From GTwM

The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization is a book by Peter Senge focusing on group problem solving using the Systems Thinking method in order to convert companies into learning organizations. It was first published by Currency in 1990.

Contents 1 The Five Disciplines 1.1 Personal mastery 1.2 Mental models 1.3 Building shared vision 1.4 Team learning 1.4.1 Defensive Behaviour Patterns 1.4.2 Dialogue; balancing Advocacy & Inquiry 1.4.3 Judging Outcomes 1.4.4 Systems thinking 1.5 The Learning Disabilities 1.6 The Laws of the Fifth Discipline 1.7 Issues and problems 1.7.1 Alternative organizational imperatives 1.7.2 Required levels of discipline 1.7.3 Inward focus 1.7.4 Lack of political realism

The Five Disciplines

The five disciplines of the learning organization discussed in the book are:

Personal mastery

‘Organizations learn only through individuals who learn. Individual learning does not guarantee organizational learning. But without it no organizational learning occurs’ (Senge 1990: 139). Personal mastery is the discipline of ‘continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively’ (ibid.: 7). It goes beyond competence and skills, although it involves them.

Mastery is seen as a special kind of proficiency. It is not about dominance, rather people with a high level of personal mastery live in a continual learning mode. Personal mastery is therefore not something you possess; it is a process & a lifelong discipline. People with a high level of personal mastery are acutely aware of their ignorance, their incompetence, their growth areas, and yet they are deeply self-confident.

The discipline entails developing personal vision; accepting creative tension (managing the gap between our vision and reality); recognizing structural tensions and constraints, and our own power (or lack of it) with regard to them; a commitment to truth.

Mental models

These are ‘deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations (both large and small), or even pictures and images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action’ (Senge 1990: 8). We are often not that aware of the impact of such assumptions etc. on our behaviour – and, thus, a fundamental part of our task is to develop the ability to reflect-in- and –on-action. Peter Senge is also influenced here by Schön’s collaborator on a number of projects, Chris Argyris.

The discipline of mental models starts with turning the mirror inward; learning to unearth our internal pictures of the world, to bring them to the surface and hold them rigorously to scrutiny. It also includes the ability to carry on ‘learningful’ conversations that balance inquiry and advocacy, where people expose their own thinking effectively and make that thinking open to the influence of others. (Senge 1990: 9)

If organizations are to develop a capacity to work with mental models then it will be necessary for people to learn new skills and develop new orientations, and for their to be institutional changes that foster such change. ‘Entrenched mental models… thwart changes that could come from systems thinking’ (ibid.: 203). Moving the organization in the right direction entails working to transcend the sorts of internal politics and game playing that dominate traditional organizations. In other words it means fostering openness (Senge 1990: 273-286). It also involves seeking to distribute business responsibly far more widely while retaining coordination and control. Learning organizations are localized organizations (ibid.: 287-301).

(See also World View , Paradigm and Ladder of Inference)

Building shared vision

Peter Senge starts from the position that if any one idea about leadership has inspired organizations for thousands of years, ‘it’s the capacity to hold a share picture of the future we seek to create’ (1990: 9). Such a vision has the power to be uplifting – and to encourage experimentation and innovation. Crucially, it is argued, it can also foster a sense of the long-term, something that is fundamental to the ‘fifth discipline’. When there is a genuine vision (as opposed to the all-to-familiar ‘vision statement’), people excel and learn, not because they are told to, but because they want to.

Many leaders have personal visions that never get translated into shared visions that galvanize an organization… What has been lacking is a discipline for gathering & building, rathering than imposing, a shared vision. (see Appreciative Inquiry)

The practice of shared vision involves the skills of unearthing potential shared ‘pictures of the future’ and selecting one that can foster genuine commitment and enrolment rather than simply compliance.

Visions spread because of a reinforcing process. Increased clarity, enthusiasm and commitment rub off on others in the organization. ‘As people talk, the vision grows clearer. As it gets clearer, enthusiasm for its benefits grow’ (ibid.: 227). There are ‘limits to growth’ in this respect, but developing the sorts of mental models outlined below can significantly improve matters. Where organizations can transcend linear and grasp system thinking, there is the possibility of bringing vision to fruition.

Team learning

Defensive Behaviour Patterns

Team learning begins with recognizing the patterns of interaction in teams that undermine learning. Patterns of defensiveness are often deeply engrained in how a team operates. If unrecognized, they undermine learning. If recognized and surfaced creatively, they can actually accelerate learning. Tackling defensive patterns requires a leader to create a climate of tolerance and honesty by for example admiting their own failings, lack of knowledge, doubts etc.

Dialogue; balancing Advocacy & Inquiry

With this climate of trust in place, the practices of dialogue can be learnt. During any meeting the quality of dialogue relies on quality of two forms of interaction - first, in the quality of advocacy - how things are told and explained and second, in the quality of inquiry - how questions are raised and answered. Most teams lack ability to distinguish between the two and to move consciously between them.

David Bohm's necessary conditions for dialogue are as follows:

1. all participants must "suspend" their assumptions, literally to hold them "as suspended before us";
2. all participants must regard one another as colleagues;
3. there must be a "facilitator" who "holds the context" of dialogue.

Judging Outcomes

All team learning is eventually judged by results. Therefore it is important to think about what outcomes we anticipate before undertaking learning. The difficult questions are when to judge & how to judge.

1. When: It is clear that judging large transformational level changes on short term results is not possible.
2. How: The belief in, and over reliance on, quantative data at the expense of qualatative observations can lead to significant problems.

At one level, studies such as the famous Hawthorne effect question how meaningful scientific studies of human behaviour can be.

Audits & empirical studies measure that which can be measured at the expense of that which is important but less amenable to measurement. For those looking for transformational level change it is important to clarify a) what you want (agility, dynamism, risk taking) and b) the problem with trying to gauge progress in what will often be qualitative issues.

Systems thinking

The Fifth Discipline Systems Thinking requires a holistic systemic view of the organization as a function of its environment.

Systems thinking also uses archetypes for modeling the cycles that systems go through.

In The Fifth Discipline Senge argues there are many standard patterns or archetypes which if recognised can help understanding and inform action.

The Learning Disabilities

• "I am my position."
• "The enemy out there."
• The Illusion of Taking Charge
• The Fixation of Events
• The Parable of the Boiled Frog
• The Delusion of Learning from Experience
• The Myth of the Management Team

The Laws of the Fifth Discipline

• Today's problems come from yesterday's "solutions."
• The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back.
• Behavior grows better before it grows worse.
• The easy way out usually leads back in.
• The cure can be worse than the disease.
• Faster is slower.
• Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space.
• Small changes can produce big results...but the areas of highest leverage are often the least obvious.
• You can have your cake and eat it too ---but not all at once.
• Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants.
• There is no blame.

Issues and problems

When making judgements about Peter Senge’s work, and the ideas he promotes, we need to place his contribution in context. His is not meant to be a definitive addition to the ‘academic’ literature of organizational learning. Peter Senge writes for practicing and aspiring managers and leaders.

The most appropriate question in respect of this contribution would seem to be whether it fosters praxis – informed, committed action on the part of those it is aimed at?

Alternative organizational imperatives

We can find very few organizations that come close to the combination of characteristics that he identifies with the learning organization. Within a capitalist system his vision of companies and organizations turning wholehearted to the cultivation of the learning of their members can only come into fruition in a limited number of instances.

While those in charge of organizations will usually look in some way to the long-term growth and sustainability of their enterprise, they may not focus on developing the human resources that the organization houses. The focus may well be on enhancing brand recognition and status (Klein 2001); developing intellectual capital and knowledge (Leadbeater 2000); delivering product innovation; and ensuring that production and distribution costs are kept down. Will Hutton (1995: 8) has argued, British companies’ priorities are overwhelmingly financial and that, ‘the targets for profit are too high and time horizons too short’ (1995: xi).

Whilst many argue the bottom line is profit, a fundamental concern with the learning and development of employees and associates is simply too idealistic, it is also true there are some currents running in Peter Senge’s favour. The need to focus on knowledge generation within our increasingly globalized knowledge economy does bring us back in some important respects to the people who have to create intellectual capital.

"Productivity and competitiveness are, by and large, a function of knowledge generation and information processing". (Castells 2001: 52)

Leadbeater (2000: 70) has argued, companies need to invest not just in new machinery to make production more efficient, but in the flow of know-how that will sustain their business. Organizations need to be good at knowledge generation, appropriation and exploitation.

Leadbetter also argues "Knowledge that is visible tends to be explicit, teachable, independent, detachable, it also easy for competitors to imitate. Knowledge that is intangible, tacit, less teachable, less observable, is more complex but more difficult to detach from the person who created it or the context in which it is embedded. Knowledge carried by an individual only realizes its commercial potential when it is replicated by an organization and becomes organizational knowledge". (ibid.: 71) Here we have a very significant pressure for the fostering of ‘learning organizations’. The sort of know-how that Leadbeater is talking about here cannot be simply transmitted. It has to be engaged with, talking about and embedded in organizational structures and strategies. It has to become people’s own.

Required levels of discipline

The issue here is that the people to whom it is addressed do not have the disposition or theoretical tools to follow it through. One clue lies in his choice of ‘disciplines’ to describe the core of his approach. As we saw a discipline is a series of principles and practices that we study, master and integrate into our lives. In other words, the approach entails significant effort on the part of the practitioner. It also entails developing quite complicated mental models, and being able to apply and adapt these to different situations – often on the hoof. The question then becomes whether many people in organizations can handle this. All this has a direct parallel within formal education. As Lawrence Stenhouse put it some years ago: ‘The close examination of one’s professional performance is personally threatening; and the social climate in which teachers work generally offers little support’ (1975: 159). We can make the same case for people in most organizations.

There is, here, a straightforward question concerning the vision – will people want to sign up to it? To make sense of the sorts of experiences generated and explored in a fully functioning ‘learning organization’ there needs to be ‘spiritual growth’ and the ability to locate these within some sort of framework of commitment. Thus, as employees, we are not simply asked to do our jobs and to get paid. We are also requested to join in something bigger. Many just want to earn a living!

Inward focus

Whilst Senge argues for systems thinking his theory is not fully set in a political or moral framework. There is not a consideration of questions of social justice, democracy and exclusion. His approach largely operates at the level of organizational interests.

As a contrast Peter Drucker’s (1977: 36) argued that there are three tasks – ‘equally important but essentially different’ – that face the management of every organization. These are:

1. To think through and define the specific purpose and mission of the institution, whether business enterprise, hospital, or university.
2. To make work productive and the worker achieving.
3. To manage social impacts and social responsibilities. (op. cit.)

He continues:

None of our institutions exists by itself and as an end in itself. Every one is an organ of society and exists for the sake of society. Business is not exception. ‘Free enterprise’ cannot be justified as being good for business. It can only be justified as being good for society. (Drucker 1977: 40)

Lack of political realism

While Peter Senge clearly recognizes the political dimensions of organizational life, there is sneaking suspicion that he may want to transcend it. In some ways there is link here with the concerns and interests of communitarian thinkers like Amitai Etzioni (1995, 1997). As Richard Sennett (1998: 143) argues with regard to political communitarianism, it ‘falsely emphasizes unity as the source of strength in a community and mistakenly fears that when conflicts arise in a community, social bonds are threatened’. Within it there seems, at times, to be a dislike of politics and a tendency to see danger in plurality and difference. Here there is a tension between the concern for dialogue and the interest in building a shared vision.

An alternative reading is that difference is good for democratic life (and organizational life) provided that we cultivate a sense of reciprocity, and ways of working that encourage deliberation. The search is not for the sort of common good that many communitarians seek (Guttman and Thompson 1996: 92) but rather for ways in which people may share in a common life. Moral disagreement will persist – the key is whether we can learn to respect and engage with each other’s ideas, behaviours and beliefs.