Saturday, April 27, 2013

peter senge and the learning organization

Peter Senge’s vision of a learning organization as a
group of people who are continually enhancing
their capabilities to create what they want to create
has been deeply influential. We discuss the five
disciplines he sees as central to learning
organizations and some issues and questions
concerning the theory and practice of learning
contents:The Fifth Discipline that brought
him firmly into the limelight and popularized the concept of the ‘learning
organization'. Since its publication, more than a million copies have been
sold and in 1997, Harvard Business Review identified it as one of the seminal
management books of the past 75 years.
On this page we explore Peter Senge’s vision of the learning organization.
We will focus on the arguments in his (1990) book The Fifth Discipline as it is
here we find the most complete exposition of his thinking.
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 2 of 18
Peter Senge
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
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).
The learning organization
According to Peter Senge (1990: 3) learning organizations are:
…organizations where people continually expand their capacity
to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive
patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 3 of 18
set free, and where people are continually learning to see the
whole together.
The basic rationale for such organizations is that in situations of rapid
change only those that are flexible, adaptive and productive will excel. For
this to happen, it is argued, organizations need to ‘discover how to tap
people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels’ (ibid.: 4).
While all people have the capacity to learn, the structures in which they
have to function are often not conducive to reflection and engagement.
Furthermore, people may lack the tools and guiding ideas to make sense of
the situations they face. Organizations that are continually expanding their
capacity to create their future require a fundamental shift of mind among
their members.
When you ask people about what it is like being part of a great
team, what is most striking is the meaningfulness of the
experience. People talk about being part of something larger than
themselves, of being connected, of being generative. It become
quite clear that, for many, their experiences as part of truly great
teams stand out as singular periods of life lived to the fullest.
Some spend the rest of their lives looking for ways to recapture
that spirit. (Senge 1990: 13)
For Peter Senge, real learning gets to the heart of what it is to be human. We
become able to re-create ourselves. This applies to both individuals and
organizations. Thus, for a ‘learning organization it is not enough to survive.
‘”Survival learning” or what is more often termed “adaptive learning” is
important – indeed it is necessary. But for a learning organization, “adaptive
learning” must be joined by “generative learning”, learning that enhances
our capacity to create’ (Senge 1990:14).
The dimension that distinguishes learning from more traditional
organizations is the mastery of certain basic disciplines or ‘component
technologies’. The five that Peter Senge identifies are said to be converging
to innovate learning organizations. They are:
Systems thinking
Personal mastery
Mental models
Building shared vision
Team learning
He adds to this recognition that people are agents, able to act upon the
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 4 of 18
structures and systems of which they are a part. All the disciplines are, in
this way, ‘concerned with a shift of mind from seeing parts to seeing
wholes, from seeing people as helpless reactors to seeing them as active
participants in shaping their reality, from reacting to the present to creating
the future’ (Senge 1990: 69). It is to the disciplines that we will now turn.
Systems thinking – the cornerstone of the learning
A great virtue of Peter Senge’s work is the way in which
he puts systems theory to work. The Fifth Discipline
provides a good introduction to the basics and uses of
such theory – and the way in which it can be brought
together with other theoretical devices in order to make
sense of organizational questions and issues. Systemic
thinking is the conceptual cornerstone (‘The Fifth
Discipline’) of his approach. It is the discipline that
integrates the others, fusing them into a coherent body of theory and
practice (ibid.: 12). Systems theory’s ability to comprehend and address the
whole, and to examine the interrelationship between the parts provides, for
Peter Senge, both the incentive and the means to integrate the disciplines.
Here is not the place to go into a detailed exploration of Senge’s
presentation of systems theory (I have included some links to primers
below). However, it is necessary to highlight one or two elements of his
argument. First, while the basic tools of systems theory are fairly
straightforward they can build into sophisticated models. Peter Senge
argues that one of the key problems with much that is written about, and
done in the name of management, is that rather simplistic frameworks are
applied to what are complex systems. We tend to focus on the parts rather
than seeing the whole, and to fail to see organization as a dynamic process.
Thus, the argument runs, a better appreciation of systems will lead to more
appropriate action.
‘We learn best from our experience, but we never directly experience the
consequences of many of our most important decisions’, Peter Senge (1990:
23) argues with regard to organizations. We tend to think that cause and
effect will be relatively near to one another. Thus when faced with a
problem, it is the ‘solutions’ that are close by that we focus upon. Classically
we look to actions that produce improvements in a relatively short time
span. However, when viewed in systems terms short-term improvements
often involve very significant long-term costs. For example, cutting back on
research and design can bring very quick cost savings, but can severely
damage the long-term viability of an organization. Part of the problem is
the nature of the feedback we receive. Some of the feedback will be
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 5 of 18
reinforcing (or amplifying) – with small changes building on themselves.
‘Whatever movement occurs is amplified, producing more movement in the
same direction. A small action snowballs, with more and more and still
more of the same, resembling compound interest’ (Senge 1990: 81). Thus,
we may cut our advertising budgets, see the benefits in terms of cost
savings, and in turn further trim spending in this area. In the short run
there may be little impact on people’s demands for our goods and services,
but longer term the decline in visibility may have severe penalties. An
appreciation of systems will lead to recognition of the use of, and problems
with, such reinforcing feedback, and also an understanding of the place of
balancing (or stabilizing) feedback. (See, also Kurt Lewin on feedback). A
further key aspect of systems is the extent to which they inevitably involve
delays – ‘interruptions in the flow of influence which make the
consequences of an action occur gradually’ (ibid.: 90). Peter Senge (1990: 92)
The systems viewpoint is generally oriented toward the longterm
view. That’s why delays and feedback loops are so
important. In the short term, you can often ignore them; they’re
inconsequential. They only come back to haunt you in the long
Peter Senge advocates the use of ‘systems maps’ – diagrams that show the
key elements of systems and how they connect. However, people often
have a problem ‘seeing’ systems, and it takes work to acquire the basic
building blocks of systems theory, and to apply them to your organization.
On the other hand, failure to understand system dynamics can lead us into
‘cycles of blaming and self-defense: the enemy is always out there, and
problems are always caused by someone else’ Bolam and Deal 1997: 27; see,
also, Senge 1990: 231).
The core disciplines
Alongside systems thinking, there stand four other ‘component
technologies’ or disciplines. A ‘discipline’ is viewed by Peter Senge as a
series of principles and practices that we study, master and integrate into
our lives. The five disciplines can be approached at one of three levels:
Practices: what you do.
Principles: guiding ideas and insights.
Essences: the state of being those with high levels of mastery in
the discipline (Senge 1990: 373).
Each discipline provides a vital dimension. Each is necessary to the others if
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 6 of 18
organizations are to ‘learn’.
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. It goes beyond spiritual opening, although it involves
spiritual growth (ibid.: 141). Mastery is seen as a special kind of proficiency.
It is not about dominance, but rather about calling. Vision is vocation rather
than simply just a good idea.
People with a high level of personal mastery live in a continual
learning mode. They never ‘arrive’. Sometimes, language, such
as the term ‘personal mastery’ creates a misleading sense of
definiteness, of black and white. But personal mastery is not
something you possess. It is a process. It is a lifelong discipline.
People with a high level of personal mastery are acutely aware
of their ignorance, their incompetence, their growth areas. And
they are deeply self-confident. Paradoxical? Only for those who
do not see the ‘journey is the reward’. (Senge 1990: 142)
In writing such as this we can see the appeal of Peter Senge’s vision. It has
deep echoes in the concerns of writers such as M. Scott Peck (1990) and
Erich Fromm (1979). The discipline entails developing personal vision;
holding 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; and using the subconscious
(ibid.: 147-167).
Mental models. These are ‘deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations,
or even pictures and images that influence how we understand the world
and how we take action’ (Senge 1990: 8). As such they resemble what
Donald A Schön talked about as a professional’s ‘repertoire’. We are often
not that aware of the impact of such assumptions etc. on our behaviour –
and, thus, a fundamental part of our task (as Schön would put it) 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
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
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 7 of 18
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).
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
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. But many leaders have
personal visions that never get translated into shared visions that
galvanize an organization… What has been lacking is a
discipline for translating vision into shared vision - not a
‘cookbook’ but a set of principles and guiding practices.
The practice of shared vision involves the skills of unearthing
shared ‘pictures of the future’ that foster genuine commitment
and enrolment rather than compliance. In mastering this
discipline, leaders learn the counter-productiveness of trying to
dictate a vision, no matter how heartfelt. (Senge 1990: 9)
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 above can significantly
improve matters. Where organizations can transcend linear and grasp
system thinking, there is the possibility of bringing vision to fruition.
Team learning. Such learning is viewed as ‘the process of aligning and
developing the capacities of a team to create the results its members truly
desire’ (Senge 1990: 236). It builds on personal mastery and shared vision –
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 8 of 18
but these are not enough. People need to be able to act together. When
teams learn together, Peter Senge suggests, not only can there be good
results for the organization, members will grow more rapidly than could
have occurred otherwise.
The discipline of team learning starts with ‘dialogue’, the
capacity of members of a team to suspend assumptions and
enter into a genuine ‘thinking together’. To the Greeks dia-logos
meant a free-flowing if meaning through a group, allowing the
group to discover insights not attainable individually…. [It] also
involves learning how to recognize the patterns of interaction in
teams that undermine learning. (Senge 1990: 10)
The notion of dialogue that flows through The Fifth Discipline is very heavily
dependent on the work of the physicist, David Bohm (where a group
‘becomes open to the flow of a larger intelligence’, and thought is
approached largely as collective phenomenon). When dialogue is joined
with systems thinking, Senge argues, there is the possibility of creating a
language more suited for dealing with complexity, and of focusing on deepseated
structural issues and forces rather than being diverted by questions
of personality and leadership style. Indeed, such is the emphasis on
dialogue in his work that it could almost be put alongside systems thinking
as a central feature of his approach.
Leading the learning organization
Peter Senge argues that learning organizations require a new view of
leadership. He sees the traditional view of leaders (as special people who
set the direction, make key decisions and energize the troops as deriving
from a deeply individualistic and non-systemic worldview (1990: 340). At
its centre the traditional view of leadership, ‘is based on assumptions of
people’s powerlessness, their lack of personal vision and inability to master
the forces of change, deficits which can be remedied only by a few great
leaders’ (op. cit.). Against this traditional view he sets a ‘new’ view of
leadership that centres on ‘subtler and more important tasks’.
In a learning organization, leaders are designers, stewards and teachers.
They are responsible for building organizations were people continually
expand their capabilities to understand complexity, clarify vision, and
improve shared mental models – that is they are responsible for learning….
Learning organizations will remain a ‘good idea’… until people take a stand
for building such organizations. Taking this stand is the first leadership act,
the start of inspiring (literally ‘to breathe life into’) the vision of the learning
organization. (Senge 1990: 340)
Many of the qualities that Peter Senge discusses with regard to leading the
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 9 of 18
learning organization can be found in the shared leadership model
(discussed elsewhere on these pages). For example, what Senge approaches
as inspiration, can be approached as animation. Here we will look at the
three aspects of leadership that he identifies – and link his discussion with
some other writers on leadership.
Leader as designer. The functions of design are rarely visible, Peter Senge
argues, yet no one has a more sweeping influence than the designer (1990:
341). The organization’s policies, strategies and ‘systems’ are key area of
design, but leadership goes beyond this. Integrating the five component
technologies is fundamental. However, the first task entails designing the
governing ideas – the purpose, vision and core values by which people
should live. Building a shared vision is crucial early on as it ‘fosters a longterm
orientation and an imperative for learning’ (ibid.: 344). Other
disciplines also need to be attended to, but just how they are to be
approached is dependent upon the situation faced. In essence, ‘the leaders’
task is designing the learning processes whereby people throughout the
organization can deal productively with the critical issues they face, and
develop their mastery in the learning disciplines’ (ibid.: 345).
Leader as steward. While the notion of leader as steward is, perhaps, most
commonly associated with writers such as Peter Block (1993), Peter Senge
has some interesting insights on this strand. His starting point was the
‘purpose stories’ that the managers he interviewed told about their
organization. He came to realize that the managers were doing more than
telling stories, they were relating the story: ‘the overarching explanation of
why they do what they do, how their organization needs to evolve, and
how that evolution is part of something larger’ (Senge 1990: 346). Such
purpose stories provide a single set of integrating ideas that give meaning to
all aspects of the leader’s work – and not unexpectedly ‘the leader develops
a unique relationship to his or her own personal vision. He or she becomes a
steward of the vision’ (op. cit.). One of the important things to grasp here is
that stewardship involves a commitment to, and responsibility for the
vision, but it does not mean that the leader owns it. It is not their
possession. Leaders are stewards of the vision, their task is to manage it for
the benefit of others (hence the subtitle of Block’s book – ‘Choosing service
over self-interest’). Leaders learn to see their vision as part of something
larger. Purpose stories evolve as they are being told, ‘in fact, they are as a
result of being told’ (Senge 1990: 351). Leaders have to learn to listen to
other people’s vision and to change their own where necessary. Telling the
story in this way allows others to be involved and to help develop a vision
that is both individual and shared.
Leader as teacher. Peter Senge starts here with Max de Pree’s (1990)
injunction that the first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. While
leaders may draw inspiration and spiritual reserves from their sense of
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 10 of 18
stewardship, ‘much of the leverage leaders can actually exert lies in helping
people achieve more accurate, more insightful and more empowering views
of reality (Senge 1990: 353). Building on an existing ‘hierarchy of
explanation’ leaders, Peter Senge argues, can influence people’s view of
reality at four levels: events, patterns of behaviour, systemic structures and
the ‘purpose story’. By and large most managers and leaders tend to focus
on the first two of these levels (and under their influence organizations do
likewise). Leaders in learning organizations attend to all four, ‘but focus
predominantly on purpose and systemic structure. Moreover they “teach”
people throughout the organization to do likewise’ (Senge 1993: 353). This
allows them to see ‘the big picture’ and to appreciate the structural forces
that condition behaviour. By attending to purpose, leaders can cultivate an
understanding of what the organization (and its members) are seeking to
become. One of the issues here is that leaders often have strengths in one or
two of the areas but are unable, for example, to develop systemic
understanding. A key to success is being able to conceptualize insights so
that they become public knowledge, ‘open to challenge and further
improvement’ (ibid.: 356).
“Leader as teacher” is not about “teaching” people how to
achieve their vision. It is about fostering learning, for everyone.
Such leaders help people throughout the organization develop
systemic understandings. Accepting this responsibility is the
antidote to one of the most common downfalls of otherwise
gifted teachers – losing their commitment to the truth. (Senge
1990: 356)
Leaders have to create and manage creative tension – especially around the
gap between vision and reality. Mastery of such tension allows for a
fundamental shift. It enables the leader to see the truth in changing
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 concern is to identify how interventions can be made to turn
organizations into ‘learning organizations’. Much of his, and similar
theorists’ efforts, have been ‘devoted to identifying templates, which real
organizations could attempt to emulate’ (Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999:
2). In this field some of the significant contributions have been based
around studies of organizational practice, others have ‘relied more on
theoretical principles, such as systems dynamics or psychological learning
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 11 of 18
theory, from which implications for design and implementation have been
derived’ (op. cit.). Peter Senge, while making use of individual case studies,
tends to the latter orientation.
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? This is an especially pertinent question as Peter Senge
looks to promote a more holistic vision of organizations and the lives of
people within them. Here we focus on three aspects. We start with the
Organizational imperatives. Here the case against Peter Senge is fairly
simple. 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. As Will Hutton (1995: 8) has argued, British companies’
priorities are overwhelmingly financial. What is more, ‘the targets for profit
are too high and time horizons too short’ (1995: xi). Such conditions are
hardly conducive to building the sort of organization that Peter Senge
proposes. Here the case against Senge is that within capitalist organizations,
where the bottom line is profit, a fundamental concern with the learning
and development of employees and associates is simply too idealistic.
Yet there are some currents running in Peter Senge’s favour. The need to
focus on knowledge generation within an increasingly globalized 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: firms and
territories are organized in networks of production, management
and distribution; the core economic activities are global – that is
they have the capacity to work as a unit in real time, or chosen
time, on a planetary scale. (Castells 2001: 52)
A failure to attend to the learning of groups and individuals in the
organization spells disaster in this context. As Leadbeater (2000: 70) has
argued, companies need to invest not just in new machinery to make
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 12 of 18
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. This process is not that easy:
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.
A question of sophistication and disposition. One of the biggest problems
with Peter Senge’s approach is nothing to do with the theory, it’s rightness,
nor the way it is presented. 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. Classically, the
approach involves a shift from product to process (and back again). The
question then becomes whether many people in organizations can handle
this. All this has a direct parallel within formal education. One of the
reasons that product approaches to curriculum (as exemplified in the
concern for SATs tests, examination performance and school attendance)
have assumed such a dominance is that alternative process approaches are
much more difficult to do well. They may be superior – but many teachers
lack the sophistication to carry them forward. There are also psychological
and social barriers. 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
to those who might be disposed to face that threat’ (1975: 159). We can make
the same case for people in most organizations.
The process of exploring one’s performance, personality and fundamental
aims in life (and this is what Peter Senge is proposing) is a daunting task for
most people. To do it we need considerable support, and the motivation to
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 13 of 18
carry the task through some very uncomfortable periods. It calls for the
integration of different aspects of our lives and experiences. 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 of
us may just want to earn a living!
Politics and vision. Here we need to note two key problem areas. First,
there is a question of how Peter Senge applies systems theory. While he
introduces all sorts of broader appreciations and attends to values – 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. This is
would not be such a significant problem if there was a more explicit vision
of the sort of society that he would like to see attained, and attention to this
with regard to management and leadership. As a contrast we might turn to
Peter Drucker’s (1977: 36) elegant discussion of the dimensions of
management. He argued that there are three tasks – ‘equally important but
essentially different’ – that face the management of every organization.
These are:
To think through and define the specific purpose and mission of
the institution, whether business enterprise, hospital, or
To make work productive and the worker achieving.
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)
If Peter Senge had attempted greater connection between the notion of the
‘learning organization’ and the ‘learning society’, and paid attention to the
political and social impact of organizational activity then this area of
criticism would be limited to the question of the particular vision of society
and human flourishing involved.
Second, there is some question with regard to political processes concerning
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 14 of 18
his emphasis on dialogue and shared vision. 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 (and arguably aspects of
Peter Senge’s vision of the learning organization) 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.
John van Maurik (2001: 201) has suggested that Peter Senge has been ahead
of his time and that his arguments are insightful and revolutionary. He goes
on to say that it is a matter of regret ‘that more organizations have not taken
his advice and have remained geared to the quick fix’. As we have seen
there are very deep-seated reasons why this may have been the case.
Beyond this, though, there is the questions of whether Senge’s vision of the
learning organization and the disciplines it requires has contributed to more
informed and committed action with regard to organizational life? Here we
have little concrete evidence to go on. However, we can make some
judgements about the possibilities of his theories and proposed practices.
We could say that while there are some issues and problems with his
conceptualization, at least it does carry within it some questions around
what might make for human flourishing. The emphases on building a
shared vision, team working, personal mastery and the development of
more sophisticated mental models and the way he runs the notion of
dialogue through these does have the potential of allowing workplaces to
be more convivial and creative. The drawing together of the elements via
the Fifth Discipline of systemic thinking, while not being to everyone’s taste,
also allows us to approach a more holistic understanding of organizational
life (although Peter Senge does himself stop short of asking some important
questions in this respect). These are still substantial achievements – and
when linked to his popularizing of the notion of the ‘learning organization’
– it is understandable why Peter Senge has been recognized as a key
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 15 of 18
Further reading and references
Block, P. (1993) Stewardship. Choosing service over self-interest, San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler. 264 + xxiv pages. Calls for a new way of thinking about the
workplace - arguing that notions of leadership and management need
replacing by that of 'stewardship'. Organizations should replace traditional
management tools of control and consistency with partnership and choice.
'Individuals who see themselves as stewards will choose responsibility over
entitlement and hold themselves accountable to those over whom they
exercise power'. There is a need to choose service over self-interest.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, Mass.:
Belknap Press. 348 + xi pages. Just about the best of the more recent books
on leadership. Looks to bring back ethical questions to the centre of debates
around leadership, and turns to the leader as educator. A particular
emphasis on the exploration of leadership within
authority and non-authority relationships. Good on
distinguishing between technical and adaptive
Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice
of the learning organization, London: Random House. 424
+ viii pages. A seminal and highly readable book in
which Senge sets out the five ‘competent technologies’
that build and sustain learning organizations. His emphasis on systems
thinking as the fifth, and cornerstone discipline allows him to develop a
more holistic appreciation of organization (and the lives of people
associated with them).
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1996) Organizational learning II: Theory, method and
practice, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (1997) Reframing Organizations. Artistry, choice
and leadership 2e, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 450 pages.
Castells, M. (2001) ‘Information technology and global capitalism’ in W.
Hutton and A. Giddens (eds.) On the Edge. Living with global capitalism,
London: Vintage.
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 16 of 18
DePree, M. (1990) Leadership is an Art, New York: Dell.
Drucker, P. (1977) Management, London: Pan.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. ‘Current debates and
opportunities’ in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (eds.)
Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage.
Edmondson, A. and Moingeon, B. (1999) ‘Learning, trust and
organizational change’ in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J.
Burgoyne (eds.) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization,
London: Sage.
Etzioni, A. (1995) The Spirit of Community. Rights responsibilities and the
communitarian agenda, London: Fontana Press.
Etzioni, A. (1997) The New Golden Rule. Community and morality in a
democratic society, London: Profile Books.
Finger, M. and Brand, S. B. (1999) ‘The concept of the “learning
organization” applied to the transformation of the public sector’ in
M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (eds.) Organizational
Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage.
Fromm, E. (1979) To Have or To Be? London: Abacus.
Guttman, A. and Thompson, D. (1996) Democracy and Disagreement,
Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.
Hutton, W. (1995) The State We’re In, London: Jonathan Cape.
Klein, N. (2001) No Logo, London: Flamingo.
Leadbeater, C. (2000) Living on Thin Air. The new economy, London: Penguin.
Van Maurik, J. (2001) Writers on Leadership, London: Penguin.
O’Neill, J. (1995) ‘On schools as learning organizations. An interview with
Peter Senge’ Educational Leadership, 52(7)
Peck, M. S. (1990) The Road Less Travelled, London: Arrow.
Schultz, J. R. (1999) ‘Peter Senge: Master of change’ Executive Update Online,
Senge, P. (1998) ‘The Practice of Innovation’, Leader to Leader 9
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 17 of 18
Senge, P. et. al. (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for
Building a Learning Organization
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. and Smith, B. (1999) The
Dance of Change: The Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning
Organizations, New York: Doubleday/Currency).
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N. Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J. and Kleiner,
A. (2000) Schools That Learn. A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents,
and Everyone Who Cares About Education, New York: Doubleday/Currency
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development,
London: Heinemann.
Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character. The personal consequences of work
in the new capitalism, New York: Norton.
Dialogue from Peter Senge’s perspective – brief, but helpful, overview by
Martha Merrill – ‘home to The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook Project’ – includes
material on Schools that Learn and The Dance of Change
Peter Senge resources – GWSAE online listing includes interview with
Senge by Jane R. Schultz.
A Primer on Systems Thinking & Organizational Learning – useful set of
pages put together by John Shibley @ The Portland Learning Organization
Resources on Peter Senge’s learning organization – useful listing of
resources from the Metropolitan Community College, Omaha.
sistemika – online Peter Senge resources
Society for Organizational Learning – various resources relating to Senge’s
Systems thinking - useful introductory article by Daniel Aronson on
Bibliographic reference: Smith, M. K. (2001) 'Peter Senge and the learning
organization', the encyclopedia of informal education,
© Mark K. Smith 2001
peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM Page 18 of 18
infed is an open, independent and not-for-profit site
put together by a small group of educators [about
us]. Give us your feedback; write for us. Check our
copyright notice when copying.
First published June 2001. Last update: April 26, 2006