The World

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

organizations.

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

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm 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

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).

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

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm 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

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm 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

organization

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

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm 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)

concludes:

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

term.

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

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm 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

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

peter senge and the theory and practice of the learning organization 12/03/2006 11:49 AM

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm 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

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. 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

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm 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

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm 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

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm 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

situations.

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

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm 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

organization.

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

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm 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

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm 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

university.

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

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm 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.

Conclusion

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

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm Page 15 of 18

thinker.

The World

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Pages

Followers