When it was first published, Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline was an arrow across the bow of management thought. It argues that employees should work longer hours to get better outcomes.
His reasoning was that a learning organization is better for doing things. He defines it as an organization that attempts to enable and foster learning at all levels of a corporation to continuously reinvent itself.
While management theories have advanced since then (with an emphasis on areas like emotional intelligence), the practice in certain businesses is likely to remain unchanged.
Because of this, our economy and markets appear to alter every week; his message is as important now as it was then.
This is one of those works that need several readings to fully get the argument and answers, but the result is well worth the effort.
Let's get this discussion started.
Organizations Are Complex Systems, and Why That Matters
Companies' ideas are extremely complex—that's the heart of Senge's claim.
You've probably heard of the butterfly effect. It describes how the flapping of a faraway butterfly's wings many weeks earlier might affect the path of a tornado, and you know what it implies.
Small actions can have big consequences.
However, in business, these little factors are frequently concealed within a sophisticated system that none of us have been taught to examine and comprehend.
Senge claims that the system's structure has an impact on human behavior. Different individuals in the same network create qualitatively comparable outputs most of the time.
While it's easy to point the finger at someone or something, the problem is typically due to how the game (or system) was designed.
To make things even more complicated, since we are a component of the system, the structure of human systems—the way we interact with one another—is incredibly nuanced. We're the fish who don't realize they're in the water.
But herein is our salvation: as members of the system, we can change the institutions we operate.
Problems Created by Human Beings (Or, Your Organization Has a Learning Disability)
So since we know we live in a complicated system that we can't see, let's look at some of the problems it causes.
The following are the seven things that prevent companies from achieving their goals:
- My position is me. We have minimal responsibility for the outcomes created when all roles interact. We focus our efforts on the items mentioned in our scope of work and nothing else (as they always do.)
- There is a foe out there. We all want to accuse someone or something outside of ourselves when things go wrong.
- The delusion of being in command. Quite often, being proactive is just another word for being reactive. Real proactivity stems from an understanding of how our own problems are created.
- The obsession with happenings. Our brain is almost entirely focused on reacting to short-term occurrences. As a result, when we assess circumstances, we frequently concentrate our efforts there.
- The Parable of the Boiling Frog. It is a parable about a cooked frog. You've probably heard it before, but perceiving slow, progressive processes necessitates decelerating and paying close attention to the minute and spectacular.
- The misconception is that you can learn from your mistakes. The influence of our experience can only be "seen" in the short term. Cycles lasting more than a year or two are difficult to spot and consequently difficult to learn from.
- The management team is a fiction. Most "teams" disintegrate under duress and when confronted with complicated challenges.
Thus, it is the environment we all live in. To some extent.
But now that you're aware of the issues that arise when humans interact with a complicated system, you can begin to see how the five disciplines may help you overcome them.
The Fifth Discipline - Systems Thinking
Systems thinking is the adhesive that unites the five disciplines necessary to form a learning organization. For this sense, Senge refers to it as The Fifth Discipline.
Systems thinking may be a strong lever by finding leverage points, allowing even the slightest efforts to make a large effect.
Any complicated issue has numerous layers of explanation, all of which is true somehow.
- Level 1: At the most basic level, events (who did what to whom) result in a reactive mentality.
- Level 2: The main goal of the analytical approach is to analyze patterns of behavior and evaluate their implications.
- Level 3: The focus was on the systemic structure in which "What causes these behavior patterns?" is the main question.
The third, systemic level, is the best place to concentrate your efforts (if you want actual results).
However, to do so, you must first grasp the mechanics of systems. Fortunately for us, Senge breaks it down into...
The 11 Laws of the Fifth Discipline
- Most of the time, we shift problems across an organization instead of dealing with the fundamental cause, resulting in today's challenges. Low sales this quarter result from jamming as much as possible at the end of the previous quarter, which was caused by... Well, you get the idea.
- The system pushes back stronger the harder you push. Compensating feedback is the term for this. In a simpler system, imagine someone quitting smoking, gaining a lot of weight, and then resuming smoking to cope with the stress of the weight increase. It's even more difficult to stop smoking now than it was when you first started. Your activities are always met by a response from the system.
- Behavior improves before it deteriorates. Low-leverage treatments (those that don't get to the fundamental cause) often succeed in the short term, giving the impression that the broader problem is being solved. You aren't.
- Taking the easy way out almost always leads to re-entry. We all seek solace in simple remedies, yet they frequently lead back to the source of the problem.
- The treatment may be worse than the ailment. Alcoholism, for example, typically begins with a drink or two when the day ends to reduce job-related stress - alcohol is a treatment for the stress condition. The remedy, of course, transforms into the (much worse) illness. This non-systematic approach to issue solving frequently necessitates more and more of the answer, resulting in unavoidable tragedy.
- Faster equals slower. In each system, the ideal growth rate is slower than the quickest rate of growth. We fail when we try too hard and too fast.
- In terms of time and space, cause and effect are not tightly coupled. This is one of the most crucial concepts to comprehend. We never uncover underlying reasons since we don't frequently look beyond short-term occurrences.
- Small improvements may have a tremendous impact, but the most leveraged places are frequently the least visible. There are no set standards for locating high leverage events, but focusing on underlying structures rather than short-term occurrences is a good place to start.
- You can have your cake and eat it, but not both at the same time. We can find better answers when we consider what is conceivable beyond a specific moment in time. For example, you may not be able to produce a higher-quality product in less time right now. Still, the true leverage is seeing how both may improve over time.
- You don't get two tiny elephants when you cut an elephant in half. A system cannot be dismantled into components, dealt with independently, and then reassembled.
- There's no one to blame. The key to recovery is to improve your connection with the system.
The 11 Laws describe how systems function, but unless you can recognize a complex system in action and what to do about it, the 11 laws will offer little help.
Understanding the Archetypes of Systems
The majority of event-controlling patterns are predictable. Therefore, detecting them and deciding what to do about them is much easier.
As Senge argues, an organization can turn into a learning organization after recognizing these systems and finding out how to deal with them. Any learning that does not address systems thinking is superficial and will inevitably fail you in the long term.
These 9 archetypes keep reappearing, along with brief suggestions on dealing with them if you see a pattern.
- Process of balancing with a lag. While waiting for a response from the system, many people quit or take more remedial action than is necessary. Instead, practice patience or improve the system's responsiveness.
- Growth being constrained. Growth slows down and sometimes reverses when you get close to the limit. Rather than fighting the growth restriction, eliminate the cause of the constraint.
- The load being shifted. Instead of focusing on the symptomatic treatment, consider the underlying solution.
- Goals eroding. A quick fix frequently leads to a relaxation of a long-term, essential purpose. Do not allow this to occur, or it will happen again in the future.
- Escalation. When competing, attempting to establish control over the other player leads to a cascade of activities that are harmful to your long-term health. A good example is price wars. Instead, look for win-win situations.
- Success to those who have achieved success. Two activities battle for limited resources and support; if one prevails, the other suffers. Instead, consider how to strike a balance between the long-term health of both options.
- The tragedy of the commons being a tragedy that affects all of us. Individuals utilize a widely available but restricted resource primarily for personal reasons. The resource is eventually diminished or exhausted. When you see this, use peer pressure or genuine restrictions to develop forms of self-regulation.
- Fixes that don't work. A quick cure has unanticipated long-term repercussions. Maintain a long-term perspective rather than focusing on the short-term. Short-term remedies should only be used to "buy time."
- Lack of investment and growth. With ambitious investment, growth approaches a limit that can be erased or pushed into the future. The general rule in these scenarios is to create capacity ahead of demand.
Let's now look at the other aspects of a learning organization.
Organizations learn exclusively via individuals who learn, as Senge puts it. And learning isn't about gaining more knowledge; it's about improving our capacity to achieve the outcomes we really desire in life.
Personal mastery must become a discipline—that is, an activity we incorporate into our life—by adhering to a set of guidelines, which include:
- Personal vision. It is the capacity to focus on our deepest inherent interests rather than merely secondary objectives.
- Dedication to the truth entails a never-ending readiness to perceive the world for what it is—that is, to see the systems at work and recognize our own limits in the face of them.
- Creative tension. It's about recognizing and defining the challenges you'll encounter on your journey, as well as knowing how you want to overcome them. It's all about finding a way through the problem rather than avoiding it by sitting at home and waiting for something good to happen.
Mental models help us comprehend our surroundings. We utilize them because it's the only means to make sense of the immensely complicated world around us.
While these are extremely beneficial in helping us get on with our lives, they also create issues that we must overcome.
For example, we frequently extrapolate from our observations: "I've only ever seen white swans; thus all swans must be white."
The first technique we may use is reflective practice, which is thinking about what we're thinking and testing our mental models to determine if they're correct in that situation.
The second approach we may apply is investigating professed theory vs. theory-in-practice. We frequently claim to function on one mental model while working on a different one.
For example, I could argue that everyone is trustworthy. Yet, I never give money to friends and closely secure my belongings. The idea is to find any holes in the espoused theory and ask yourself if you truly value the espoused theory.
We may employ the third and last tactic that mental models do not need to be agreed upon. Nor should you require that one mental model be used in any given circumstance.
Many models might exist simultaneously, even if they contradict one another. The goal is for them to be considered and compared to situations that arise, where true learning takes place.
In a learning organization, shared visions are important because they help establish a common personality. There can't be a learning organization without a shared aim to strive for.
These views are formed by the personal visions of those who work in your company. If your employees don't have their very own unique idea, all they can do is "sign up" for yours. That will result in compliance rather than commitment.
As Senge points out, building a common vision must be recognized as a core feature of leaders' everyday jobs. It's a never-ending cycle. They take time to manifest and are most commonly the result of discussions about personal visions.
One successful CEO put it this way:
"My job, fundamentally, is listening to what the organization is trying to say, and then making sure that it is forcefully articulated."
Finally, you want employees in your company to choose whether or not to follow the vision. You might be able to get them to agree in the short term, but there's nothing you can do to get them to commit if they don't believe in it.
Ultimately, we arrive at the learning organization's final discipline: team learning.
Team learning, according to Senge, is the process of aligning and strengthening a team's capacity to provide the outcomes that its members actually desire.
There are three important characteristics inside companies to make this happen.
First and foremost, there is a requirement to think critically about complicated situations.
To accomplish so, teams must harness the ability of many brains to be more intelligent than a single mind. In a moment, we'll go through how to do it in further detail.
Second, imaginative and concerted action is required.
In companies that achieve this right, each team member is aware of the other team members' activities and can be depended on to act in a manner that complements one another's.
Third, a learning team encourages the development of additional learning teams inside the company.
It is not enough for high management to operate in this manner; everyone must act like this.
The distinction between conversation and debate is one aspect of team learning that supports more than any other in ensuring that those three elements are addressed.
A conversation involves a free and creative study of complicated and sensitive subjects, as well as a profound "listening" to one another and the suspension of one's own opinions.
Different points of view are offered and defended throughout a conversation. The best point of view is sought to support judgments that must be taken at this time.
While most businesses excel at having conversations, they struggle to maintain a dialogue.
As Senge notes, there are three prerequisites for having a dialogue:
- All individuals must "suspend" their beliefs, holding them as though suspended in front of us.
- Everyone in the room must treat each other as colleagues.
- A "facilitator" who needs to hold the context of the conversation is required.
You'll soon become a learning company if you have regular conversations with your team about what is true and what to do about it.
The world is far more complicated than we give it credit for. Learning about it on a much deeper level and then aligning your organization's resources toward attaining your goals in light of the reality will put you on the road to success.
It won't be simple. But, on the other hand, if it were simple...