Overview
The immaturity–maturity theory was set out by the American organizational scholar Chris Argyris in his 1957 book Personality and Organization and in an article in Administrative Science Quarterly the same year. It argues that individual personality development and organizational structure are out of step, and it is a leading example of the human-resources approach that followed human relations theory.
From immaturity to maturity: seven dimensions
Argyris held that as people grow from infancy to adulthood, their personalities move in seven directions:
- from passivity to activity;
- from dependence to relative independence;
- from a few simple behaviours to many different behaviours;
- from erratic, shallow interests to stable, deeper interests;
- from a short time perspective to a long one spanning past and future;
- from a subordinate position to an equal or superordinate one;
- from lack of self-awareness to self-awareness and self-control.
These are continua rather than fixed stages, and people reach different points on each dimension.
Conflict between formal organization and the individual
Argyris argued that the classic principles of formal organization (task specialization, chain of command, unity of direction and span of control) require members to be passive, dependent and short-sighted. In effect, organizations treat mature adults like children. The more mature a person is, the more frustration, sense of failure and conflict this mismatch produces.
Employee adaptations
- Leaving the organization (absence, turnover) or climbing the hierarchy to escape control.
- Defence reactions such as daydreaming, aggression, regression and projection.
- Apathy and loss of interest in the work, with attention turned to pay alone.
- Forming informal groups and formalizing them, for example as trade unions.
Managers tend to read these reactions as laziness and tighten control, which deepens the conflict in a vicious circle.
Remedies
Argyris recommended job enlargement that gives members more responsibility and discretion, together with participative, employee-centred and reality-centred leadership. In Integrating the Individual and the Organization (1964) he looked at ways to raise both psychological success and organizational effectiveness, and later, with Donald Schön, he developed single-loop and double-loop learning, moving into organizational learning.
Related theories and criticism
The assumption that people naturally seek growth through work parallels Maslow's self-actualization and McGregor's Theory Y, and it influenced Hersey and Blanchard's situational leadership, which matches leadership style to follower maturity. Critics note that the theory assumes everyone wants maturity and autonomy, underplays individual and cultural differences, ignores people who prefer simple routine work, and has limited empirical testing.
References
- Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and Organization: The Conflict Between System and the Individual. New York: Harper & Brothers.
- Argyris, C. (1957). The individual and organization: Some problems of mutual adjustment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2(1), 1–24.
- Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: Wiley.
- Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.