TENDENCIAS DE LOS INFORMATIVOS RADIOFONICOS DE CHILE

No model is without critique and Senge has a number of critics. The idea shared by these critics is that although the pursuit of a learning organisation seems to be a noble and worthwhile one, the practicability of being or becoming a learning organisation which practices the five disciplines, seems unattainable. Some of the arguments presented by Fenwick (2001), Garvin

(1993), Tight (1996), English (2005) and Walters and Cooper (2011) will be examined and discussed in this section. Aspects relating to small organisations and the South African context will also be discussed as these provide a specific context for the pursuit of a learning organisation.

Fenwick (2001, p74) views the concept of the learning organisation as a cuddly vision of

“community” and collegiality and argues that it is difficult to build Senge’s disciplines of a learning organisation as most employees lack the skills required for critical reflection, visioning and team learning. I share this concern – the skill of critical reflection should be developed before endeavouring to develop a learning organisation. Critical reflection is discussed in Chapter Three.

Fenwick (2001) and Tight (1996) question who controls the vision, goals and definition of learning and state that managers and educators play a dominant role in this. Fenwick (2001) notes that the reality in the workplace is that not all people have the opportunity to participate as equals in team dialogue. In response to both of these concerns, my understanding of Senge is that all members have input into the process of determining vision, goals and learning - no-one dominates - there is continual collaboration. In order to ensure that no-one dominates the above processes of defining vision, goals and learning, and dialogue, Senge (1990) suggests that a skilled facilitator be used in order to ensure collaboration and hold the space, or focus, of such discussions, or dialogues. There are methods to ensure this, for example the talking stone (or stick), where each person is allowed time with the talking stone, and for as long as the person is holding the stone, others are not permitted to interrupt. This also encourages others to listen and gives the person talking the opportunity to articulate his/her thoughts, without having to rush through what he/she wants to say in fear of interruption (Brown & Isaacs, 2001, p125).

However, it is questionable whether such methods to encourage participation are practicable.

Although an individual has the talking stone and may not be interrupted, it does not guarantee that the other participants in a dialogue are indeed listening and that the individual who is talking is truly heard and understood. There are underlying internal politics and game playing, which Senge (1990) admits are present in organisations, that are difficult to overcome if there is no true aspiration to, and practice, of openness. The role of the facilitator becomes increasingly important as this person needs to monitor group dynamics constantly and ensure that all participants are being heard, and as such, that they are all active participants in the dialogue, listening to and hearing what is being said. However, small companies may not have the financial resources to employ an external facilitator as these companies are often more aware of

saving costs. Small companies seem to be more adept at developing trust, relationship and community (Fenwick, 2010b) and so may not need the skills of a facilitator, but would need a leader who is able to encourage an environment conducive to a learning organisation and who also participates in the dialogue, or team learning without dominating it. However, this would require a mature and skilled leader who is able to play a dual role and not drive his/her agenda during these times. The leader would need to be a ‘learning leader’ and willing to negotiate his/her role and the power relationships that exist (Ram & Holliday, 1993), which is a tall order and a difficult role to maintain. A possible solution would be for the leader to have a mentor, a critical friend, with whom he/she can reflect and explore alternative ways of facilitating team learning interactions.

Senge proposes that in a learning organisation, members suspend assumptions, exposing their beliefs and values – Fenwick (2001) sees this as an invasion of privacy, as the organisation appropriates this information for the organisation’s purposes. The act of exposing beliefs could be viewed as an invasion of privacy, but it could also be viewed as a worthwhile endeavour - unless organisation members are honest with themselves concerning their assumptions, beliefs and values, they may never become aware of the role that they potentially can and do play in the organisation. They may be there because they have nowhere else to work – the organisation was the best or only choice available – and they should be honest if the organisation is somewhere they really want to be. This honesty and openness can lead to personal mastery as organisation members identify what is really important to them. Once they know this, they may feel empowered to do something – either accept that they should stay at the organisation for reasons they are aware of, or make a change. Kets De Vries (2001) explains that a disorientating event can influence a person to take charge of a situation by bringing assumptions, beliefs and values to the fore. If the practice of suspending assumptions, exposing beliefs and values is a disorientating event, then organisation members should be empowered to make the changes they want to see.

Garvin (1993) states that Senge’s concept of a learning organisation is discussed in reverential, utopian and mystical terms. In order to overcome these idyllic discussions of a learning organisation, he proposes the 3M (Meaning, Management and Measurement) model for a learning organisation and states that the learning organisation should be purposefully designed.

I intuitively believe that many organisations would accept his model as it includes the factor of measurement: cognitive, behavioural and performance improvement – allowing organisations to measure their level of learning or their progress towards a destination. Garvin’s model appeals

to the mindset of achieving a goal and arriving at a destination, which is quite different to Senge’s concept of the learning organisation as a journey, not a destination. The learning organisation model that a company selects is influenced by its view of a learning organisation – if they view a learning organisation as a destination, they may be more likely to adopt Garvin’s model, but if they view the learning organisation as a journey, they may be more likely to adopt Senge’s model.

The concepts included in Garvin’s (1993) model of a learning organisation are not dissimilar to Senge’s, for example, to encourage experimentation, share learning through teams or forums, reflect on experiences, promote a learning culture, and systems thinking; but his model is packaged differently and provides more structure as to how to develop a learning organisation.

Senge’s approach to a learning organisation is not as structured as Garvin’s. He does not provide steps to follow, but states that how a learning organisation is developed is dependent on the context and the organisation – in developing a learning organisation, each organisation needs to be approached individually as all organisations are different and it is not wise to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach (Senge et al, 1994).

Tight (1996) questions whether the purpose of a learning organisation is the value and development of members, or maximising profits. English (2005) also reflects this concern, noting the power imbalances in organisations. She highlights that the learning organisation could be a tool for managers to dominate and control the resources of workers for the benefit of owners. Senge (1990) states that we should not forget that the purpose of business is business – making profits. He provides an example of a company that was focussed on people but still failed (People Express Airlines) (Senge, 1990).

Walters and Cooper (2011) question whose knowledge counts in the context of a learning organisation. They state that as an organisation pursues its goals, workers’ learning needs may be neglected. They also assert that learning and work cannot be “discussed outside broader socio-economic and political contexts” (Walters & Cooper, 2011, p30) and that the role of politics and power in learning in organisations needs to be considered. These are relevant concerns, particularly in a South African context, with its Apartheid legacy and related socio-economic inequalities.

In response to Tight (1996), English (2005) and Walters and Cooper’s (2011) concerns, Senge does provide a model for making the business environment more conducive to personal

development, learning and change and in the attainment of business profits, an organisation can be developed that values its members.

Wyer et al (2000) researched small companies as learning organisations and documented additional constraints for small companies to become learning organisations, including leadership, staff, the culture and the environment of the small company.

Regarding development opportunities and support structures for learning to occur, owner-managers (leaders) may have difficulty with this as they may feel threatened by an open management approach that will encourage learning because the authority, information and knowledge of the owner can be challenged (Wyer et al, 2000). Owner-managers may also feel threatened by staff wanting to implement learning acquired outside of the organisation as owner-managers may interpret new ideas as a criticism of existing approaches and may not want to change the status quo (Wyer et al, 2000). These points indicate that owner-managers should be willing to be ‘learning leaders’ where the success of their company is more important than their egos, existing mental models or propensity to change if the small company is to pursue being a learning organisation.

The quality and level of staff play an important role in pursuing the learning organisation ideology and small companies tend to attract less experienced or committed staff that may not have the drive to participate in a learning organisation (Wyer et al, 2000). Staff may also have difficulty moving into new roles and may continue to look at the same problems through unchanged lenses.

In the face of new emerging change situations, quite often the small business has to ask long-serving staff to grow into completely new roles which they frequently approach from fixed mindsets and comfort zones of ‘that’s the way we’ve always approached things around here’.

(Wyer et al, 2000, p255)

The culture of a learning organisation is one where learning is ongoing and time is set aside to learn and reflect on learning (Senge, 1990). This type of culture may be more difficult to attain in small companies due to the demands of meeting the day’s schedule and responding to unforeseen problems. Furthermore, in learning organisations, mistakes are treated as opportunities to learn (Senge, 1990) but in a small company, mistakes may have a large impact on the finances of the company and consequently making mistakes is discouraged or even punished (Wyer et al, 2000). The learning that takes place is likely to be through everyday activities. Gibb (1997) states that this everyday learning through activities is what can contribute to the small organisation being a learning one – small companies are better able to

incorporate learning into their policies, operations, thinking and doing and there is more and easier integration of learning in day-to-day operations.

Pertaining to culture, within a small organisation, the potential for ‘groupthink’ exists where members hold similar ideas or mental models and these remain unchallenged, permitting the organisation to continue with the status quo.

The constraints above may render a small organisation unable to reach the ideal of a learning organisation. However, the environment in which small organisations operate is so unpredictable and uncertain that a learning organisation approach may be more suitable than a long-term planning approach (Wyer et al, 2000).

Within a South African context, the pursuit of the learning organisation is further impacted by the legacy of Apartheid and the consequent dehumanising of black people. This has left an imprint on the psyche of many South Africans, where interactions between different race groups are sometimes tainted by distrust (Horwitz, Bowmaker-Falconer & Searll, 1996; Seekings, 2008). An important enabler for the pursuit of a learning organisation is that of openness (Senge, 1990). An environment of openness could also contribute to an awareness of the broader socio-economic and political context in South Africa (Walters & Coooper, 2011).

However, developing an environment of openness in an organisation can prove difficult with the legacy of apartheid and associated feelings of distrust. An additional effort is required to overcome this legacy.

Although these criticisms of Senge’s concept of a learning organisation hold water, I believe that organisations should attempt to practice the disciplines of a learning organisation. The disciplines help to create a working environment where members are valued, where they contribute to a vision, feel in control of their lives, collaborate and are able to view their impact within and on the organisation as a system. I think that where people are valued, they will want to spend their time and work together with those who value them. The value that organisation members experience should assist in increasing the bottom line value of the organisation and so contribute to its sustainability. However, there are other factors that influence being or becoming a learning organisation, such as leadership and organisational culture, as well as factors, external and internal to the organisation that affect its sustainability. These factors will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Four.