruity between visioning, strategizing, performing, and assessing. In other words, CDAI attempts to close gaps between our intention, thinking, action, and outcome at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Although there is congruity only between action and outcome in single-loop learning, there is greater congruity between thinking, action, and outcome in double-loop learning and even more in triple-loop learning between intention, thinking, action, and outcome. As we find ourselves being consistent in our motives, intentions, purposes, or visions with regard to our actions, resulting in an expected outcome in every moment of our lives, we eventually experience the gradual transformation of our way of being. And again, this occurs at the personal, interpersonal, and organizational levels.

This was the reason why the possible changes of triple-loop learning in managing diversity were presented previously at those three levels, demonstrating the cyclical and iterative nature of CDAI. To briefly see how this method can be implemented in practice, a group of employees would consciously engage rather than ignore unsuccessful experiences related to diversity that they wish to improve. The make-up of this group of employees may have adverse consequences if gone unexamined. A more homogeneous group might hinder participants from experiencing diverse perspectives and challenging themselves to step out of their taken-for-granted frames of reference, but a more heterogeneous group could also have the negative potential to threaten collaboration among participants. To ensure a group’s success in practicing CDAI, each person’s way of knowing and willingness to learn from experience should also be considered (Nicolaides & Dzubinski, 2016). As part of the method, each employee prepares a description of their own uncomfortable experience in a written format (a case) to make the experience object so that a more complete understanding of differences is co-explored through the practice of inquiry. The range of experiences could vary from conflicts with coworkers with minor demographic backgrounds, to reactions to the company’s negatively perceived diversity initiatives or policies due to their unfair treatment. The richer the data described in the written case are, the more room for growth exists through high-quality feedback. Participants must provide a detailed description of personal thoughts and feelings associated with the situation, and how they interacted with others so that the experience may be seen from everyone’s perspectives, making previously unexamined assumptions, beliefs, and values explicit. By engaging in first-person reflection and second-person communication through the method of CDAI, participants begin to reframe their cognitive schema and build a capacity to reflect in the moment and from within their experience with others. This capacity begins to develop more complex forms of learning that are simultaneously validated through second- and third-person interactions outside of the CDAI practice.

Experiencing the potential of double- and triple-loop learning is not an easy process. It inevitably entails educational sufferings such as experiencing failure and unsuccessful action, yet is worth pursuing because of the heightened awareness that comes from new learning that leads to a sense of freedom for productive and timely action. Most important of all, the willingness to deal with such disorienting experiences and the desire to grow from them are the essential factors that grow more complex forms of learning and lead to the potential of transformation. One might argue about the feasibility of this approach under the corporate environment where competition and mistrust prevail; however, through the notion of whole-person learning (Yorks & Kasl, 2002), and by incorporating it in the process of CDAI, and implementing it as a crucial part of an organization’s strategic learning (instead of strategic planning), we believe that trust and empathy could be established as a foundation for learning within diversity (Kasl & Yorks, 2016). Discussing the feasibility of CDAI in depth is out of the scope of this article, yet we wanted to provide at least a flavor of how to generate the conditions for these forms of learning that may give shape to organizational contexts through its practice. We suggest that this could be a meaningful area for further research to empirically test the effects of CDAI and the development of complex forms of learning that generate a new paradigm of diversity management.

Conclusion

In this article, we have examined the concepts of single-, double-, and triple-loop learning, and applied them in the context of corporate diversity management. With the three paradigms of diversity management, we have explained the transition from the discrimination and fairness paradigm to the access and legitimacy paradigm through single-loop learning that aims for behavioral revision, and the transformation from the access and legitimacy paradigm to the learning and effectiveness paradigm through double-loop learning that attempts cognitive reframing. Furthermore, we have explored the possibility of triple-loop learning, a figure ground shift of our ontology or way of being, through CDAI. Our capacity to reflect in action is the core of experiencing the transformation of our innermost selves, and such an existential re-creation of our intention and purpose reshapes the nature of our practice at the personal, interpersonal, and organizational levels.

We believe that this conceptual work has both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, we synthesized the literature around triple-loop learning and attempted to understand its concept more comprehensively. Also, by connecting it with the diversity management paradigm, we called for a new understanding of diversity and its inclusion in organizations. Practically, corporate leaders and managers can assess their current organizational practices of diversity management, reflect on how they are engaging in organizational learning in resolving it, and think about ways in which they could generate time and space where continuous learning within diversity can become the essence of organizational growth and success. We hope that our conceptual explorations in this article contribute to scholars and practitioners in ways that ignite conversations around a new paradigm of diversity management and make endeavors to understand and test the role triple-loop learning plays in such transformation.