Critique of Peter M. Senge's "The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization."                                                                                                    

Prepared by Caryn Mo Yayi                   

Assumptions underlying the concept of Learning Organizations.

    The whole concept of Learning Organization is based on the assumption that "deep down we are all learners and that we all love to learn". This may not be true for all. There are people who view work only as a means to meet ends, not as a learning experience. They work so as to earn the means to live a life outside of work. Thus such people will prefer to earn that means with as little effort as possible, not minding mundane work, as long as the job scope is easy and they get their wages. This group of people may not welcome a learning organization, as more effort and time is needed to "learn" in such an organization. Part-timers or contract workers who do not have vested interests in the company they work in belong to this group. Relating back to Crozier, this group of people are deemed to have a bureaucratic personality, reflecting retreatism, whereby individuals choose to reduce their involvement and commit themselves as little as possible to the organization. Thus the concept of disciplines of learning organizations may not work on such group of workers, which are also part of an organization.

    There is also the assumption that "material affluence for the majority has gradually shifted people's orientation toward work - from an "instrumental" view, where work was a means to an end, to a more "sacred" view, where people seek the intrinsic benefits of work." My question is "Where is the basis for such an assumption?" Of course, there are people who hold the sacred view, but there are also a sizeable group of people who still hold the instrumental view of work. Does that mean that the concept of an learning organization will not hold or work on this (instrumental) group of workers? How can an organization determine which type of workers does it has? Furthermore, one could question whether there are intrinsic benefits of work to be reaped at all! According to Marx, the answer would be no, as more work (labour) would only benefit the employer or the company due to the creation of use value and surplus value, which essentially still belong to the capitalist.

    Moreover, Senge attributed this shift of view from an instrumental to a sacred point of view to material affluence. I have reservations about that. My alternative explanation would be that workers are spending more time at work, in fact almost every waking hours of their time. Work has become their life, not by choice, but by circumstances. So as to make their work life more "bearable", workers want more out of their jobs, since they can't enjoy life after work due to the lack of time and energy, which are all "dedicated" to their work, they try to look for "enjoyment" or benefits in their work. Therefore to adopt a "systems thinking" point of view, I could argue that the underlying reason why people are seeking intrinsic benefits from work, is not because of material affluence, but because of their longer hours at work!

    The whole concept of an learning organization seems to me as an attempt to build an organization where the worker is "trapped" to give all his time in the organization willingly, since there is the "illusion" that he can reap intrinsic benefits from it. Senge presented his ideas largely in a management point of view, thus it can be seen as a tool for management of the organization. However managing the organization is essentially managing the workers, therefore I would be tempted to say that the five disciplines of the learning organization can be seen as a tool to "conform or control" workers to work in line with the organizational mission. Below I would attempt to "reveal" how the five disciplines do that.

 The 5 Disciplines of the Learning Organization as a form of control

    The 5 disciplines are 1. systems thinking, 2. personal mastery, 3. mental modes, 4. shared vision, and 5. team leaning. The first three disciplines have particular application to the individual participant, and the last two have group application.

Systems Thinking

Essentially systems thinking is a conceptual framework to see things in a "larger picture", so as to understand the interdependence of the smaller units that make up a whole system. A worker who applies this thinking may think in this way, " I'm a part of the bigger system. Whatever I do will affect others and the whole system. Thus I'd better do my job right so that I won't detriment others or the organization."

Personal Mastery

Personal mastery is about developing personal visions, i.e. clarifying things that are important to the individual. The concern here is the reciprocal commitments between individuals and organization. Thus a worker who thinks that an organization is assisting in developing his personal visions will work harder for the organization.

Mental Models

Working with mental models involve discovering our world views and our assumptions, so as to expose our own thinking effectively and make that thinking open to the influence of others. Would the others here refer to the organization, so that the organization can influence the worker's thinking to be in line with its vision?

Shared Vision

The involves the skills of unearthing shared "pictures of the future", so as to foster genuine commitment to the organization, rather than compliance. A worker who are committed to an organization will naturally work harder.

Team Learning

The concept of learning organization advocates working in teams. Teams, as we learned from previous readings, can be a source of great control to the workers, through electronic and peer surveillance (as known from Sewell's readings), and concertive control (from Barker's readings).

 The Laws of the Fifth Discipline

    The eleven laws of the Fifth Discipline is basically about the ways to achieve systems thinking. However I find that the laws only seem logical because of hindsight. However in real business situations, it may be difficult to predict what might happen in the long run, especially when in the new economy, changes are quite rapid.

    Furthermore, Senge seems to have neglected external influences in his discussions. External influences like changes in governmental policies or a regional recession can cause problems to an organization too, besides an organization causing its own problems or failures.

Conclusion

    In conclusion, the concept of a "learning organization" may be initially viewed like a "friendly" alternative to the traditional kind of organizations, with the emphasis on decentralization, cultivating a sense of shared vision and a genuine aim to develop people. On the other hand, such learning organizations can be seen as no different or even "worse" than the traditional kind of organizations. While traditional organizations control people's behavior, learning organizations control people's thinking. This is a higher level of control because workers may not even be aware that they are being controlled to conform to the needs of the organization. In fact, workers are willing to put in the extra hour or effort without any incentives, as they may already have internalized the values that the organization wants them to have.