Key Words:
"mental models"
"learning organization" discipline practices understanding managers limiting lies
"professional performers" "idealistic pragmatism"
Born in 1947, Peter
Senge graduated in engineering from Stanford and then went on to
undertake a masters on social systems modeling at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology) before completing his PhD on Management. Said to be a rather unassuming man,
he is is a senior lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is also founding chair
of the Society for Organizational Learning (SoL). His current areas of special interest focus on
decentralizing the role of leadership in organizations so as to enhance the capacity of all people
to work productively toward common goals.
Peter Senge describes
himself as an 'idealistic pragmatist'. This orientation has allowed him to
explore and advocate some quite ‘utopian’ and abstract ideas (especially around systems
theory and the necessity of bringing human values to the workplace). At the same time he has
been able to mediate these so that they can be worked on and applied by people in very
different forms of organization. His areas of special interest are said to focus on decentralizing
the role of leadership in organizations so as to enhance the capacity of all people to work
productively toward common goals. One aspect of this is Senge’s involvement in the Society
for Organizational Learning (SoL), a Cambridge-based, non-profit membership organization.
Peter Senge is its chair and co-founder. SoL is part of a ‘global community of corporations,
researchers, and consultants’ dedicated to discovering, integrating, and implementing ‘theories
and practices for the interdependent development of people and their institutions’. One of the
interesting aspects of the Center (and linked to the theme of idealistic pragmatism) has been its
ability to attract corporate sponsorship to fund pilot programmes that carry within them
relatively idealistic concerns.
Aside from writing The
Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning
Organization (1990), Peter Senge has also co-authored a number of other books linked to the
themes first developed in The Fifth Discipline. These include The Fifth Discipline
Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization (1994); The Dance
of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations (1999)
and Schools That Learn (2000).
What is Organizational
Learning?
Argyris (1977)
defines organizational learning as the process of "detection and correction of
errors." In his view organizations learn through individuals acting as agents for them: "The
individuals' learning activities, in turn, are facilitated or inhibited by an ecological system of
factors that may be called an organizational learning system" (p. 117).
Huber (1991) considers
four constructs as integrally linked to organizational learning:
knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational
memory. He clarifies that learning need not be conscious or intentional. Further, learning does
not always increase the learner's effectiveness, or even potential effectiveness. Moreover,
learning need not result in observable changes in behavior. Taking a behavioral perspective,
Huber (1991) notes: An entity learns if, through its processing of information, the range
of its potential behaviors is changed.
Weick (1991) argues
that the defining property of learning is the combination of same stimulus
and different responses, however it is rare in organizations meaning either organizations don't
learn or that organizations learn but in nontraditional ways. He further notes: "Perhaps
organizations are not built to learn. Instead, they are patterns of means- ends relations
deliberately designed to make the same routine response to different stimuli, a pattern which is
antithetical to learning in the traditional sense" (p. 119). Or else, he argues, Organizational
Learning perhaps involves a different kind of learning than has been described in the past: "the
process within the organization by which knowledge about action- outcome relationships and
the effect of the environment on these relationships is developed" (Duncan & Weiss 1979). In
his view, "a more radical approach would take the position that individual learning occurs when
people give a different response to the same stimulus, but Organizational Learning occurs when
groups of people give the same response to different stimuli."
What is a Learning
Organization?
Senge (1990) defines
the Learning Organization as the organization "in which you cannot not
learn because learning is so insinuated into the fabric of life." Also, he defines Learning
Organization as "a group of people continually enhancing their capacity to create what they
want to create." I would define Learning Organization as an "Organization with an ingrained
philosophy for anticipating, reacting and responding to change, complexity and uncertainty."
The concept of Learning Organization is increasingly relevant given the increasing complexity
and uncertainty of the organizational environment. As Senge (1990) remarks: "The rate at
which organizations learn may become the only sustainable source of competitive advantage."
McGill et al. (1992)
define the Learning Organization as "a company that can respond to new
information by altering the very "programming" by which information is processed and
evaluated."
Organizational
Learning vs. Learning Organization?
Ang & Joseph
(1996) contrast Organizational Learning and Learning Organization in terms of
process versus structure.
McGill et al. (1992)
do not distinguish between Learning Organization and Organizational
Learning. They define Organizational Learning as the ability of an organization to gain insight
and understanding from experience through experimentation, observation, analysis, and a
willingness to examine both successes and failures.
What is Adaptive
Learning vs. Generative Learning?
The current view
of organizations is based on adaptive learning, which is about coping. Senge
(1990) notes that increasing adaptiveness is only the first stage; companies need to focus on
Generative Learning or "double- loop learning" (Argyris 1977). Generative learning emphasizes
continuous experimentation and feedback in an ongoing examination of the very way
organizations go about defining and solving problems. In Senge's (1990) view, Generative
Learning is about creating - it requires "systemic thinking," "shared vision," "personal
mastery,"
"team learning," and "creative tension" [between the vision and the current reality].
[Do
Japanese companies accomplish the same thing with "strategic" and "interpretive"
equivocality"?] Generative learning, unlike adaptive learning, requires new ways of looking at
the world.
In contrast, Adaptive
Learning or single-loop learning focuses on solving problems in the
present without examining the appropriateness of current learning behaviors. Adaptive
organizations focus on incremental improvements, often based upon the past track record of
success. Essentially, they don't question the fundamental assumptions underlying the existing
ways of doing work. The essential difference is between being adaptive and having adaptability.
To maintain adaptability,
organizations need to operate themselves as "experimenting" or "self-
designing" organizations, i.e., should maintain themselves in a state of frequent, nearly-
continuous change in structures, processes, domains, goals, etc., even in the face of apparently
optimal adaption (Nystrom et al. 1976; Hedberg et al. 1976; Starbuck 1983). Hedberg et al.
(1977) argue that operating in this mode is efficacious, perhaps even required, for survival in
fast changing and unpredictable environments. They reason that probable and desirable
consequences of an ongoing state of experimentation are that organizations learn about a
variety of design features and remain flexible.
What's the Managers'
Role in the Learning Organization?
Senge (1990) argues
that the leader's role in the Learning Organization is that of a designer,
teacher, and steward who can build shared vision and challenge prevailing mental models.
He/she is responsible for building organizations where people are continually expanding their
capabilities to shape their future -- that is, leaders are responsible for learning.
What's the Relationship
between Strategy and Organizational Learning?
Or, as Mintzberg
(1987) says: the key is not getting the right strategy but fostering strategic
thinking. Or as Shell has leveraged the concept of Learning Organization in its credo "planning
as learning" (de Geus 1988). Faced with dramatic changes and unpredictability in the world oil
markets, Shell's planners realized a shift of their basic task: "We no longer saw our task as
producing a documented view of the future business environment five or ten years ahead. Our
real target was the microcosm (the 'mental model') of our decision makers." They
reconceptualized their basic task as fostering learning rather than devising plans and engaged
the managers in ferreting out the implications of possible scenarios. This conditioned the
managers to be mentally prepared for the uncertainties in the task environment. Thus, they
institutionalized the learning process at Shell.
The key ingredient
of the Learning Organization is in how organizations process their
managerial experiences. Learning Organizations/Managers learn from their experiences rather
than being bound by their past experiences. In Generative Learning Organizations, the ability
of
an organization/manager is not measured by what it knows (that is the product of learning), bur
rather by how it learns -- the process of learning. Management practices encourage, recognize,
and reward: openness, systemic thinking, creativity, a sense of efficacy, and empathy.
What is the
Role of Information Systems in the Learning Organization?
Although, Huber
(1991) explicitly specifies the role of IS in the Learning Organization as
primarily serving Organizational Memory, in my view, IS can serve the other three processes
(Knowledge Acquisition, Information Distribution, and Information Interpretation) as well. One
instance of use of IS in Knowledge Acquisition is that of Market Research and Competitive
Intelligence Systems. At the level of planning, scenario planning tools can be used for generating
the possible futures. Similarly, use of Groupware tools, Intranets, E-mail, and Bulletin Boards
can facilitate the processes of Information Distribution and Information Interpretation. The
archives of these communications can provide the elements of the Organizational Memory.
Organizational Memory needs to be continuously updated and refreshed. The IT basis of OM
suggested by Huber (1991) lies at the basis of organizational rigidity when it becomes "hi-tech
hide bound" (Kakola 1995) and is unable to continuously adapt its "theory of the business"
(Drucker).
Does IT Impose
Any Constraints on Organizational Learning?
Huber (1991) notes
that "it might be reasonable to conclude that more learning has occurred
when more and more varied interpretations have been developed, because such development
changes the range of the organization's potential behaviors..." (p. 102). However, most extant
information systems focus on the convergence of interpretation and are not geared for multiple
interpretations (Argyris 1977). Mason & Mitroff (1973), in their seminal article, had noted that
the Lockean and Leibnitzian characteristic of the dominant MIS model as its limiting
characteristics. These designs are based on the convergence of interpretations. In contrast,
Kantian and Hegelian inquiry systems (Churchman 1971) are needed for facilitating multiple
interpretations. These systems also underlie the notion of "unlearning" (Hedberg 1981) which
implies discarding of "obsolete and misleading knowledge." While Kantian inquirer offers
complementary interpretations, the Hegelian inquirer offers a "deadly enemy" contradictory
interpretation. The dialectic of convergent and divergent inquiry facilitates the surfacing of
hidden assumptions.
Argyris (1977)
has argued that the "massive technology of MIS, quality control systems, and
audits of quality control systems is designed for single loop learning." Essentially, he asserts
that
the problem of using IT is in its reinforcement of the prevailing [rigid] structures (cf: Orlikowski
1991). He attributes the overarching command-and-control structures for the "gaps of
knowledge" that top managers design to manage effectively: "Another set of attitudes usually
developed is that lower level managers and employees can be trusted only to the extent that
they can be monitored" (p. 117). He argues that the problems related to MIS implementation
are more related to organizational factors than to the underlying technology.
Argyris (1977)
re-examines the debate around the implementation crisis of MIS in light of the
theory of Organizational Learning (the detection and correction of error). His analysis suggests
that many of the recommendations to overcome the difficulties may be inadequate and, in some
cases, counterproductive.
Argyris (1977)
suggests that there are "deeper" reasons behind the implementation gap of MIS,
especially when the technology was used to deal with the more complex and ill- structured
problems faced by the organization. He suggests that the MIS need to be viewed as a part of a
more general problem of Organizational Learning. He avers that an organization may be said
to learn to the extent that it identifies and corrects error. This requirement, in turn, implies
that learning also requires the capacity to know when it is unable to identify and correct errors.
He argues that
the overwhelming amount of learning done in an organization is single loop
because the "underlying program is not questioned": it is designed to identify and correct
errors
so that the job gets done and the action remains within stated policy guidelines. "The massive
technology of MIS, quality control systems, and audits of the quality control systems is
designed for single loop learning" (p. 113). The trouble arises when the technology is not
effective and when the underlying objectives and policies must be questioned. [Compare with
IT reinforcing the existing controls (Orlikowski 1991); Also the discontinuous change may pose
this need.]
He states: "Most
organizations, often without realizing it, create systems of learning that
suppress double loop inquiry and make it very difficult for even well designed information
system to be effective" (p. 114).
Is adult education
a practice or a program? A methodology or an organization? A 'science' or a
system? A process or a profession? Is adult education different from continuing education,
vocational education, higher education? Does adult education have form and substance, or
does it merely permeate through the environment like air? Is adult education, therefore,
everywhere and yet nowhere in particular? Does adult education even exist? (McCullough
1980 quoted in Jarvis 1987a: 3)
Just how are we
to approach adult education if it is everywhere and nowhere? As a starting
point, Courtney (1989: 17-23) suggests that we can explore it from five basic and overlapping
perspectives. Adult education as:
-
the work of
certain institutions and organizations. What we know as adult
education has been shaped by the activities of key organizations. Adult
education is, thus, simply what certain organizations such as the Workers
Education Association or the YMCA do.
- a special kind of relationship. One
way to approach this is to contrast adult
education with the sort of learning that we engage in as part of everyday living.
Adult education could be then seen as, for example, the process of managing
the external conditions that facilitate the internal change in adults called learning
(see Brookfield 1986: 46). In other words, it is a relationship that involves a
conscious effort to learn something.
- a profession or scientific discipline.
Here the focus has been on two
attributes of professions: an emphasis on training or preparation, and the notion
of a specialized body of knowledge underpinning training and preparation.
According to this view 'the way in which adults are encouraged to learn and
aided in that learning is the single most significant ingredient of adult education
as a profession' (op cit: 20).
- stemming from a historical identification
with spontaneous social
movements. Adult education can be approached as a quality emerging through
the developing activities of unionism, political parties and social movements
such as the women's movement and anti- colonial movements (see Lovett
1988).
- distinct from other kinds of education
by its goals and functions. This is
arguably the most common way of demarcating adult education from other
forms of education. For example:
Adult education
is concerned not with preparing people for life, but rather with helping people
to live more successfully. Thus if there is to be an overarching function of the adult education
enterprise, it is to assist adults to increase competence, or negotiate transitions, in their social
roles (worker, parent, retiree etc.), to help them gain greater fulfilment in their personal lives,
and to assist them in solving personal and community problems. (Darkenwald and Merriam
1982: 9)
Darkenwald and
Merriam combine three elements. Adult education is work with adults, to
promote learning for adulthood. Approached via an interest in goals, 'adult' education
could
involve work with children so that they may become adult. As Lindeman (1926: 4) put it: 'This
new venture is called adult education not because it is confined to adults but because
adulthood, maturity, defines its limits'.
The meaning of
'adult'
A further issue
is the various meanings given to 'adult'. We might approach the notion, for
example,as a:
Different societies
and cultures will have contrasting understanding of what it is to be adult.
'Adult' can be set against 'child'. In between adult and child (or more accurately, overlapping)
there may be an idea of 'youth'. At base adults are older than children and with this comes a set
of expectations. They are not necessarily mature. 'But they are supposed to be mature, and it is
on this necessary supposition that their adulthood justifiably rests' (Paterson 1979: 13).
A working definition
Most current texts
seem to approach adult education via the adult status of students, and a
concern with education (creating enlivening environments for learning). We could choose a
starting definition from a range of writers. Rather than muck around I have taken one advanced
by Sharan B. Merriam and Ralph G. Brockett (1997: 8). They define adult education as:
activities intentionally
designed for the purpose of bringing about learning among those
whose age, social roles, or self-perception define them as adults.
1. Schedule
