The linkage between the five disciplines by Peter Senge
The premise that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its part’ holds true when applied to Peter Senge’s account for the learning organization. Senge argues that there are five disciplines that underpin learning organization as personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning. The fifth discipline is systems thinking that provides substance to the other four disciplines. The framework that Senge presented basically deals with the sense of connection and totality wherein we can only understand the essence of our existence by thinking the whole of which we are an integral part of. Put simply, if one element is changed then the other elements must follow.
Along with other systems-thinkers, what emerge to be the most significant is the birth of a new order of thought that bounds the deepening of systems and systemic appreciation. The complexity in Senge’s model, however, is expressed when the organization as a whole experiences several different uncertainties and in the course that the organization already experienced or is currently experiencing such uncertainties it can affect the spontaneity within and of the learning organization.
Personal Mastery
The discipline of personal mastery is a covenant between organizational members and the organisation itself. Personal mastery means developing individual proficiency. This lifelong discipline is comprised of processes of continuous clarification and intensification of personal vision or the intrinsic desires of a person. Towards the achievement of this purpose, the individual is obliged to focus his energies into it, develop patience in seeking it and see reality objectively. Personal mastery deals with commitment to changes and individual strategy-shaping practices. Seeing personal vision and reality as a way to create ‘creative tension’, the personal experience of energy and enthusiasm will enable people to learn individually; thus, prepare that individual to being part of the group. The reverse effect of creative tension is the emotional tension where the lack of belief in the possibility of changes is observable. The emergence of these negative reactions pulls back personal vision towards current reality and may eventually lead to structural conflict.
Though personal mastery is a potential organizational strategy, there are three underlying principles to address. First, personal mastery is not something you can enforce your people to do or to believe in. The importance of personal mastery to the people necessitates people’s engagement in discussions and dialogue. The problem is how you can make the people to get involve wherein in the first place they cannot appreciate the proposition that personal mastery suggests. Second, personal mastery deals with differing levels of inevitable gaps between current and desired performances. The high-performing, intelligent organization understands that the degree of learning must be compatible with degree of teaching. Third, personal mastery requires the use of the subconscious mind. The subconscious mind is important in personal mastery. Senge argues that regular meditative practices can be of big help in working more productively with the subconscious mind. The problem herein is the acceptance of the people about practicing some forms of meditation.
Mental Model
The discipline of mental model focuses on conceptual structures in people’s mind that drive cognitive processes of intellect. Mental models are the manifestation of influences on actions and reasoning. Base on our mental models, people can pay attention to the distinction between espoused theories (what we say) and theories-in-use (what we do); recognize leaps of abstraction; balance inquiry and advocacy and close examination of what we think but do not say. These are the symbols that we use to mentally process the environment in which we function either individually or as part of a group. The model assumes people observe selectively. Personal mental models determine what we want to see and what we do not want to see. This process of self-restriction undermines systems thinking by means of limiting the vision on what can be seen and/or done in reality. And in effect, holds back learning, albeit openness and merit.
Since people are always restricted to expose their own thinking and subject it to other people’s judgment, scrutiny and influence, we can say that personal mental models are ‘individually flawed’. And since organizational mental models abandon the role of critical feedback or delay which are considered as important points of leverage, we can say that organizational mental models are systemically flawed. Every points of leverage are significant driving forces behind organizational values and principles. Such perceptions intensify the diversity of thoughts and criticisms, the strong sense of trust and the process to deal with ‘sacred cows’ within the organizations. To tie things together, systems thinking should take a look into the prevailing individual mental models and how it can converge with the prevailing organizational mental models. Better yet, consider how the latter could treat and transform the former into strategies and avoid arriving at a ‘mental model divergence’.
Shared Vision
The discipline of shared vision refers to shared operating values and common sense of purpose. As a basis of mutuality, shared vision is the continuum of personal visions and is the provider of focus and energy for organizational learning. According to Senge, it is impossible to have a learning organization without shared vision. The process of achieving a shared vision is developmental. In efforts to move visioning from the top of the management hierarchy to the bottom, all organizational members must give way to telling to co-creating. Telling comes from the top and the rest are told to follow. Co-creating are collaborative processes where a shared vision is built on the basis of generative learning.
Though Senge clearly defines the spontaneity in this construct, the dilemma lies in the discipline’s usability. As Senge puts it, shared vision is a vision wherein many people are committed since it comes out of and is created from each person’s personal vision. If this is the case, we can assume that one limiting indicator of this discipline is the number of people involved. Although a certain amount of vision-sharing is realized, the growing number of participants could potentially increase the diversity of views. Certainly, multiplicity dissipates focus and generates conflict. Moreover, like the personal vision, emergence of gap between perceived and actual practices gives rise to negative feelings and eventually erodes goals of shared vision. In this way, individuals may forget that they are a part of a whole and therefore sacrifice the worth of connectedness.
Team Learning
The discipline of team learning involves alternating processes for dialogue and discussion. Senge noted dialogue as a communication where people suspend their views upon entering the stage of emphatic listening. In this way, listeners are allowed to take a peek and explore other team members’ mental models. Discussion is defined as the communication where different views are presented and defended in attempt to arrive at the best view prior to making a decision. Dialogue is exploratory and it widens possibilities and opportunities; discussion narrows down the options to find the best alternatives. These two complementary agendas facilitates consensus-building within the teams.
The most common drawback of team learning is expressed in the lack of ability to distinguish between these modes and consciously move between these two constructs. There are also forces that hinder the productive implementation of dialogue and discussion. Defensive routines, for example, may break down the processes. Team member reluctance to participate and personal preferences are other examples. Another downside is experience on the spontaneity of coordinated action or the team synergy.
Systems Thinking
The discipline of systems thinking is a conceptual framework. Systems thinking discipline is a body of knowledge and tools that views interrelationships compared to linear causality and processes of change rather than snapshots. Since systems thinking is based on systems dynamics, the discipline provides understanding of practical business issues and looks at the system in terms of system archetypes. The use of archetypes for modeling the cycles that systems go through delivers identification of points of leverage or where efforts are most effective or inefficient. The practice of systems thinking commenced with the understanding of ‘feedback’ concept. This concept shows how actions reinforce or counteract each other.
As a discipline that combines all other disciplines, the identification of potential expertise and competences and the determination of repetitive patterns that led to recurrent problems or limits to growth are possible. However, there are areas that Senge failed to recognize. These are self-control, criticism and collective intelligence. These areas are a probable candidate for points of leverage. Relating the five disciplines in business needs, we can get that people should engage a metanoia and put old ways of thinking, learn to empathize and relate with others, understand how the company lives, from a framework everyone can agree with and then work together to achieve the purpose.
The greater argument for systems thinking is how an organization can move toward becoming a learning organization. Or, a more specific conception, how can every member of the organization contribute to the learning organization. These expectations are hard to prove or even discuss for several reasons. First, not all companies understand the interdependence of different disciplines. Thus, applying them as a whole will only be insufficient. Second, behaviour patterns within companies are not diversified but also changing. Looking at the systemic causes of problems and systems responses to such problems will only be beneficial during that time that the problem and the subsequent responding to such problem was experienced.
There is some disagreement on the importance of systems thinking as it relate with other disciplines and whether that discipline must be labeled as the fifth discipline. For some, the fifth discipline should be the personal mastery discipline. Personal mastery is the phrase we use to address the discipline of personal growth and learning. As Senge puts it, people with high levels of personal mastery are continually expanding their ability to create the results in life that they truly seek. Given that this notion is true, personal mastery is the continual commitment to truthfulness. However, personal mastery is a discipline that can be applied to other four disciplines. Unlike, systems thinking, though for Senge, is no more important than any other disciplines, is the sole discipline that could make other disciplines work. It is the discipline that integrates the disciplines; combining them into a coherent body of theory and practice.
To explain, “systems thinking” in personal mastery guides us to continually see our connectedness to the world we are living in and of the interdependencies between our actions and reality. “Systems thinking” in mental models exposes assumptions and test if these are systemically flawed. “Systems thinking” in shared vision clarifies how vision spreads out through collaborative feedback processes. “Systems thinking” in team learning identifies positive and negative synergy in discussion and dialogue where the whole becomes greater than or less than the sum of its parts.
Bibliography
Flood, R. L. (1999). Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning Within the Unknowable. London: Routledge.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment