Various Learning Environments - Essay Example

Learning Environments Larsen et al (1996) begin their article by illustrating many of the reasons why a learning organization is far preferable to all involved than more traditional organizations by highlighting the employee benefits. Employees are challenged to continue learning and to think creatively, easily viewing themselves as part of a system and thus becoming tremendous assets to the organization just as they become helpful and preferred by customers and clients. The key elements involved in building a learning organization are summarized in the article as they interpret the work of Peter Senge (1990). These include personal mastery, mental models, team learning, shared vision and systems thinking. As they discuss these issues, the authors point out the many ways in which learning organization is similar to current theories in Organization Development. Throughout the remainder of the article, the authors go into great detail regarding the five elements of a learning organization. For example, they explain that personal mastery involves the identification of what is usually considered a life-long goal and then the development of some means of measuring how close one is to reach that goal. The term ‘mental models’ refers to the way in which we think and act in our daily patterns. The authors quote Chris Argyris (1991) who claims that most people act according to flawed mental models based upon defensive reasoning. One of the strong similarities between learning organizations and organizational development is the concept of self-directed teams. Successful teams share eight common characteristics which include “a clear, elevating goal; a results driven structure; competent team members; unified commitment; collaborative climate; standards of excellence; external support and recognition; and principled leadership” (Larson & LaFasto cited in French & Bell, 1995: 98). While the concept of a vision is not difficult to grasp, there is a shift in the approach in that it is recognized in learning organizations that this vision must be a synthesis of the various members of the team rather than the single vision of the individual leader. Finally, systems thinking introduces an entirely new approach to solving problems that doesn’t work to isolate and solve individual issues, but instead attempts to take a broad view of the issues involved and finding a long-term solution that more effectively addresses the source cause. Based upon the information available in the article, the learning organization begins when members of a team begin to share their mental models in an open and trusting relationship with other team members. As they work to bring their mental models into alignment, the team begins developing a shared vision making team learning possible. Systems thinking is essential to this development, and this depends to a large degree upon the development of skills and tools as a means of implementing it. The first step in this process is identifying the feedback or causality loops. Once it is determined that the various elements of the system loop have been considered, it is then necessary to create models and simulations as a means of testing where changes might be made, but available models and trained professionals remains unequal to the demand. Peter Senge describes his ideas in a much more approachable format in his article “Learning Organizations” (1990). Using bullet points, he illustrates the six common learning disabilities within organizations in the same order as they appear in the Larson article. However, in his account, Senge provides commentary on each of these learning disabilities that illustrate the reasons why these disabilities detract from the overall functioning of the system. This quick outline of the common learning disabilities strikes a chord with nearly every organization in existence today whether at the individual level in which one feels insignificant or at the organizational level as it operates under the misperception that the management team is struggling to address organizational problems. Other issues included in this list include the idea that one must constantly struggle with an external enemy, that taking charge in an instant is proactive and that events or previous experiences are the best means by which we can guide future decisions. Having pointed out these seemingly glaring holes in the logic of a traditional approach to organization, Senge then moves on to a new bulleted discussion regarding his five discipline solution. The discipline he places the most emphasis on by virtue of its primary position is the concept of systems thinking. He explains what he means by this in clear and succinct form: “From an early age, we’re taught to break apart problems to make complex tasks and subjects easier to deal with. But this creates a bigger problem – we lose the ability to see the consequences of our actions, and we lose a sense of connection to a larger whole” (Senge, 1990: 3). However, this connection and conception of the whole is essential if one is to understand the underlying patterns that help in simplifying life. Following systems thinking, Senge lists personal mastery as the second discipline which itself consists of three elements. The first of these is a personal vision, which is another word for end result. As Senge clearly explains, this means having a constant understanding of the end desire, such as a comfortable retirement on a tropical beach, as it differs from the means, such as a solid investment portfolio. The second is the idea of creative tension, which is a sense of the difference between the vision and the current reality. The third element of the personal vision is a commitment to truth, in which we continue to develop “a deepening awareness of the structures that underlie and generate events” (Senge, 1990: 3-4). The third discipline is mental models, the way that we understand the world and the way it works. Only now, when significant changes have been proposed in the thinking of the individual, does Senge introduce the idea of a shared vision as the fourth discipline. The important element of the shared vision is that it must be a vision shared by each member of the team rather than handed down to the team from a single individual or small group on top. Because they have ownership in the vision, each member of the team takes responsibility for it and committed to the end goal. With all of these people working in the same direction, the team begins to work together in a more natural way, sharing responsibilities, allowing strengths to be utilized and making up for any weaknesses. This takes place through the process of dialogue and discussion. According to Senge, dialogue is the process by which numerous points of view are brought to bear on complex issues facing the organization while discussion is what occurs after the various ideas have been brought out and decisions must be made regarding which will be acted upon. Both articles illustrate the ways in which the five disciplines are essential to the development of a learning organization. The two articles both present the same five disciplines essential to team learning, but seem to disagree with the hierarchy. Although Larsen acknowledges the importance of system thinking in team learning, the article starts with investigation into personal mastery. Within this discussion, the authors indicate there are only two components to this discipline, rather than the three outlined by Senge himself. Their analysis misses what I consider to be a very important component brought out by Senge and that is the element of a commitment to truth. It is my belief that this is an important element because it is the element that leads to self-development and actual growth. It is this searching for the truth that continues to drive the individual to keep searching for the patterns and behaviors that will help them accomplish their goal, the end desire, because they remain capable of seeing what is working and what is not. However, Larsen introduces the ideas of Handy as a means of discovering these inner truths. In exploring how individuals and organizations might attain personal mastery of this sort, Handy (1995) proposes the concept of a wheel of learning, which is divided into four quadrants entitled questions, ideas, tests and reflection. One of the primary ways in which this concept differs from the ideas presented by Senge is the fact that the wheel is driven not by interior forces, but by external dynamics in which the leader sets the example that others are expected to follow. While Senge’s article brings the major point and building blocks of team learning clearly into focus through the use of succinct bullet points, Larsen’s article explores the concepts introduced to a much greater detail, bringing in findings from other theorists that tend to support these ideas. The above discussion into the ideas associated with personal mastery is an example of this difference, but it is brought even further into focus with the detailed discussion of teams provided in Larsen’s article. According to Hitchcock and Willard (1995), “a self-directed work team is a natural work group of interdependent employees who share most, if not all, the roles of a traditional supervisor” (4). This supports the concept of the learning team as it places no one person’s ideas ahead of or more important than another person’s ideas and suggests that all members of the team are gaining a comprehensive view of the organization. There is also a clear distinction made between the ideas of team building as proposed by Tuckman (cited in Robbins & Finley, 1995) and the team learning concepts of organizational development. According to Tuckman, teams are built through a four-stage process. The first stage is bringing the various team members together. This is immediately followed by a period of contention among team members as they struggle to determine how they will work together. After this, the team enters into a phase in which it can begin to get some work accomplished as individual members begin to accept their roles and share information. The final phase of team building is labeled performing and occurs when the team reaches its optimum performance levels. In discussing the characteristics of team learning, Larsen again agrees to a large extent with Senge. The team-building ideas of organizational development theorists are different from the team learning concepts as they are expressed by Senge and Larsen. While the concepts of team building are demonstrated through Tuckman’s work as being more in the nature of social courtesies and relationship building, the ideas of team learning are characterized in both articles as being based on dialogue and discussion. While many may consider these terms to be nearly synonymous, both Senge and Larsen indicate dialogue is the first step in team learning and discussion, a distinctly different form of communication, is the second step. According to Juanita Brown, “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” (Bennet & Brown, 1995: 167). Dialogue enables everyone to approach the table with their ideas and opens the conversation to as many viewpoints as possible. Once the ideas have been determined, the direction to be taken becomes a subject of discussion. Through this assignment I have discovered that learning organizations are much more than a new title on an old approach. Instead, these ideas suggest an almost complete rebuilding of the organization by throwing out many of the old ideas. Rather than depending upon the traditional approach of the manager or supervisor dictating ideas down to the lowly workers, who are expected to merely carry out their duty without asking questions, these articles illustrate the essential need to break out of this sort of shell. Approaching the question of organization and team formation from the perspective of the whole rather than the individual parts reveals the necessity to provide for the needs of the consumers, the company and the individual employees as well. By focusing on how individual thinking needs to change, team learning personally involves the employee and every member of the team – whether this means stakeholder, consumer or somehow otherwise involved. This personal interest trains members to be better involved in their teams as well as better involved in their own lives. Because they are given the tools to better manage their own lives through a different approach in thinking, they are also better able to participate in organizational teams. This is because they are better able to see how this plays a part in their personal development, they are given a chance to take a proactive role in the direction of their professional lives and thus they are more involved and committed to finding the best possible solutions to given problems. The synergy thus created enables the team to exceed all expectations, brush aside limiting mental models and find new and creative means of overcoming old and new obstacles. References Argyris, Chris. (1991). “Teaching Smart People How to Learn.” Harvard Business Review. Bennett S. & J. Brown. (1995). “Mindshift: Strategic Dialogue for Breakthrough Thinking.” Learning Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow’s Workplace. S. Chawla & J. Renesch (Eds.). Portland, OR: Productivity Press. French, W.L. & Bell, C.H. (1995). Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organizational Improvement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Handy, C. (1995). “Trust and the Virtual Organization.” Harvard Business Review. Vol. 76, N. 2: 39-50. Hitchcock, Darcy & Marsha Willard. (1995). Why Teams Can Fail and What to do About it. New York: McGraw Hill. Larsen, Kai; Claire McInerney; Corinne Nyquist; Aldo Santos; Donna Silsbee. (May 13, 1996). “Learning Organizations.” Robbins, H & M. Finley. (1995). Why Teams Don’t Work: What Went Wrong and How to Make it Right. Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s/Pacesetter Books. Senge, Peter M. (1990). “Learning Organizations.” Taken from The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday Books. Read More