Learning organizationFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that Learning Organizations (Peter Senge) be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Proposed since August2009.

A learning organization is the term given to a company that facilitates the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself.[1] Learning organizations develop as a result of the pressures facing modern organizations and enables them to remain competitive in the business environment.[2] A learning organization has five main features; systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning.[3]

==Development==Organizations do not organically develop into learning organizations; there are factors prompting their change. As organizations grow, they lose their capacity to learn as company structures and individual thinking becomes rigid.[1] When problems arise, the proposed solutions often turn out to be only short term (single loop learning) and re-emerge in the future.[3] To remain competitive, many organizations have restructured, with fewer people in the company.[1] This means those who remain need to work more effectively.[2] To create a competitive advantage, companies need to learn faster than their competitors and to develop a customer responsive culture.[4][2] Argyris[5] identified that organizations need to maintain knowledge about new products and processes, understand what is happening in the outside environment and produce creative solutions using the knowledge and skills of all within the organization. This requires co-operation between individuals and groups, free and reliable communication, and a culture of trust.[5] The main benefits are;

Maintaining levels of innovation and remaining competitive[6] Being better placed to respond to external pressures[6] Having the knowledge to better link resources to customer needs[1] Improving quality of outputs at all levels[1] Improving corporate image by becoming more people oriented[1] Increasing the pace of change within the organization[1] [

edit]Characteristics

There is a multitude of definitions of a learning organization as well as their typologies. According to Peter Senge, a learning organization exhibits five main characteristics: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, a shared vision, and team learning.[3]

Systems thinking. The idea of the learning organization developed from a body of work called systems thinking.[5] This is a conceptual framework that allows people to study businesses as bounded objects.[3]

Learning organizations use this method of thinking when assessing their company and have information

systems that measure the performance of the organization as a whole and of its various components.[5]

Systems thinking states that all the characteristics must be apparent at once in an organization for it to

be a learning organization.[3] If some of these characteristics is missing then the organization will fall short of its goal. However OKeeffe[2] believes that the characteristics of a learning organization are factors that are gradually acquired, rather than developed simultaneously. Personal mastery. The commitment by an individual to the process of learning is known as personal mastery.[3] There is a competitive advantage for an organization whose workforce can learn quicker than the workforce of other organizations.[7] Individual learning is acquired through staff training and development,[6] however learning cannot be forced upon an individual who is not receptive to learning.[3]

Research shows that most learning in the workplace is incidental, rather than the product of formal

training,[2] therefore it is important to develop a culture where personal mastery is practiced in daily life.[3] A learning organization has been described as the sum of individual learning, but there must be mechanisms for individual learning to be transferred into organizational learning.[7] Mental models. The assumptions held by individuals and organizations are called mental models.[3] To become a learning organization, these models must be challenged. Individuals tend to espouse theories, which are what they intend to follow, and theories-in-use, which are what they actually do.[3][5] Similarly, organisations tend to have memories which preserve certain behaviours, norms and values.[8] In creating a learning environment it is important to replace confrontational attitudes with an open culture[6] that promotes inquiry and trust.[2] To achieve this, the learning organization needs mechanisms for locating and assessing organizational theories of action.[5] Unwanted values need to be discarded in a process called unlearning.[8]

Wang and Ahmed[7] refer to this as triple loop learning.

Shared vision. The development of a shared vision is important in motivating the staff to learn, as it creates a common identity that provides focus and energy for learning.[3] The most successful visions build on the individual visions of the employees at all levels of the organization,[6] thus the creation of a shared vision can be hindered by traditional structures where the company vision is imposed from above.[2]

Therefore, learning organizations tend to have flat, decentralized organizational structures.[5] The shared

vision is often to succeed against a competitor,[7] however Senge[3]states that these are transitory goals and suggests that there should also be long term goals that are intrinsic within the company. Team learning. The accumulation of individual learning constitutes Team learning.[2] The benefit of team or shared learning is that staff grow more quickly[2] and the problem solving capacity of the organization is improved through better access to knowledge and expertise.[6] Learning organizations have structures that facilitate team learning with features such as boundary crossing and openness.[5] Team learning requires individuals to engage in dialogue and discussion;[2] therefore team members must develop open communication, shared meaning, and shared understanding.[2]Learning organizations typically have

excellent knowledge management structures, allowing creation, acquisition, dissemination, and implementation of this knowledge in the organization.[7]

[

edit]Barriers

Even within a learning organization, problems can stall the process of learning or cause it to regress. Most of them arise from an organization not fully embracing all the necessary facets. Once these problems can be identified, work can begin on improving them. Some organizations find it hard to embrace personal mastery because as a concept it is intangible and the benefits cannot be quantified;,[3] personal mastery can even be seen as a threat to the organisation. This threat can be real, as Senge[3] points out, that to empower people in an unaligned organisation can be counterproductive. In other words, if individuals do not engage with a shared vision, personal mastery could be used to advance their own personal visions. In some organisations a lack of a learning culture can be a barrier to learning. An environment must be created where individuals can share learning without it being devalued and ignored, so more people can benefit from their knowledge and the individuals becomes empowered.[2] A learning organization needs to fully accept the removal of traditional hierarchical structures.[2] Resistance to learning can occur within a learning organization if there is not sufficient buy-in at an individual level. This is often encountered with people who feel threatened by change or believe that they have the most to lose.[2] They are likely to have closed mind sets, and are not willing to engage with mental models.[2] Unless implemented coherently across the organization, learning can be viewed as elitist and restricted to senior levels. In that case, learning will not be viewed as a shared vision.[6] If training and development is compulsory, it can be viewed as a form of control, rather than as personal development.[6]

Learning and the pursuit of personal mastery needs to be an individual choice, therefore enforced take-

up will not work.[3] In addition, organizational size may become the barrier to internal knowledge sharing. When the number of employees exceeds 150, internal knowledge sharing dramatically decreases because of higher complexity in the formal organizational structure, weaker inter-employee relationships, lower trust, reduced connective efficacy, and less effective communication. As such, as the size of an organizational unit increases, the effectiveness of internal knowledge flows dramatically diminishes and the degree of intra-organizational knowledge sharing decreases.[9]

[

edit]See alsoKnowledge management Organisational learning Systems Thinking

[

edit]References

1.

^ a b c d e f g Pedler, M., Burgogyne, J. and Boydell, T. 1997. The

Learning Company: A strategy for sustainable development. 2nd Ed. London; McGraw-Hill.

2.141.

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o OKeeffe, T. 2002. Organizational Learning: a

new perspective. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26 (2), pp. 130-

3. 4. 5. 6.

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Senge, P.M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline.

London: Century Business. ^ Hipsher, Brian; Grant Lindstrom, Don Parks (1997). "The

Strategic Dilemma". Journal of Business and Society 10 (2): 184. ^ a b c d e f g h Argyris, C. 1999. On Organizational Learning. 2nd Ed.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. ^ a b c d e f g h McHugh, D., Groves, D. and Alker, A. 1998. Managing

learning: what do we learn from a learning organization? The Learning Organization. 5 (5) pp.209-220.

7. 8.

^ a b c d e Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. 2003. Organizational

learning: a critical review. The learning organization, 10 (1) pp. 8-17. ^ a b Easterby-Smith, M. , Crossan, M., and Nicolini, D. 2000.

Organizational learning: debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies. 37 (6) pp 783-796.

9.

^ Serenko, A., Bontis, N. and Hardie, T. 2007. Organizational size

and knowledge flow: A proposed theoretical link. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8 (4), pp. 610-627.

Organisasi pembelajaranDari Wikipedia, ensiklopedia bebas

Ia telah mengemukakan bahwa Organisasi Belajar (Peter Senge) akan digabungkan ke artikel atau bagian. ( Diskusikan ) Usulan sejak Agustus2009.

Sebuah organisasi pembelajar adalah istilah yang diberikan untuk sebuah perusahaan yang memfasilitasi pembelajaran anggotanya dan terus menerus mentransformasikan dirinya. [ 1 ] Belajar organisasi berkembang sebagai akibat dari tekanan yang dihadapi organisasi modern dan memungkinkan mereka untuk tetap kompetitif di lingkungan bisnis. [ 2 ] Sebuah organisasi pembelajaran memiliki lima fitur utama;. berpikir sistem, penguasaan pribadi, model mental, visi bersama dan belajar tim [ 3 ]

== Pengembangan ==Organisasi organik tidak berkembang menjadi organisasi pembelajaran; ada faktor-faktor mendorong perubahan mereka. Sebagai organisasi tumbuh, mereka kehilangan kapasitas mereka untuk belajar sebagai perusahaan struktur dan berpikir individu menjadi kaku. [ 1 ] Ketika masalah muncul, solusi yang diusulkan sering berubah menjadi hanya jangka pendek (belajar loop tunggal) dan muncul kembali di masa depan. [ 3 ] Untuk tetap kompetitif, banyak organisasi telah direstrukturisasi, dengan lebih sedikit orang di perusahaan. [ 1 ] Ini berarti mereka yang tetap perlu bekerja lebih efektif. [ 2 ]Untuk menciptakan keunggulan kompetitif, perusahaan perlu belajar lebih cepat daripada pesaing mereka dan untuk mengembangkan budaya pelanggan yang responsif. [ 4 ] [ 2 ] Argyris [ 5 ]mengidentifikasi bahwa organisasi perlu untuk memelihara pengetahuan tentang produk baru dan proses, memahami apa yang terjadi di lingkungan luar dan menghasilkan solusi kreatif menggunakan pengetahuan dan ketrampilan semua dalam organisasi. Hal ini membutuhkan kerjasama antara individu dan kelompok, komunikasi bebas dan dapat diandalkan, dan budaya kepercayaan. [ 5 ]

[ sunting ]ManfaatManfaat utama adalah;

Mempertahankan tingkat inovasi dan tetap kompetitif [ 6 ] Menjadi lebih baik ditempatkan untuk merespon tekanan eksternal [ 6 ] Memiliki pengetahuan untuk sumber link yang lebih baik untukkebutuhan pelanggan [ 1 ]

Meningkatkan kualitas output di semua tingkatan [ 1 ] Meningkatkan citra perusahaan dengan menjadi orang yang lebihberorientasi [ 1 ]

Meningkatkan kecepatan perubahan dalam organisasi [ 1 ] [ sunting ]KarakteristikAda banyak definisi organisasi belajar serta tipologi mereka. Menurut Peter Senge, organisasi pembelajaran menunjukkan lima karakteristik utama:. Berpikir sistem, penguasaan pribadi, model mental, visi bersama, dan belajar tim [ 3 ] Sistem berpikir . Ide organisasi belajar dikembangkan dari tubuh bekerja disebut sistem berpikir . [ 5 ] Ini adalah suatu kerangka kerja konseptual yang memungkinkan orang untuk belajar bisnis sebagai objek dibatasi. [ 3 ] Belajar organisasi menggunakan metode berpikir ketika menilai perusahaan mereka dan telah sistem informasi yang mengukur kinerja organisasi secara keseluruhan dan berbagai komponen. [ 5 ] Sistem menyatakan berpikir bahwa semua harus jelas karakteristik sekaligus dalam sebuah organisasi untuk itu

untuk menjadi organisasi belajar. [ 3 ] Jika beberapa karakteristik ini hilang maka organisasi akan jatuh pendek dari tujuan. Namun O'Keeffe [ 2 ] berpendapat bahwa karakteristik dari organisasi pembelajaran adalah faktor yang secara bertahap diperoleh, bukan dikembangkan secara bersamaan. Penguasaan pribadi . Komitmen oleh individu untuk proses pembelajaran dikenal sebagai penguasaan pribadi. [ 3 ] Ada sebuah keunggulan kompetitif bagi sebuah organisasi yang tenaga kerja dapat belajar lebih cepat daripada angkatan kerja organisasi lainnya. [ 7 ] belajar individu diperoleh melalui pelatihan staf dan pembangunan, [ 6 ] Namun belajar tidak dapat dipaksakan pada seorang individu yang tidak reseptif untuk belajar. [ 3 ] Penelitian menunjukkan bahwa belajar yang paling di tempat kerja adalah insidental, bukan produk dari pelatihan formal, [ 2 ] oleh karena itu penting untuk mengembangkan budaya di mana penguasaan pribadi dipraktekkan dalam kehidupan sehari-hari. [ 3 ] Sebuah organisasi pembelajaran telah digambarkan sebagai jumlah dari pembelajaran individual, tetapi harus ada mekanisme untuk belajar individu yang akan ditransfer ke dalam pembelajaran organisasi. [ 7 ] Mental model . Asumsi yang dipegang oleh individu dan organisasi yang disebut model mental . [ 3 ] Untuk menjadi organisasi belajar, model ini harus ditentang. Individu cenderung untuk mendukung teori-teori, yang adalah apa yang mereka berniat untuk mengikuti, dan teori-di-gunakan, yang adalah apa yang sebenarnya mereka lakukan. [ 3 ] [ 5 ] Demikian pula, organisasi cenderung memiliki 'ingatan' yang mempertahankan perilaku tertentu, norma dan nilai. [ 8 ] Dalam menciptakan lingkungan belajar yang penting untuk mengganti sikap konfrontatif dengan budaya terbuka [ 6 ] yang mempromosikan penyelidikan dan kepercayaan. [ 2 ] Untuk mencapai hal ini, organisasi belajar perlu mekanisme untuk mencari dan menilai teori-teori organisasi tindakan . [ 5 ] nilai-nilai yang tidak diinginkan harus dibuang dalam proses yang disebut 'unlearning'. [ 8 ] Wang dan Ahmed [ 7 ] lihat ini sebagai 'lingkaran belajar tiga. " Berbagi visi. Pengembangan visi bersama adalah penting dalam memotivasi staf untuk belajar, karena menciptakan identitas bersama yang menyediakan energi untuk fokus dan belajar. [ 3 ] Yang paling sukses visi membangun visi individu karyawan pada semua tingkatan organisasi, [ 6 ] dengan demikian penciptaan visi bersama dapat terhalang oleh struktur tradisional di mana visi perusahaan yang dipaksakan dari atas. [ 2 ] Oleh karena itu, organisasi pembelajaran cenderung memiliki datar, struktur organisasi desentralisasi. [ 5 ] yang dibagi visi sering untuk berhasil melawan pesaing, [ 7 ]Namun Senge [ 3 ] menyatakan bahwa ini adalah tujuan fana dan menunjukkan bahwa ada juga harus menjadi tujuan jangka panjang yang intrinsik dalam perusahaan. Tim belajar. Akumulasi dari pembelajaran individual merupakan Tim belajar . [ 2 ] Manfaat dari tim atau belajar bersama adalah staf yang tumbuh lebih cepat [ 2 ] dan pemecahan masalah kapasitas organisasi ditingkatkan melalui akses yang lebih baik untuk pengetahuan dan keahlian. [ 6 ] Belajar organisasi memiliki struktur yang memfasilitasi tim belajar dengan fitur seperti melintasi batas dan keterbukaan. [ 5 ] Tim belajar memerlukan individu untuk terlibat dalam dialog dan diskusi; [ 2 ] Oleh karena itu anggota tim harus mengembangkan komunikasi yang terbuka, yang berarti bersama, dan pemahaman bersama . [ 2 ] Belajar organisasi biasanya memiliki struktur pengetahuan manajemen yang sangat baik, yang memungkinkan penciptaan, akuisisi, diseminasi, dan implementasi pengetahuan ini dalam organisasi. [ 7 ]

[ sunting ]HambatanBahkan dalam sebuah organisasi belajar, masalah dapat kios proses belajar atau menyebabkan kemunduran. Kebanyakan dari mereka timbul dari sebuah organisasi tidak sepenuhnya merangkul semua aspek yang diperlukan. Setelah masalah ini dapat diidentifikasi, pekerjaan dapat dimulai pada peningkatan mereka. Beberapa organisasi merasa sulit untuk menerima penguasaan pribadi, karena sebagai sebuah konsep itu adalah tidak berwujud dan manfaat tidak dapat dihitung;, [ 3 ] penguasaan pribadi bahkan dapat dilihat sebagai ancaman bagi organisasi. Ancaman ini dapat menjadi nyata, seperti Senge [ 3 ] menunjukkan, bahwa "untuk memberdayakan orang-orang dalam organisasi unaligned dapat menjadi kontraproduktif". Dengan kata lain, jika individu tidak terlibat dengan visi bersama, penguasaan pribadi dapat digunakan untuk memajukan visi pribadi mereka sendiri. Dalam beberapa organisasi kurangnya budaya belajar dapat menjadi penghalang untuk belajar. Lingkungan harus diciptakan di mana individu dapat berbagi belajar tanpa menjadi mendevaluasi dan diabaikan, sehingga lebih banyak orang dapat manfaat dari pengetahuan mereka dan menjadi individu diberdayakan. [ 2 ] Sebuah organisasi pembelajaran perlu sepenuhnya menerima penghapusan struktur hirarkis tradisional. [ 2 ] Resistensi terhadap pembelajaran dapat terjadi dalam organisasi belajar jika ada tidak cukup membeli-in di tingkat individu. Hal ini sering ditemui dengan orang-orang yang merasa terancam oleh perubahan atau percaya bahwa mereka memiliki yang paling kehilangan. [ 2 ] Mereka cenderung memiliki set pikiran tertutup, dan tidak bersedia untuk terlibat dengan model mental. [ 2 ] Kecuali diimplementasikan secara koheren di seluruh organisasi, pembelajaran dapat dilihat sebagai elitis dan terbatas pada tingkat senior. Dalam hal ini, belajar tidak akan dipandang sebagai visi bersama.[ 6 ] Jika pelatihan dan pengembangan adalah wajib, hal itu dapat dilihat sebagai bentuk kontrol, bukan sebagai pengembangan pribadi. [ 6 ] Belajar dan mengejar penguasaan pribadi perlu menjadi pilihan individu, karena itu paksa mengambil-up tidak akan bekerja. [ 3 ] Selain itu, ukuran organisasi dapat menjadi penghalang untuk berbagi pengetahuan internal. Ketika jumlah karyawan melebihi 150, berbagi pengetahuan internal secara dramatis berkurang karena kompleksitas yang lebih tinggi dalam struktur organisasi formal, lemah antar-karyawan hubungan, kepercayaan yang lebih rendah, keberhasilan ikat berkurang, dan komunikasi kurang efektif. Dengan demikian, sebagai ukuran dari suatu unit organisasi meningkat, efektivitas pengetahuan internal mengalir secara dramatis berkurang dan tingkat intra-organisasi berbagi pengetahuan berkurang. [ 9 ]

[ sunting ]Lihat

jugaPengetahuan manajemen Organisasi belajar Berpikir Sistem

[ sunting ]Referensi

1.

^ a b c d e f g kelontong, M., Burgogyne, J. dan Boydell, T.

1997. Perusahaan Belajar: Sebuah strategi untuk pembangunan berkelanjutan . 2 Ed. London; McGraw-Hill.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o O'Keeffe, T. 2002. Organisasi Belajar: perspektif

baru. Jurnal Eropa Pelatihan Industri , 26 (2), hlm 130-141. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Senge, PM 1990. Para Disiplin Kelima . London:

Century Bisnis. ^ Hipsher, Brian; Hibah Lindstrom, Don Taman (1997). "Dilema

Strategis". Jurnal Bisnis dan Masyarakat 10 (2): 184. ^ a b c d e f g h Argyris, C. 1999. Pada Organisasi Belajar . 2 Ed. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing. ^ a b c d e f g h McHugh, D., Groves, D. dan Alker, A. 1998. Mengelola

belajar: apa yang kita pelajari dari organisasi belajar? Organisasi Belajar . 5 (5) pp.209-220.

7. 8.

^ a b c d e Wang, CL dan Ahmed, PK 2003. Pembelajaran organisasi:

suatu tinjauan kritis.Organisasi pembelajaran , 10 (1) hlm 8-17. ^ a b Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., dan Nicolini, D.

2000. Pembelajaran organisasi: debat masa lalu, sekarang dan masa depan. Journal of Management Studies . 37 (6) pp 783-796.

9.

^ Serenko, A., Bontis, N. dan Hardie, T. 2007. ukuran organisasi

dan aliran pengetahuan: Sebuah link teori yang diusulkan. Journal of Intellectual Capital , 8 (4), hlm 610-627.

ideas thinkers practice

peter senge and the learning organizationPeter Senges 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: introduction peter senge the learning organization systems thinking the cornerstone of the learning organization the core disciplines leading the learning organization issues and problems conclusion further reading and references links

Peter M. Senge (1947- ) was named a Strategist of the Century by the Journal of Business Strategy, one of 24 men and women who have had the greatest impact on the way we conduct business today (September/October 1999). While he has studied how firms and organizations develop adaptive capabilities for many years at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), it was Peter Senges 1990 book 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 Reviewidentified it as one of the seminal management books of the past 75 years. On this page we explore Peter Senges 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

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 Senges 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 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 peoples commitment and capacity to learn atall 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 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 Senges 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 theorys 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 Senges 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 anorganization. Part of the problem is the nature of the feedback we receive. Some of the feedback will

be 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 peoples 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 long-term view. Thats why delays and feedback loops are so important. In the short term, you can often ignore them; theyre 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 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 Senges 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 sub-conscious (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 Schn talked about as a professionals 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 Schn would put it) is to develop the ability to reflect-in- and on-action. Peter Senge is also influenced here by Schns 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 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: 273286). 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, its 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 counterproductiveness 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 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 deep-seated 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 peoples 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 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 asanimation. 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 organizations 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 long-term 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 leaders 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 Blocks 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 peoples 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 Prees (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 stewardship, much of the leverage leaders can actually exert lies in helping people achieve more accurate, more insightful and moreempowering views of reality (Senge

1990: 353). Building on an existing hierarchy of explanation leaders, Peter Senge argues, can influence peoples 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 Senges 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 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 Senges 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 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 peoples own. A question of sophistication and disposition. One of the biggest problems with Peter Senges approach is nothing to do with the theory, its 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 ones 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 ones 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 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 Druckers (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 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 ofcommunitarian 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 Senges 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 others 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 deepseated reasons why this may have been the case. Beyond this, though, there is the questions of whether Senges 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 everyones 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 thinker.

Further reading and references

Block, P. (1993) Stewardship. Choosing service over self-interest, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. 264 + xxiv pages. Calls for a new way of thinking about the workplace - arguing that notions of leadership and management need replacing by that of 'stewardship'. Organizations should replace traditional management tools of control and consistency with partnership and choice. 'Individuals who see themselves as stewards will choose responsibility over entitlement and hold themselves accountable to those over whom they exercise power'. There is a need to choose service over self-interest.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press. 348 + xi pages. Just about the best of the more recent books on leadership. Looks to bring back ethical questions to the centre of debates around leadership, and turns to the leader as educator. A particular emphasis on the exploration of leadership within authority and non-authority relationships. Good on distinguishing between technical and adaptive situations. Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization, London: Random House. 424 + viii pages. A seminal and highly readable book in which Senge sets out the five competent technologies that build and sustain learning organizations. His emphasis on systems thinking as the fifth, and cornerstone discipline allows him to develop a more holistic appreciation of organization (and the lives of people associated with them).

References

Argyris, C., & Schn, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective,Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Argyris, C. and Schn, D. (1996) Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (1997) Reframing Organizations. Artistry, choice and leadership 2e, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 450 pages. Castells, M. (2001) Information technology and global capitalism in W. Hutton and A. Giddens (eds.) On the Edge. Living with global capitalism, London: Vintage. DePree, M. (1990) Leadership is an Art, New York: Dell. Drucker, P. (1977) Management, London: Pan.

Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. Current debates and opportunities in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (eds.) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage. Edmondson, A. and Moingeon, B. (1999) Learning, trust and organizational change in M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (eds.) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage.

Etzioni, A. (1995) The Spirit of Community. Rights responsibilities and the communitarian agenda, London: Fontana Press. Etzioni, A. (1997) The New Golden Rule. Community and morality in a democratic society, London: Profile Books.

Finger, M. and Brand, S. B. (1999) The concept of the learning organization applied to the transformation of the public sector in M. EasterbySmith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (eds.) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, London: Sage.

Fromm, E. (1979) To Have or To Be? London: Abacus. Guttman, A. and Thompson, D. (1996) Democracy and Disagreement, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.

Hutton, W. (1995) The State Were In, London: Jonathan Cape. Klein, N. (2001) No Logo, London: Flamingo. Leadbeater, C. (2000) Living on Thin Air. The new economy, London: Penguin. Van Maurik, J. (2001) Writers on Leadership, London: Penguin. ONeill, J. (1995) On schools as learning organizations. An interview with Peter SengeEducational Leadership, 52(7)http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9504/oneil.html Peck, M. S. (1990) The Road Less Travelled, London: Arrow. Schultz, J. R. (1999) Peter Senge: Master of change Executive Update Online,http://www.gwsae.org/ExecutiveUpdate/1999/June_July/CoverStory2.ht m Senge, P. (1998) The Practice of Innovation, Leader to Leader 9http://pfdf.org/leaderbooks/l2l/summer98/senge.html Senge, P. et. al. (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. and Smith, B. (1999) The Dance of Change: The Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations, New York: Doubleday/Currency). Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N. Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J. and Kleiner, A. (2000)Schools That Learn. A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education, New York: Doubleday/Currency Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, London: Heinemann. Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character. The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism, New York: Norton.

Links

Dialogue from Peter Senges perspective brief, but helpful, overview by Martha Merrill fieldbook.com home to The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook Project includes material onSchools that Learn and The Dance of Change Peter Senge resources GWSAE online listing includes interview with Senge by Jane R. Schultz. A Primer on Systems Thinking & Organizational Learning useful set of pages put together by John Shibley @ The Portland Learning Organization Group Resources on Peter Senges learning organization useful listing of resources from the Metropolitan Community College, Omaha. sistemika online Peter Senge resources Society for Organizational Learning various resources relating to Senges project.

Systems thinking - useful introductory article by Daniel Aronson on thinking.net. Bibliographic reference: Smith, M. K. (2001) 'Peter Senge and the learning organization', the encyclopedia of informal education. [www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm. Last update: September 22, 2011] Mark K. Smith 2001

ide pemikir praktek

Peter Senge dan organisasi belajarPeter Senge visi dari sebuah organisasi belajar sebagai sekelompok orang yang terus-menerus meningkatkan kemampuan mereka untuk menciptakan apa yang mereka ingin menciptakan telah sangat berpengaruh. Kami membahas lima disiplin yang ia lihat sebagai pusat organisasi belajar dan beberapa isu dan pertanyaan mengenai teori dan praktek dari organisasi pembelajaran.isi: pengantar Peter Senge organisasi belajar sistem berpikir - landasan organisasi belajar disiplin inti memimpin organisasi belajar isu-isu dan masalah Kesimpulan bacaan lanjut dan referensi link

Peter M. Senge (1947 -) diangkat menjadi 'Strategist abad' oleh Journal of Business Strategy , salah satu dari 24 pria dan wanita yang telah 'memiliki dampak terbesar pada cara kita melakukan bisnis saat ini (September / Oktober 1999 ). Sementara ia telah mempelajari bagaimana perusahaan dan organisasi mengembangkan kemampuan adaptif selama bertahun-tahun di MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), itu 1990 buku Peter Senge yangDisiplin

Kelima yang membawanya tegas menjadi pusat perhatian dan mempopulerkan konsep 'organisasi belajar'. Sejak publikasi, lebih dari satu juta eksemplar telah terjual dan pada tahun 1997, Harvard Business Review diidentifikasi sebagai salah satu buku manajemen mani dari 75 tahun terakhir. Pada halaman ini kita mengeksplorasi visi Peter Senge tentang organisasi belajar. Kami akan fokus pada argumen dalam (1990) bukunya The Disiplin Kelima seperti di sini kita menemukan penjelasan yang paling lengkap dari pemikirannya. Peter Senge Lahir di tahun 1947, Peter Senge lulus dalam rekayasa dari Stanford, dan kemudian melanjutkan untuk melakukan master pada pemodelan sistem sosial di MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) sebelum menyelesaikan gelar PhD pada Manajemen. Dikatakan sebagai pria agak sederhana, ia adalah dosen senior di Institut Teknologi Massachusetts. Dia juga kursi pendiri Masyarakat untuk Organisasi Belajar (SOL). Nya saat ini area fokus minat khusus pada desentralisasi peran kepemimpinan dalam organisasi sehingga untuk meningkatkan kapasitas semua orang untuk bekerja secara produktif menuju tujuan bersama. Peter Senge menggambarkan dirinya sebagai 'pragmatis idealis'. Orientasi ini telah memungkinkan dia untuk mengeksplorasi dan mendukung beberapa ide yang cukup 'utopis' dan abstrak (terutama di sekitar teori sistem dan perlunya membawa nilai-nilai manusia untuk tempat kerja). Pada saat yang sama ia telah mampu menengahi ini sehingga mereka dapat bekerja pada dan diterapkan oleh orang-orang dalam bentuk yang sangat berbeda dari organisasi. Bidang minat khusus yang mengatakan untuk fokus pada desentralisasi peran kepemimpinan dalam organisasi sehingga untuk meningkatkan kapasitas semua orang untuk bekerja secara produktif menuju tujuan bersama. Salah satu aspek dari hal ini adalah keterlibatan Senge dalam Organisasi Belajar Masyarakat (SOL), Cambridge-based, non-profit organisasi keanggotaan. Peter Senge adalah kursi dan co-founder. SOL adalah bagian dari 'komunitas global perusahaan, peneliti, dan konsultan' didedikasikan untuk menemukan, mengintegrasikan, dan menerapkan 'teori dan praktek untuk pengembangan saling tergantung orang dan lembaga-lembaga mereka. Salah satu aspek menarik dari Pusat (dan terkait dengan tema idealis pragmatisme) telah kemampuannya untuk menarik sponsor perusahaan untuk mendanai program percontohan yang membawa dalam diri mereka keprihatinan yang relatif idealis. Selain menulis The Disiplin Kelima: Seni dan Praktek Organisasi Belajar (1990), Peter Senge juga turut menulis sejumlah buku lain yang terkait dengan tema pertama kali dikembangkan di The Disiplin Kelima . Ini termasuk Robert Slater Disiplin Kelima: Strategi dan Alat untuk Membangun Learning Organization (1994); The Dance of Perubahan: Tantangan untuk Mempertahankan Momentum dalam Organisasi Belajar(1999) dan Sekolah Itu Belajar (2000). Organisasi pembelajaran Menurut Peter Senge (1990: 3) organisasi belajar adalah: ... Organisasi di mana orang terus menerus memperluas kapasitas mereka untuk menciptakan hasil yang benar-benar mereka inginkan, dimana pola baru dan ekspansif berpikir yang dipelihara, dimana aspirasi kolektif dibebaskan, dan dimana orang terusmenerus belajar melihat keseluruhan bersama-sama.

Alasan dasar untuk organisasi tersebut adalah bahwa dalam situasi perubahan yang cepat hanya mereka yang fleksibel, adaptif dan produktif akan unggul. Agar hal ini terjadi, ia berpendapat, organisasi perlu untuk 'menemukan bagaimana memanfaatkan komitmen dan kapasitas untuk belajar pada semua tingkatan "( ibid. : 4). Sementara semua orang memiliki kapasitas untuk belajar, struktur di mana mereka harus berfungsi sering tidak kondusif untuk refleksi dan keterlibatan. Selanjutnya, orang mungkin kekurangan alat dan ide-ide membimbing untuk memahami situasi yang mereka hadapi. Organisasi yang terus-menerus memperluas kapasitas mereka untuk menciptakan masa depan mereka memerlukan perubahan mendasar pikiran di antara anggota mereka. Ketika Anda bertanya kepada orang tentang apa rasanya menjadi bagian dari sebuah tim yang hebat, apa yang paling mencolok adalah kebermaknaan pengalaman. Orang-orang berbicara tentang menjadi bagian dari sesuatu yang lebih besar dari diri mereka sendiri, yang terhubung, menjadi generatif.Ini menjadi sangat jelas bahwa, bagi banyak orang, pengalaman mereka sebagai bagian dari tim benar-benar hebat menonjol sebagai periode tunggal hidup yang dijalani dengan penuh. Beberapa menghabiskan sisa hidup mereka mencari cara untuk menangkap kembali semangat itu. (Senge 1990: 13) Untuk Peter Senge, belajar yang nyata sampai ke jantung dari apa yang menjadi manusia. Kita menjadi mampu untuk menciptakan kembali diri kita sendiri. Hal ini berlaku baik individu dan organisasi. Jadi, untuk organisasi belajar itu tidak cukup untuk bertahan hidup. '"Survival belajar" atau apa yang lebih sering disebut "belajar adaptif" adalah penting - memang itu perlu. Tapi untuk sebuah organisasi belajar, "belajar adaptif" harus bergabung dengan "belajar generatif", belajar yang meningkatkan kapasitas kita untuk menciptakan '(Senge 1990:14). Dimensi yang membedakan belajar dari organisasi yang lebih tradisional adalah penguasaan disiplin ilmu dasar tertentu atau 'teknologi komponen'. Lima yang mengidentifikasi Peter Senge dikatakan konvergen untuk berinovasi organisasi pembelajaran. Mereka adalah: Sistem berpikir Penguasaan pribadi Mental model Membangun visi bersama Tim belajar Dia menambahkan ini pengakuan bahwa orang agen, mampu bertindak pada struktur dan sistem yang mereka menjadi bagian. Semua disiplin ilmu, dalam cara ini, 'berkaitan dengan pergeseran pikiran dari melihat bagian untuk keseluruhan melihat, dari melihat orang sebagai reaktor berdaya untuk melihat mereka sebagai peserta aktif dalam membentuk realitas mereka, dari bereaksi hingga saat ini untuk menciptakan masa depan' (Senge 1990: 69). Ini adalah disiplin bahwa sekarang kita akan berubah. Sistem berpikir - landasan organisasi belajar Sebuah kebajikan yang besar karya Peter Senge adalah cara di mana dia menempatkan teori sistem untuk bekerja. Para Disiplin Kelima menyediakan pengenalan yang baik untuk dasar-dasar dan menggunakan teori tersebut - dan cara yang dapat dibawa bersama-sama dengan perangkat teoritis lain di Untuk memahami masalah organisasi

dan masalah. Berpikir sistemik adalah landasan konseptual ('Para Disiplin Kelima') dari pendekatannya. Ini merupakan disiplin yang mengintegrasikan lain, menggabungkan mereka menjadi sebuah badan koheren dari teori dan praktek ( ibid. : 12). Kemampuan sistem teori untuk memahami dan alamat keseluruhan, dan untuk memeriksa keterkaitan antara bagian-bagian menyediakan, untuk Peter Senge, baik insentif dan sarana untuk mengintegrasikan disiplin. Di sini bukan tempat untuk pergi ke sebuah eksplorasi rinci presentasi Senge tentang teori sistem (saya telah menyertakan beberapa link ke primer di bawah ini). Namun, diperlukan untuk menyorot satu atau dua elemen dari argumennya. Pertama, sementara alat dasar teori sistem cukup mudah mereka dapat membangun ke dalam model yang canggih. Peter Senge berpendapat bahwa salah satu masalah utama dengan banyak yang tertulis tentang, dan dilakukan dalam nama manajemen, adalah bahwa kerangka agak sederhana yang diterapkan pada apa yang sistem yang kompleks. Kita cenderung untuk fokus pada bagian-bagian daripada melihat keseluruhan, dan gagal untuk melihat organisasi sebagai sebuah proses dinamis. Dengan demikian, argumen berjalan, apresiasi yang lebih baik dari sistem akan mengarah ke tindakan yang lebih tepat. "Kita belajar dari pengalaman kami yang terbaik, tapi kami tidak pernah secara langsung mengalami konsekuensi dari banyak keputusan kita yang paling penting ', Peter Senge (1990: 23) berpendapat berkaitan dengan organisasi. Kita cenderung berpikir bahwa sebab dan akibat akan relatif dekat satu sama lain. Jadi ketika dihadapkan dengan masalah, itu adalah 'solusi' yang dekat dengan yang kita fokus pada. Klasik kita melihat tindakan yang menghasilkan perbaikan dalam rentang waktu yang relatif singkat. Namun, bila dilihat dari segi sistem perbaikan jangka pendek sering melibatkan sangat signifikan biaya jangka panjang. Misalnya, memotong kembali pada penelitian dan desain dapat membawa penghematan biaya yang sangat cepat, tetapi sangat dapat merusak kelangsungan hidup jangka panjang anorganization. Bagian dari masalah adalah sifat umpan balik yang kami terima. Beberapa umpan balik akan memperkuat (atau memperkuat) - dengan perubahan kecil pada diri mereka sendiri membangun. "Apa pun gerakan terjadi adalah diperkuat, memproduksi lebih banyak gerakan dalam arah yang sama. Sebuah bola salju tindakan kecil, dengan lebih dan lebih dan masih lebih dari bunga, senyawa yang sama menyerupai "(Senge 1990: 81). Dengan demikian, kita dapat memotong anggaran iklan kami, melihat manfaat dalam hal penghematan biaya, dan pada gilirannya lebih lanjut memangkas belanja di daerah ini. Dalam jangka pendek mungkin ada sedikit dampak pada tuntutan masyarakat atas barang dan jasa, tetapi jangka panjang penurunan visibilitas mungkin telah dikenakan hukuman berat. Sebuah apresiasi sistem akan mengarah ke pengakuan penggunaan, dan masalah dengan, umpan balik penguat tersebut, dan juga pemahaman tentang tempat balancing (atau menstabilkan) umpan balik. (Lihat, juga Kurt Lewin pada umpan balik). Sebuah aspek kunci lebih lanjut dari sistem adalah sejauh mana mereka pasti melibatkan penundaan - 'interupsi dalam arus pengaruh yang membuat konsekuensi dari tindakan terjadi secara berangsur-angsur "(ibid. : 90). Peter Senge (1990: 92) menyimpulkan: Sudut pandang sistem umumnya berorientasi ke arah pandangan jangka panjang. Itu sebabnya penundaan dan loop umpan balik sangat penting.Dalam jangka pendek, Anda dapat sering mengabaikan mereka, mereka sudah tidak penting. Mereka hanya datang kembali untuk menghantui Anda dalam jangka panjang. Peter Senge pendukung penggunaan 'sistem peta' - diagram yang menunjukkan unsurunsur kunci dari sistem dan bagaimana mereka terhubung. Namun, orang sering memiliki 'melihat' masalah sistem, dan dibutuhkan kerja untuk mendapatkan blok bangunan dasar dari teori sistem, dan untuk menerapkannya pada organisasi Anda. Di

sisi lain, kegagalan untuk memahami dinamika sistem dapat membawa kita ke dalam 'siklus menyalahkan dan membela diri: musuh selalu di luar sana, dan masalah selalu disebabkan oleh orang lain' Bolam dan Deal 1997: 27; lihat, juga, Senge 1990: 231). Disiplin inti Di samping berpikir sistem, ada berdiri empat lainnya 'komponen teknologi' atau disiplin.Sebuah 'disiplin' dipandang oleh Peter Senge sebagai suatu rangkaian prinsipprinsip dan praktik yang kita mempelajari, menguasai dan mengintegrasikan ke dalam kehidupan kita. Kelima disiplin dapat didekati di salah satu dari tiga tingkatan: Praktek: apa yang Anda lakukan. Prinsip: memandu ide dan wawasan. Esens: negara adalah orang-orang dengan tingkat penguasaan yang tinggi dalam disiplin (Senge 1990: 373). Setiap disiplin menyediakan dimensi vital. Masing-masing diperlukan untuk yang lain jika organisasi untuk 'belajar'. Penguasaan pribadi. "Organisasi belajar hanya melalui individu-individu yang belajar.Belajar individu tidak menjamin pembelajaran organisasi. Tapi tanpa itu tidak terjadi pembelajaran organisasi '(Senge 1990: 139). Penguasaan pribadi adalah disiplin terus-menerus memperjelas dan memperdalam visi pribadi kita, fokus energi kita, mengembangkan kesabaran, dan melihat realitas obyektif "( ibid. : 7). Ini melampauikompetensi dan keterampilan, meskipun melibatkan mereka. Ini melampaui membuka rohani, meskipun melibatkan pertumbuhan rohani ( ibid. : 141). Penguasaan dipandang sebagai jenis khusus kemahiran. Ini bukan tentang dominasi, melainkan tentangmenelepon . Visi adalah panggilan, bukan hanya sekadar ide yang baik. Orang dengan tingkat penguasaan pribadi yang tinggi hidup dalam mode belajar terusmenerus. Mereka tidak pernah 'datang'. Kadang-kadang, bahasa, seperti 'penguasaan pribadi' istilah menciptakan rasa menyesatkan kepastian, hitam dan putih. Tapi penguasaan pribadi bukanlah sesuatu yang Anda miliki. Ini adalah sebuah proses. Ini adalah disiplin seumur hidup.Orang dengan tingkat penguasaan pribadi yang tinggi sangat sadar kebodohan mereka, ketidakmampuan mereka, daerah pertumbuhan mereka.Dan mereka sangat percaya diri. Paradoks? Hanya bagi mereka yang tidak melihat 'perjalanan adalah imbalan'. (Senge 1990: 142) Dalam penulisan seperti ini kita dapat melihat daya tarik visi Peter Senge ini. Ini memiliki gema yang mendalam dalam keprihatinan penulis seperti M. Scott Peck (1990) dan Erich Fromm (1979). Disiplin memerlukan mengembangkan visi pribadi; memegang ketegangan kreatif (mengelola kesenjangan antara visi kita dan realitas); mengakui ketegangan struktural dan kendala, dan kekuatan kita sendiri (atau kurangnya itu) berkaitan dengan mereka, komitmen terhadap kebenaran, dan menggunakan subsadar (ibid :. 147-167). . Model mental ini adalah 'asumsi sangat mendarah daging, generalisasi, atau bahkan gambar dan gambar yang mempengaruhi bagaimana kita memahami dunia dan bagaimana kita mengambil tindakan "(Senge 1990: 8). Dengan demikian mereka menyerupai apa yang Donald Sebuah Schn dibicarakan sebagai 'repertoar' seorang profesional. Kita sering tidak menyadari dampak dll asumsi seperti pada perilaku kita dan, dengan demikian, merupakan bagian fundamental dari tugas kita (sebagai Schn akan menempatkan itu) adalah untuk mengembangkan kemampuan

untukmencerminkan-dalam-dan-on-tindakan . Peter Senge juga dipengaruhi oleh kolaborator Schn sini pada sejumlah proyek, Chris Argyris . Disiplin model mental dimulai dengan memutar cermin diri; belajar untuk menggali gambar internal kami di dunia, untuk membawa mereka ke permukaan dan menahan mereka secara ketat untuk pengawasan. Ini juga mencakup kemampuan untuk membawa pada 'learningful' percakapan yang saldo dan advokasi, di mana orang mengungkapkan pemikiran mereka sendiri secara efektif dan membuat pemikiran terbuka terhadap pengaruh orang lain. (Senge 1990: 9) Jika organisasi adalah untuk mengembangkan kapasitas untuk bekerja dengan model mental maka akan diperlukan bagi orang untuk mempelajari keterampilan baru dan mengembangkan orientasi baru, dan untuk mereka untuk perubahan kelembagaan yang mendorong perubahan tersebut. 'Model mental yang mengakar ... menggagalkan perubahan yang dapat berasal dari sistem berpikir' ( ibid. : 203). Organisasi bergerak dalam arah yang benar memerlukan bekerja untuk melampaui macam politik internal dan bermain game yang mendominasi organisasi-organisasi tradisional. Dengan kata lain itu berarti keterbukaan membina (Senge 1990: 273-286). Hal ini juga melibatkan berusaha untuk mendistribusikan bisnis secara bertanggung jawab jauh lebih luas sementara tetap mempertahankan koordinasi dan kontrol. Organisasi pembelajaran adalah organisasi lokal ( ibid. : 287-301). Membangun visi bersama. Peter Senge mulai dari posisi bahwa jika ada satu ide tentang kepemimpinan telah menginspirasi organisasi selama ribuan tahun, 'itu kapasitas untuk menampung gambar bagian dari masa depan kita berusaha untuk membuat' (1990: 9). Visi seperti memiliki kekuatan untuk meningkatkan iman - dan untuk mendorong eksperimentasi dan inovasi. Krusial, ia berpendapat, itu juga dapat memupuk rasa sesuatu yang jangka panjang, yang mendasar dengan 'disiplin kelima ". Ketika ada visi asli (sebagai lawan dari 'pernyataan visi' semua-untuk-akrab), orang excel dan belajar, bukan karena mereka disuruh, tetapi karena mereka ingin. Tetapi banyak pemimpin memiliki visi pribadi yang tidak pernah diterjemahkan ke dalam visi bersama yang menggembleng organisasi ... Apa yang telah kurang adalah disiplin untuk menerjemahkan visi ke dalam visi bersama - bukan 'buku resep' tetapi satu set prinsipprinsip dan praktek membimbing. Praktek visi bersama melibatkan keterampilan menggali bersama 'gambar masa depan' bahwa komitmen mendorong asli dan pendaftaran, bukan kepatuhan. Dalam menguasai disiplin ini, pemimpin belajar kontra-produktivitas mencoba untuk mendikte visi, tidak peduli seberapa tulus.(Senge 1990: 9) Visi menyebar karena proses memperkuat. Peningkatan kejelasan, antusiasme dan komitmen menular pada orang lain dalam organisasi. "Seperti orang bicara, visi tumbuh lebih jelas. Karena mendapat lebih jelas, antusiasme untuk manfaatnya tumbuh '( ibid. : 227). Ada 'batas-batas pertumbuhan' dalam hal ini, tetapi mengembangkan model mental macam diuraikan di atas secara signifikan dapat memperbaiki masalah. Dimana organisasi dapat melampaui linier dan memahami berpikir sistem, ada kemungkinan membawa visi untuk berbuah. Tim belajar . Belajar seperti dipandang sebagai 'Proses menyelaraskan dan mengembangkan kapasitas tim untuk menciptakan hasil yang anggotanya sungguhsungguh menginginkan "(Senge 1990: 236). Ini didasarkan pada penguasaan pribadi dan visi bersama - tetapi ini tidak cukup. Orang harus mampu untuk bertindak bersamasama. Ketika tim belajar bersama, Peter Senge menunjukkan, tidak hanya akan ada hasil

yang baik bagi organisasi, anggota akan tumbuh lebih cepat daripada yang terjadi sebaliknya. Disiplin belajar tim dimulai dengan 'dialog', kapasitas anggota tim untuk menangguhkan asumsi dan masuk ke dalam sebuah sejati berpikir bersama-sama '. Untuk orang Yunani dialog-logo berarti bebas-mengalir jika artinya melalui kelompok, memungkinkan kelompok untuk menemukan wawasan tidak dicapai secara individual .... [Itu] juga mencakup belajar bagaimana mengenali pola-pola interaksi dalam tim yang melemahkan belajar. (Senge 1990: 10) Gagasan dialog yang mengalir melalui Disiplin Kelima sangat bergantung pada karya fisikawan, David Bohm (di mana kelompok 'menjadi terbuka untuk aliran kecerdasan yang lebih besar', dan berpikir didekati sebagian besar sebagai fenomena kolektif). Ketika dialog bergabung dengan pemikiran sistem, Senge berpendapat, ada kemungkinan untuk menciptakan sebuah bahasa yang lebih cocok untuk menangani kompleksitas, dan berfokus pada isu mendalam kekuatan struktural dan bukannya dialihkan oleh pertanyaan dari gaya kepribadian dan kepemimpinan. Memang, seperti adalah penekanan pada dialog dalam karyanya yang hampir bisa dimasukkan bersama sistem berpikir sebagai fitur sentral dari pendekatan itu. Memimpin organisasi belajar Peter Senge berpendapat bahwa pembelajaran organisasi memerlukan pandangan baru kepemimpinan. Dia melihat tradisional pandang pemimpin (sebagai orang-orang khusus yang menentukan arah, membuat keputusan kunci dan energi pasukan sebagai berasal dari sebuah pandangan dunia yang sangat individualis dan non-sistemik (1990: 340) Pada pusatnya pandangan tradisional kepemimpinan, '. didasarkan pada asumsi ketidakberdayaan masyarakat, kurangnya visi pribadi dan ketidakmampuan untuk menguasai kekuatan perubahan, defisit yang dapat diperbaiki hanya oleh pemimpin besar beberapa '( op. cit. ). Terhadap pandangan tradisional ia menetapkan 'baru 'pandangan kepemimpinan yang berpusat pada' tugas subtil dan lebih penting '. Dalam organisasi pembelajaran, pemimpin adalah desainer, pelayan dan guru. Mereka bertanggung jawab untuk membangun organisasi adalah orang-orang terus memperluas kemampuan mereka untuk memahami kompleksitas, memperjelas visi, dan meningkatkan model mental bersama - yaitu mereka bertanggung jawab untuk belajar .... Organisasi pembelajaran akan tetap menjadi 'ide yang baik' ... sampai orangorang mengambil sikap untuk membangun organisasi tersebut. Mengambil berdiri ini adalah tindakan kepemimpinan pertama, awal inspirasi (harfiah 'untuk bernapas kehidupan ke') visi organisasi belajar. (Senge 1990: 340) Banyak sifat yang Peter Senge membahas sehubungan dengan memimpin organisasi belajar dapat ditemukan dalam kepemimpinan bersama model (dibahas di tempat lain pada halaman ini). Sebagai contoh, pendekatan Senge apa sebagai inspirasi, dapat didekati sebagai animasi . Di sini kita akan melihat tiga aspek kepemimpinan yang ia mengidentifikasi - dan link diskusi dengan beberapa penulis lain tentang kepemimpinan. Pemimpin sebagai desainer . Fungsi desain jarang terlihat, Peter Senge mengemukakan, namun tidak satu pun memiliki pengaruh yang lebih menyapu dari desainer (1990: 341). Kebijakan organisasi, strategi dan 'system' adalah wilayah kunci dari desain, tapi kepemimpinan melampaui ini. Mengintegrasikan lima teknologi komponen mendasar. Namun, tugas pertama memerlukan merancang ide-ide yang mengatur - nilai tujuan, visi dan inti dengan mana orang harus hidup. Membangun visi bersama sangat penting sejak awal karena 'menumbuhkan orientasi jangka panjang dan

penting untuk belajar' ( ibid : 344.). Disiplin lain juga perlu diperhatikan, tetapi hanya bagaimana mereka harus didekati tergantung pada situasi yang dihadapi. Pada intinya, tugas 'para pemimpin' adalah merancang proses belajar di mana orang di seluruh organisasi dapat menangani produktif dengan isu-isu penting yang mereka hadapi, dan mengembangkan penguasaan mereka dalam disiplin belajar '( ibid :. 345). Pemimpin sebagai pelayan . Sementara gagasan pemimpin sebagai pelayan, mungkin, paling sering dikaitkan dengan para penulis seperti Peter Blok (1993), Peter Senge memiliki beberapa wawasan menarik tentang alur ini. Titik tolaknya adalah 'cerita tujuan' bahwa dia diwawancarai manajer diberitahu tentang organisasi mereka. Dia datang untuk menyadari bahwa para manajer melakukan lebih dari cerita-cerita, mereka yang berkaitan cerita: 'penjelasan menyeluruh tentang mengapa mereka melakukan apa yang mereka lakukan, bagaimana organisasi mereka perlu berkembang, dan bagaimana evolusi yang merupakan bagian dari sesuatu yang lebih besar' ( Senge 1990: 346). Cerita tujuan tersebut menyediakan satu set mengintegrasikan ide-ide yang memberi arti bagi semua aspek pekerjaan pemimpin - dan tidak terduga 'pemimpin mengembangkan hubungan yang unik untuk nya visi pribadi sendiri. Dia atau dia menjadi pelayan dari visi '(op. cit.). Salah satu hal penting untuk memahami di sini adalah bahwa pelayanan melibatkan komitmen untuk, dan tanggung jawab untuk penglihatan, tetapi itu tidak berarti bahwa pemimpin memiliki itu. Hal ini bukan milik mereka. Pemimpin adalah pelayan dari visi, tugas mereka adalah untuk mengelola untuk kepentingan orang lain (maka subjudul buku Block - 'layanan Memilih atas diri sendiri-bunga'). Pemimpin belajar untuk melihat visi mereka sebagai bagian dari sesuatu yang lebih besar. Tujuan cerita berkembang sebagai mereka diberitahu, 'pada kenyataannya, mereka adalah sebagai hasil dari diberitahu' (Senge 1990: 351). Pemimpin harus belajar untuk mendengarkan visi orang lain dan untuk mengubah mereka sendiri di mana diperlukan.Menceritakan kisah dengan cara ini memungkinkan orang lain untuk terlibat dan membantu mengembangkan visi yang baik individu dan bersama. Pemimpin sebagai guru. Peter Senge mulai di sini dengan (1990) Perintah Max de Pree bahwa tanggung jawab pertama seorang pemimpin adalah mendefinisikan realitas.Sementara pemimpin dapat menarik inspirasi dan cadangan spiritual dari rasa penatalayanan, 'banyak dari para pemimpin leverage yang benar-benar dapat mengerahkan terletak pada membantu orang mencapai lebih akurat, lebih mendalam dan lebih memberdayakan pemandangan realitas (Senge 1990: 353). Membangun sebuah 'hierarki penjelasan' ada pemimpin, Peter Senge berpendapat, dapat mempengaruhi pandangan orang realitas pada empat tingkat: peristiwa, pola-pola perilaku, struktur sistemik dan 'cerita tujuan'. Pada umumnya kebanyakan manajer dan pemimpin cenderung untuk fokus pada dua pertama dari tingkat ini (dan di bawah organisasi pengaruh mereka melakukan hal yang sama). Pemimpin dalam organisasi pembelajaran hadir untuk semua empat, 'tetapi fokus terutama pada tujuan dan struktur sistemik. Selain itu mereka "mengajarkan" orang di seluruh organisasi untuk melakukan hal serupa "(Senge 1993: 353). Hal ini memungkinkan mereka untuk melihat 'gambaran besar' dan untuk menghargai kekuatan struktural yang perilaku kondisi. Dengan memperhatikan tujuan, pemimpin dapat menumbuhkan pemahaman tentang apa organisasi (dan anggotanya) ingin menjadi. Salah satu masalah di sini adalah bahwa para pemimpin sering memiliki kekuatan dalam satu atau dua bidang tetapi tidak mampu, misalnya, untuk mengembangkan pemahaman sistemik. Kunci kesuksesan adalah mampu untuk konsep wawasan sehingga mereka menjadi pengetahuan publik, 'terbuka untuk tantangan dan perbaikan lebih lanjut' ( ibid. : 356). "Pemimpin sebagai guru" bukan tentang "mengajar" orang bagaimana untuk mencapai visi mereka. Ini adalah tentang mendorong belajar, untuk semua orang. Pemimpin seperti membantu orang di seluruh organisasi mengembangkan pemahaman

sistemik. Menerima tanggung jawab ini adalah penawar ke salah satu downfalls paling umum dari guru dinyatakan berbakat - kehilangan komitmen mereka untuk kebenaran. (Senge 1990: 356) Pemimpin harus membuat dan mengelola ketegangan kreatif - terutama di sekitar kesenjangan antara visi dan realitas. Penguasaan ketegangan seperti memungkinkan untuk perubahan mendasar. Hal ini memungkinkan pe