peter senge and the learning organization

Peter Senge’s 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 Senge’s 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 Senge’s 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 Senge’s 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 people’s 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 Senge’s 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 theory’s 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 Senge’s 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 people’s
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. That’s why delays
and feedback loops are so important. In the short term, you can often ignore them; they’re
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 Senge’s 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 Schön talked about as a professional’s
‘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 Schön would put it) is to develop the
ability to reflect-in- and –on-action. Peter Senge is also influenced here by Schön’s
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:
273-286). 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, ‘it’s 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 counter-productiveness 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
people’s 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 organization’s 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 leader’s 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 Block’s 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 people’s 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 Pree’s (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 people’s 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 Senge’s 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 Senge’s 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 people’s own.
A question of sophistication and disposition. One of the biggest problems with Peter
Senge’s approach is nothing to do with the theory, it’s 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 one’s 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 one’s 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 Drucker’s (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 Senge’s 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 other’s 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 deep-seated reasons why this may have been the
case. Beyond this, though, there is the questions of whether Senge’s 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 everyone’s 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).