What is a "Learning Organization"?
|
|  Yüklə 338.5 Kb.
|
TEAM PRACTICES Contributors to The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook declare that team learning is not team building, describing the latter as creating courteous behaviors, improving communication, becoming better able to perform work tasks together, and building strong relationships. (Senge, 1990, p. 355) Just as teams pool their knowledge and then examine it from many different angles, so have the practitioners of OD shared their different perspectives and experiences. One such OD “strategist” is Juanita Brown, who has coached organizations toward innovative ways to involve employees. Looking back on groups with which she has worked, she recounts those experiences where team building turned into team learning. She draws inspiration from the community development movement and from the study of voluntary organizations. Roots of this are found in the work of Miles Horton, Paulo Freire, the Scandinavian study circles, Saul Alinsky, M. Scott Peck, and Marvin Weisbord. (Senge, Fieldbook, p. 508-9) Of particular interest is her description of the San Francisco Foundation, a funder of worthy causes throughout the Bay area, which she counseled through a period of extraordinary growth, change, and pressure. Foundations may promote innovative projects, yet they are seldom organized progressively themselves. The executive director, Martin Paley, wanted to shift the role of the Distribution Committee from administrative decisions to policy making, involve the community in a dialogue on project directions, and then for the first time publish explicit grant guidelines in a newsletter. He also faced the delightful problem of an extremely large bequest. Approaching it as an adventure, he hired Juanita Brown as a long range planning consultant. In addition, he attended a systems dynamics training session led by Peter Senge at M.I.T. (Sibbert and Brown, 1986) Six ‘Commitment to the Community’ input sessions were held to open the foundation to new ideas. What they heard was that this foundation didn’t belong to the Distribution Committee or to the staff; it belonged to the community and community members wanted “damn good care” taken of it. They came to think of the foundation as a kind of community development bank. They learned that every meeting agenda is subject to change; that they had too much structure; and that people can learn from each other. (Sibbert and Brown, 1986) Brown expressed her belief in the importance of dialogue as follows: “Strategic dialogue is built on the operating principle that the stakeholders in any system already have within them the wisdom and creativity to confront even the most difficult challenges.” The ‘community of inquiry’ can extend beyond employees to include unions, customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders, becoming a “dynamic and reinforcing process which helps create and strengthen the ‘communities of commitment’ which Fred Kofman and Peter Senge emphasize lie at the heart of learning organizations capable of leading the way towarda sustainable future.” (Bennet and Brown, 1995, p. 167)
While much anecdotal evidence exists, there remains a lack of a clear understanding of how to really describe and measure team learning. As Senge stated: Until we can describe the phenomenon better, it [team learning] will
What usually is measured is productivity, because high or low productivity has a direct effect on wages, the cost of products, the consumption of resources to produce goods, the quality of work life, and the survival and competitiveness of industries and of individual firms. However, these studies only evaluate productivity at the individual level. (Pritchard, 1990, p. 254) Goodman et al suggest that "if we want to understand how to design more productive groups, we need to move to finer-grained models that link group design and productivity changes." They suggest that the Hackman model (below) provides a good start. (Goodman et al., 1988, p. 317) 
Shared Vision What does it mean to have a shared vision? A shared vision begins with the individual, and an individual vision is something that one person holds as a truth. Throughout history there are many examples of people who have had a strong vision, some of these people are remembered even today. One example is John Brown with his vision of a holy war to free the slaves, which culminated in his attack on Harpers Ferry, Virginia, in 1859. According to Carl Jung, "Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart.... Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." (Mindscape, 1995) What is this vision that is found within our hearts? According to WordNet,3 a vision is a vivid mental image. In this context, vivid means graphic and lifelike. Based on this, it can be concluded that a vision is a graphic and lifelike mental image that is very important to us, i.e., held within our hearts. The vision is often a goal that the individual wants to reach. In systems thinking that goal is most often a long term goal, something that can be a leading star for the individual. The shared vision of an organization must be built of the individual visions of its members. What this means for the leader in the Learning Organization is that the organizational vision must not be created by the leader, rather, the vision must be created through interaction with the individuals in the organization. Only by compromising between the individual visions and the development of these visions in a common direction can the shared vision be created. The leader's role in creating a shared vision is to share her own vision with the employees. This should not be done to force that vision on others, but rather to encourage others to share their vision too. Based on these visions, the organization's vision should evolve. It would be naive to expect that the organization can change overnight from having a vision that is communicated from the top to an organization where the vision evolves from the visions of all the people in the organization. The organization will have to go through major change for this to happen, and this is where OD can play a role. In the development of a learning organization, the OD-consultant would use the same tools as before, just on a much broader scale. What is a shared vision? To come up with a classification for shared visions would be close to impossible. Going back to the definition of a vision as a graphic and lifelike mental image that is very important to us, Melinda Dekker's drawing [see p. 2] is as good as any other representation of shared vision. The drawing will probably be interpreted differently by people, but still there is something powerful about the imagery that most people can see. Reflection on shared vision brings the question of whether each individual in the organization must share the rest of the organization's vision. The answer is no, but the individuals who do not share the vision might not contribute as much to the organization. How can someone start to share the rest of the organization's vision? Senge (1990) stresses that visions can not be sold. For a shared vision to develop, members of the organization must enroll in the vision. The difference between these two is that through enrollment the members of the organization choose to participate. When an organization has a shared vision, the driving force for change comes from what Senge calls "creative tension." Creative tension is the difference between the shared vision and the current reality. With truly committed members the creative tension will drive the organization toward its goals. John Brown, mentioned earlier, had a vision of freeing the slaves. Obviously, this was not a vision that came out of his own mind. He must have taken the slaves’ vision and shared it with them. Clearly, if the slaves had truly preferred to stay enslaved, John Brown's vision could not have existed. The slaves’ sense of shared vision made it possible for them to die by Brown's side, but they did not die for Brown, they died for a shared vision.
Systems Thinking In the October 17, 1994 issue of Fortune magazine, Brian Dumaine named Peter M. Senge: "MR. LEARNING ORGANIZATION.” (Dumaine, 1992) Why is it that in a field with so many distinguished contributors, Peter Senge was referred to as the "intellectual and spiritual champion?" (Dumaine, 1992, p. 147) The reason is probably because Senge injected into this field an original and powerful paradigm called ‘systems thinking,’ a paradigm premised upon the primacy of the whole --the antithesis of the traditional evolution of the concept of learning in western cultures. Humankind has succeeded over time in conquering the physical world and in developing scientific knowledge by adopting an analytical method to understand problems. This method involves breaking a problem into components, studying each part in isolation, and then drawing conclusions about the whole. According to Senge, this sort of linear and mechanistic thinking is becoming increasingly ineffective to address modern problems. (Kofman and Senge, 1993, p. 18) This is because, today, most important issues are interrelated in ways that defy linear causation. Alternatively, circular causation—where a variable is both the cause and effect of another—has become the norm, rather than the exception. Truly exogenous forces are rare. For example, the state of the economy affects unemployment, which in turn affects the economy. The world has become increasingly interconnected, and endogenous feedback causal loops now dominate the behavior of the important variables in our social and economic systems. Thus, fragmentation is now a distinctive cultural dysfunction of society.4 (Kofman and Senge, p. 17) In order to understand the source and the solutions to modern problems, linear and mechanistic thinking must give way to non-linear and organic thinking, more commonly referred to as systems thinking—a way of thinking where the primacy of the whole is acknowledged. THE PRIMACY OF THE WHOLE David Bohm compares the attempt to understand the whole by putting the pieces together with trying to assemble the fragments of a shattered mirror. It is simply not possible. Kofman & Senge add: The defining characteristic of a system is that it cannot be understood as a function of its isolated components. First, the behavior of the system doesn't depend on what each part is doing but on how each part is interacting with the rest ... Second, to understand a system we need to understand how it fits into the larger system of which it is a part ... Third, and most important, what we call the parts need not be taken as primary. In fact, how we define the parts is fundamentally a matter of perspective and purpose, not intrinsic in the nature of the 'real thing' we are looking at. (Kofman and Senge, 1993, p. 27) In his prominent book, The Fifth Discipline, Senge identified some learning disabilities associated with the failure to think systemically. He classified them under the following headings:
Although each of these contains a distinct message, illustrated how traditional thinking can undermine real learning by following up on one example: "the fixation on events." According to Senge, fragmentation has forced people to focus on snapshots to distinguish patterns of behavior in order to explain past phenomena or to predict future behavior. This is essentially the treatment used in statistical analysis and econometrics, when trying to decipher patterns of relationship and behavior. However, this is not how the world really works: events do not dictate behavior; instead, they are the product of behavior. What really causes behavior are the interactions between the elements of the system. In diagrammatic form: systems (patterns of relationships) ---> patterns of behavior ---> events (snapshots) It is commonly recognized that the power of statistical models is limited to explaining past behavior, or to predict future trends (as long as there is no significant change in the pattern of behavior observed in the past). These models have little to say about changes made in a system until new data can be collected and a new model is constructed. Thus, basing problem-solving upon past events is, at best, a reactive effort. On the other hand, systems modeling is fundamentally different. Oncethe behavior of a system is understood to be a function of the structure and of the relationships between the elements of the system, the system can be artificially modified and, through simulation, we can observe whether the changes made result in the desired behaviors. Therefore, systems thinking, coupled with modeling, constitutes a generative --rather than adaptive-- learning instrument.5 Thus, according to Senge: Generative learning cannot be sustained in an organization if people's thinking is dominated by short-term events. If we focus on events, the best we can ever do is predict an event before it happens so that we can react optimally. But we cannot learn to create. (1990, p. 22) [emphasis added] LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONS Once we embrace the idea that systems thinking can improve individual learning by inducing people to focus on the whole system, and by providing individuals with skills and tools to enable them to derive observable patterns of behavior from the systems they see at work, the next step is to justify why systems thinking is even more important to organizations of people. Here, the discipline of systems thinking is most clearly interrelated with the other disciplines, especially with mental models, shared vision, and team learning. Patterns of relationships (or systems) are derived from people's mental models --their perceptions about how the relevant parts of a system interact with one another. Naturally, different people have different perceptions about what the relevant parts of any one system are, and how they interact with one another. In order for organizational learning to occur, individuals in the organization must be willing and prepared to reveal their individual mental models, contrast them to one another, discuss the differences, and come to a unified perception of what that system really is. This alignment of mental models can be referred to as developing a shared vision, as is discussed in the first part of this paper. It is possible that mere discussion among individuals may lead them to a shared vision but, because problems are often too complex, usually this exercise requires the aid of some skills and tools developed by systems thinkers. Whether simple or complex frameworks are used (such as word-and-arrow diagrams or computer simulation), they are essential instruments to developing a shared vision. When groups of individuals who share a system also share a vision about how the components of that system interact with one another, then team learning (or organizational learning) is possible. First, they learn from one another in the process of sharing their different perspectives. There are many organizational problems that can be solved simply by creating alignment. For example, cooperation is a lesson that is often learned by people who recognize that they belong to different interdependent parts of the same system. Second, people learn together by submitting their shared vision to testing. When complex dynamics exist, a robust shared vision allows organizational members to examine assumptions, search for leverage points, and test different policy alternatives. This level of learning often requires simulation, which is a much more specialized systems technique. However, if the problems faced by the organization are among commonly observed patterns which have been previously studied, archetypal solutions may be available to deal with them. Later in this paper, we will discuss an example using an archetype commonly referred to as "growth and under-investment." THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE, A METANOIA Systems thinking represents a major leap in the way people are used to thinking. It requires the adoption of a new paradigm. Although there is no such a thing as a learning organization, we can articulate a view of what it would stand for. In this sense, a learning organization would be an entity which individuals "would truly like to work within and which can thrive in a world of increasing interdependency and change." (Kofman and Senge, 1993, p. 32) And according to Senge, systems thinking is critical to the learning organization, because it represents a new perception of the individual and his/her world: At the heart of a learning organization is a shift of mind --from seeing ourselves as separate from the world to connected to the world, from seeing problems as caused by someone or something 'out there' to seeing how our own actions create the problems we experience. A learning organization is a place where people are continually discovering how they create their reality. And how they can change it. (1990, pp. 12-13) But, as we shall see next, systems thinking requires skills and tools which can only be developed through lifelong commitment. Plus, it requires that not just one, but many organizational members acquire them. Thus, some of the authors refer to learning organizations as ‘communities of commitment.’
At the foundation of systems thinking is the identification of circles of causality or feedback loops. These can be reinforcing or balancing, and they may contain delays. But before we "close" the loops to distinguish among these terms, let’s examine two examples of flawed (or incomplete) thinking which take into account only partial relationships between elements of systems. The first example is an unilateral perception of the arms race. The word-and-arrow diagram below illustrates, from the point of view of an American, the logic behind building U.S. armaments: Foreign arms ---> Threat to the U.S. ---> Need to build U.S. arms6 The diagram can be read as follows: The more foreign arms, the greater the threat to the United States and, thus, the greater the need to build U.S. arms to defend the country from these potential aggressors. This non-systemic view suggests that U.S. arms are a defensive response to the threat posed by other nations: "If only the other nations would reduce their armaments, then so would the United States." The second example illustrates a simple view of the mechanism involved with adjusting the temperature in a room during a hot summer: Current temp. too hot ---> Turning on the air-conditioner ---> Results in lower temperature For all of us who know about the developments of the cold war, or who have experienced first-hand the extremely cold temperatures inside movie theaters in mid-July, it is no surprise that these two diagrams tell only part of the story. Yet, if asked to tell the whole story, many of us would draw alternative diagrams, instead of complementing these. Over time, systems thinkers developed conventions to illustrate relationships, and to capture the whole story in just one diagram. Moreover, they found it useful to distinguish between stories such as the ones told above. REINFORCING FEEDBACK The arms race is an example of reinforcing (or positive or amplifying) feedback. Not only do more foreign arms increase U.S. arms, but more U.S. arms also tend to provoke increases in foreign arms. One reinforces the other: 
Although reinforcing feedback is commonly labeled as "positive" or "amplifying," this does not carry any value judgment. It simply means that a change in one part of the system causes a change in another part of the system which, in turn, amplifies the change in the first. Things do not always have to grow either. For example, a reduction in foreign arms will reduce the threat to Americans, which will probably cause a reduction in U.S. arms, which is likely to lead to further reductions in foreign arms (since U.S. threat to foreign nations is reduced.) By itself, reinforcing feedback leads to either exponential growth or decay.
Controlling room temperature is an example of balancing (or negative or controlling) feedback. In this case, a change in one part of the system causes a change in another part of the system which, in turn, counteracts the change in the first: 
If the Perceived Gap is positive, i.e., Current Room Temperature is greater than Desired Room Temperature, the A/C is adjusted upwards increasing the flow of colder air, thus reducing the gap. This is a balancing system because more adjustment means less gap, not more (unless, obviously, the adjustment is made in the wrong direction!). The leverage point in this system is desired room temperature. If it is set too low, as seems to be the case in shopping malls and movie theaters, the resulting room temperature may be too low for the casual wear people tend to use during the summer. By itself, balancing feedback leads to goal-seeking behavior.
The time dimension is another factor which tricks people who fail to think systemically. For example, because it takes time to build up foreign arms, an American may not perceive that action as resulting from a response to increases in U.S. arms, but rather as an independent aggressive initiative. Thus a more accurate representation of the arms race would be: 
Sound systems thinking requires the utilization of a combination of reinforcing and balancing feedback loops, and the accurate identification of delays. Complex systems are composed of multiple feedback loops laid upon one another. Often, the behavior of the variables in these systems can only be understood through simulation. But, before we discuss simulation, let’s recognize the existence of certain archetypal structures which are commonly found, and for which behaviors are already well understood. SYSTEM ARCHETYPES A number of system structures or patterns of relationships are commonly found in a variety of settings. Some of these have been carefully studied, and their patterns of behavior and leverage points have been identified. Senge discusses them in The Fifth Discipline, Appendix 2 (pp. 378-390):
The arms race discussed previously could be used as an example of the "Escalation" archetype if we told the story using two balancing feedback loops, instead of just one large reinforcing feedback loop: 
The management principle derived from it is to look for a way for both sides to win, since their continued competition will lead to great costs and inefficiencies. Cooperation or mutual understanding is called for. A practical application of a combination of the "Growth and under-investment" and "Eroding goals" archetypes was recently applied in a strategic planning effort for the Office of Disabled Student Services (DSS) of the University at Albany, State University of New York. Appendix A contains a copy of the analysis that was done for DSS. In this study, the authors suggested that the only way to respond effectively to the increased demand for services for disabled students at the University at Albany would be by increasing work capacity. Although this insight was not particularly dazzling by itself, when coupled with an evaluation that in the absence of resources to increase capacity, there would be slow but unequivocal tendencies to allow for the erosion of the quality of services traditionally offered by the Office, DSS’ leadership recognized that this process was already in place, but no one had really noticed it. This is because there are delays in the system. When system archetypes apply, it becomes easy to focus on high leverage points, and to identify and avoid symptomatic solutions to real problems. This is because the analysis which serves as the foundation for the archetypes has already been done. On the other hand, when the systems under study are more complex because they are composed of a combination of structures, it becomes important to build models and to simulate to confirm assumptions about behavior. MODELING & SIMULATION Model building involves the conceptual formalization of mental models about the interrelationships between important elements in a complex system, for the purpose of examining the behavior of the variables of interest. Unfortunately, a great deal of modeling training, and experience is required to build good models, even simple ones. For this reason, so far, the literature in systems thinking for learning organizations has only traced a few steps in this arena. Usually, when modeling work is required, professional modelers are involved in the analysis to serve as the interface between those who know the system (the clients), and the mathematical formalization of the model. The distinction between qualitative and quantitative systems thinking is commonly made by referring to the former as soft and the latter as hard system dynamics. At present, the contribution made by Senge to the field of organizational learning has relied primarily upon soft system dynamics. However, it is important to emphasize that the knowledge available today in the form of general principles, archetypes, etc., is the product of 30 years of hard system dynamics research and development. Thus, in general, the development of knowledge in systems thinking is highly dependent upon the latter, while its application has been very successful in the former. Yet, system dynamics technology has progressed tremendously in the last few years. The availability of low-priced, user-friendly software for PCs (such as Stella II, produced by High Performance Systems) is extending the realm of quantitative analysis to amateur modelers. Moreover, the skills and tools needed are becoming available in a variety of settings, including K-12 education. Still, only a handful of people qualify as professional modelers, a fact which should serve as an alert with respect to the quality of the modeling being done in the field. MICRO-WORLDS AND GAMES Where formal models do exist, they serve the function of a learning laboratory for managers. Some of the commonly used micro-worlds are:
Each of these captures the dynamics of different systems, with different behaviors, leverage points, principles, etc. For example, the Boom & Bust and Beer Distribution games deal with different dynamics of the business cycle. Fish Banks, on the other hand, is modeled after the tragedy of the commons problem. In Stratagem, players make decisions about investment and consumption practices which carry short- versus long-term tradeoffs. In each of these games, the objective is to understand the nature of the system at hand, and to extract some lessons about how to improve the conditions of the system or how to avoid problems inherently associated with the systems because of the nature of their structures. The underlying message is that structure determines behavior, and people can generally learn to identify what has to be done to deal with problematic behavior by "playing" with the system until they "understand" how it behaves.
Conclusion The concept of the learning organization arises out of ideas long held by leaders in organizational development and systems dynamics. One of the specific contributions of organizational development is its focus on the humanistic side of organizations. The disciplines described in this paper “differ from more familiar management disciplines in that they are ‘personal’ disciplines. Each has to do with how we think, what we truly want, and how we interact and learn with one another.” (Senge, 1990, p. 11) The authors of this paper see learning organizations as part of the evolving field of OD. To our knowledge, there are no true learning organizations at this point. However, some of today’s most successful organizations are embracing these ideas to meet the demands of a global economy where the value of the individual is increasingly recognized as our most important resource.
Endnotes Click on numbers to get back. 1 This definition is an adaptation of the definition offered by French and Bell (1995, p. 28). It was developed by the Spring 1996 section of PAD633 Organization Development and Analysis course at the University at Albany, taught by Dr. Sue Faerman. 2 Because Peter Senge is so influential in the field of learning organnizations, his book The Fifth Discipline is cited here freqently. All references to The Fifth Discipline are indicated in parentheses as his 1990 work. All other references to works by Peter Senge in this paper are listed by title in parentheses. 3 On-line Lexical Database by researchers at Princeton, builds on the Oxford English Dictionary (1928). 4 Kofman and Senge argue that fragmentation is a cultural dysfunction of society because it is a byproduct of its past success. 5 Systems modeling and simulation are the foundation of systems thinking. This larger field is known as ‘System Dynamics,’ founded by Jay Forrester of MIT in the 1960s. 6 Example extracted from Senge, 1990, pp. 69-73.
We draw upon Senge's systemic theory of what happened at People Express to help highlight the consequences of failure to address the issues identified in this strategic planning effort for DSS. (The Fifth Discipline, pp. 130-135) The word and arrow diagram below is an adaptation from the one on p. 133. In it we will find three systems archetypes: (1) growth and under-investment (2) balancing process with delay, and (3) eroding goals. In the analysis, we highlight "the size of DSS’ budget," but any other measure intended to improve the work capacity of the organization would also be appropriate, such as for example "using DSS’ resources more efficiently" (by spending resources according to pre-defined priorities). 
Word-and-Arrow Diagram for DSS’ Budget Problem The positive feedback loop on the top-left of the diagram represents the growth in demand for services for disabled students (DS). This loop indicates that demand for and availability of services reinforce each other: the greater the demand, the more services are provided, which satisfies the needs of disabled students and leads to new demands. The growth in demand which triggered this process was caused by the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. As previously mentioned, ADA defined disability more broadly and opened the doors of higher education to a much larger group. The negative feedback loop on the top-right is a balancing loop which prevents the growth in services for disabled students to continue forever. It causes this growth to level-off when the work capacity of DSS has been met. Thus, the limiting factor in this system is the organization's work capacity. This is how it works: As demand grows, perceived performance (measured in terms of work capacity divided by demand) begins to fall. The reduced performance (in a given task) causes the quality of the work of the organization to fall, which consequently drives disabled students' satisfaction down. Eventually, reduced satisfaction will also cause demand to fall. The work capacity of the organization does not stay fixed, however. This is captured in the third feedback loop, in the bottom of the diagram. This is also a balancing loop (negative), and it serves to balance the organization's perceived performance with its performance standard. This is how it works: Suppose DSS has a performance standard of one (i.e., it wants its work capacity always to meet --or be equal to-- DS’ demand). Then, as performance falls because of higher demand, this causes a perceived need to invest in the organization's capacity. If this investment occurs, eventually, it will serve to increase DSS’ work capacity until perceived performance is finally equal to one. In other words, DSS’ work capacity will be adjusted up or down depending upon its perceived performance and its performance standard. So far, we have discussed (1) growth and under-investment and (2) balancing process with delay. The following observations should serve to underscore the conclusions from this exercise in modeling:
The last two observations lead us into the last archetype in the diagram: eroding goals. There is reason to believe that under a scenario of increasing demand --because of the delay involved in building up the organization's work capacity and because of the gap in time between growing DS’ dissatisfaction and fall in demand-- there will be a permanent gap in the organization's performance (between perceived and standard). If the organization allows its performance standard to slip because of this on-going experience with a lower performance level (positive link between perceived performance and performance standard), then the problems the organization is experiencing will be magnified. This is because performance standard will be allowed to fall below one, relieving the pressure to invest, lowering actual investment levels, and, ultimately and definitely, keeping work capacity from growing sufficiently to meet demand --indeed, helping increase the gap between DS’ demand and DSS’ work capacity. This is probably the most important insight offered by this model. It says that an organization which has been suffering for some time with falling performance may never be able to return to previous performance levels simply because it lowered its standards. If this happens, the organization locks itself in a situation of low performance and high dissatisfaction. Naturally, the long-term result will be lowered motivation and morale within the organization. The solution to this problem is to bring the performance standard back up to adequate levels, and making sure that it stays fixed up there. The above exercise underscores the significance of establishing and keeping track of performance measurements. It also clarifies why it is so important to focus services and establish priorities. Under a condition of increasing demand, it is very easy for one to fall into the trap of trying to do everything and unwillingly allow quality standards to fall. Keeping standards fixed and monitoring performance closely are key concepts not only to identifying much needed increases in work capacity, but also to help advocate increased budget allocations. The model also suggests that the only way DSS will be able to meet its increasing demand is with increased investments in work capacity. Whether those resources should be raised internally, through federal, state and local agencies, through grant-writing and/or fund-raising initiatives will depend upon the evolving characteristics of the environment. Right now, grant-writing and fund-raising initiatives appear to be the most viable alternatives. If DSS wants to maintain its proactive standing in the region, then it must find ways to implement those alternatives.
Appendix B - Definitions ADAPTIVE v. GENERATIVE LEARNING (PROACTIVE v. REACTIVE) According to Fortune magazine, "the most successful corporation ... will be something called a learning organization, a consummately adaptive enterprise." [emphasis added] But Senge argues that increasing adaptiveness is only the first stage in moving toward learning organizations. The impulse to learn in children goes deeper than desires to respond and adapt more effectively to environmental change. The impulse to learn, at its heart, is an impulse to be generative, to expand our capability. This is why leading corporations are focusing on generative learning, which is about creating, as well as adaptive learning, which is about coping. But generative learning, unlike adaptive learning, requires new ways of looking at the world. Generative learning requires seeing the systems that control events. When we fail to grasp the systemic source of problems, we are left to "push on" symptoms rather than eliminate underlying causes. Without systemic thinking, the best we can ever do is adaptive learning. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CREATIVE TENSION The difference between where we are now and where we want to be results in a feeling that we need to change. This feeling is known as creative tension. DEFENSIVE REASONING This is a barrier to learning for both the individual and the organization. We are afraid of embarrassment or perceived threats and that prevents us from having an open mind. DETAIL v. DYNAMIC COMPLEXITY Detail complexity is simply when a problem involves several variables. Dynamic complexity are situations where cause and effect are subtle, and where the effects over time of interventions are not obvious. Senge highlights that when the same action has dramatically different effects in the short-run and in the long-run, there is dynamic complexity. When an action has one set of consequences locally and a very different set of consequences in another part of the system, there is dynamic complexity. When obvious interventions produce non-obvious consequences, there is dynamic complexity. Senge also argues that conventional forecasting, planning, and analysis methods are not equipped to deal with dynamic complexity. FEEDBACK Any reciprocal flow of influence. In systems thinking it is an axiom that every influence is both cause and effect. Nothing is ever influenced in just one direction. LEARNING LABS Computer simulations of "microworlds" that allow us to speed up time and see the results of actions that might be taken by an organization. LEVERAGE Rather than use of a tool, it is through creative ideas, often from unexpected sources, applied to our work activities that gives leverage. A team working with a shared vision can through experimentation develop that extra edge, leverage. METANOIA - A SHIFT OF MIND Systems thinking needs the disciplines of building shared vision, mental models, team learning, and personal mastery to realize its potential. Building a shared vision fosters commitment to the long-term. Mental models focus on the openness needed to unearth shortcomings in our present ways of seeing the world. Team learning develops the skills of groups of people to look for the larger picture that lies beyond individual perspectives. And personal mastery fosters the personal motivation to continually learn how our actions affect our world. But systems thinking makes understandable the subtlest aspect of the learning organization --the new way individuals perceive themselves and their world. At the heart of a learning organization is a shift of mind --from seeing ourselves as separate from the world to connected to the world, from seeing problems as caused by someone or something "out there" to seeing how our own actions create the problems we experience. A learning organization is a place where people are continually discovering how they create their reality. And how they can change it. SINGLE LOOP VS DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING Single loop learning is linear. It is trying to find a better way to do a process. It is comparable to continuous quality improvement. Double loop learning goes a step further and asks why we are doing the process in the first place. Should we be doing something else? SYSTEM ARCHETYPES Systems Archetypes are generic structures which embody the key to learning to see structures in our personal and organizational lives. They are types of systemic structures that recur again and again. Their knowledge helps us to identify and understand the underlying causes of problems, possible leverage points, and so forth. Some examples of systems archetypes are:
The archetype template is a specific tool that is helping managers identify archetypes operating in their own strategic areas. The template shows the basic structural form of the archetype but lets managers fill in the variables of their own situation. SYSTEMS ---> PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR ---> EVENTS There are three distinct levels to view reality: events, patterns of behavior, and systemic structure. According to Senge, contemporary society focuses predominantly on events, less so in patterns of behavior, and very rarely on systemic structure. Leaders in learning organizations must reverse this trend, and focus their organization's attention on systemic structure. This is because event explanations --who did what to whom-- doom their holders to a reactive stance toward change; pattern-of-behavior explanations are limited to identifying long-term trends and assessing their implications --they suggest how, over time, we can respond to shifting conditions (adaptive learning); structural explanations are the most powerful --only they address the underlying causes of behavior at a level such that patterns of behavior can be changed (generative learning). TEAM LEARNING A discipline that starts with "dialogue," the capacity of members of a team to suspend assumptions and enter into a genuine "thinking together." Team learning is vital because teams, not individuals, are the fundamental learning unit in modern organizations. TRIPLE LOOP LEARNING Learning about learning. Understanding why we make the choices we do. What predisposes us to act in certain ways? WHEEL OF LEARNING This model of learning is based upon observation of animals functioning in the wild. They wait, they focus, they strike, and then they wait again. People also alternate between activity and repose; to make effective change, this pattern must be tapped. The "wheel of learning" has four parts of its cycle--reflecting (thinking and feeling), connecting (looking for links or hypotheses), deciding (choosing an action), and doing. There are both individual and team versions of the cycle. David Kolb and Charles Handy are associated with this concept and Stephanie Spear developed a team variation. Mediagraphy The Mediagraphy can be found on the Learning Organizations homepage. |
