See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225839317

“Fifth Discipline”: Review and Discussion

Article  in  Systemic Practice and Action Research · June 1998

DOI: 10.1023/A:1022948013380

CITATIONS READS
27 13,476

1 author:

Robert Flood
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
113 PUBLICATIONS   4,362 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The relationship between systemic thinking and action research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Flood on 11 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

systemic Practice ana Action Research, vol. 11, NO. 3, 1998

"Fifth Discipline": Review and Discussion

Robert L. Flood1
Received December 10, 1997; revised March 25, 1998

The book Fifth Discipline is Peter Senge's account of the learning organization. For
Senge, five disciplines are necessary to bring about a learning organization—personal
mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking (called
systemic thinking from here on). Systemic thinking is the discipline that integrates
all five disciplines. Each discipline is briefly explored in this paper, with emphasis
placed on systemic thinking. Senge's concern with localness and openness is also
touched upon. The paper concludes with an outline critique of Senge's work.

KEY WORDS: fifth discipline; learning organization; system dynamics; boundary

judgment.

1. INTRODUCTION
Peter Senge follows in the tradition of the learning organization, which came
to the fore in the 1970s, for example, through the research of Chris Argyris and
Donald Schon and the practice in Royal Dutch/Shell of Arie de Geus. It is
Senge, however, who leveraged the concepts and methods of the learning orga-
nization into popular currency through his now widely known book, Fifth Dis-
cipline. The learning organization as articulated in Fifth Discipline ranks among
just a few approaches to management and organisation that have acquired a
position on the International Hall of Fame. Central to this popularization is the
fifth discipline itself, systemic thinking, that has otherwise struggled on the
margins of the social and educational mainstream. An introduction to Senge's
learning organization is presented in this paper. Each of the five disciplines is
reviewed, with emphasis placed on systemic thinking. Senge's concern with
localness and openness are also touched upon. The paper sums up with an outline
critique of Senge's work.

1
Centre for Systems Studies, School of Management, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, U.K.
e-mail: robertflood@compuserve.com.

259

l094-429X/98/0600-0259$l5.00/0 © 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation

269 Flood

2. SYSTEMIC THINKING
Systemic thinking explores things as wholes and is highly relevant, Senge
insists, because the world exhibits qualities of wholeness. These qualities relate
to every aspect of our lives—at work and at home. Events are distinct in space
and time, but they are all interconnected. Events, then, can be understood only
by contemplating the whole. Life events can be made sense of in a meaningful
way only in the knowledge that our actions contribute to patterns of interrelated
actions.
The world is whole and the whole is complex. It is increasingly complex,
with more and more information, intense interdependency, and relentless change.
Senge sorts two types of complexity from this—detail complexity and dynamic
complexity. Detail complexity arises where there are many variables, which are
difficult, if not impossible, to hold in the mind at once and appreciate as a
whole. Dynamic complexity arises where effects over time of interrelatedness
are subtle and results of actions are not obvious, or where short-term and long-
term effects are significantly different, or where effects locally are different from
effects on a wider scale. Detail complexity can be likened to a snapshot pho-
tograph that allows detail to be studied in freeze-frame. Dynamic complexity
can be likened to an animation that allows patterns of behavior to be studied
over time. Dynamic complexity is the main concern of Senge's systemic think-
ing.
The trouble is, Senge argues, that we are taught from an early age to make
complexity apparently more manageable by breaking wholes into parts. This
makes understanding wholes pretty much impossible since we no longer can
appreciate results of actions because the whole is stripped of an essential qual-
ity—interrelatedness. Similarly, if we think of ourselves as a disconnected part,
we lose our sense of connection to a wider whole and inadvertently alienate and
disempower ourselves. We are disempowered because we cannot understand
why events happen in our lives in the way that they do.
Accentuating difficulties, people then attempt to reassemble the fragments
resulting from breaking wholes into parts in the belief that it is within our power
to recreate the whole. Senge appeals on this score through the writings of David
Bohm, who likens such recreation to reassembling fragments of a mirror with
which, of course, a true reflection never again can be seen. I also appreciate D.
T. Suzuki's way of picturing this matter in The Gospel According to Zen—that
we murder wholes by dissecting them into parts, yet expect to put the parts back
together to re-create the original living whole.
The tools of Senge's systemic thinking derive from system dynamics (linked
in its name to dynamic complexity). The tools attempt to put to rest the illusion
that the world is made up of separate parts. They also attempt to dismiss the
simplification that the world is linear, with beginnings and ends. The tools help
"Fifth Discipline" 261

to picture the world as interconnected through ongoing cyclical patterns. In fact,

Senge observes, there are a number of types of pattern that recur. These he calls
systems archetypes.
Systems archetypes, the message goes, reveal a kind of simplicity under-
lying the dynamic complexity of, say, management issues. Dynamic complexity
may be understood in terms of the relatively small number of systems archetypes
as they are shown to explain each unique situation. One systems archetype, or
several interconnected systems archetypes, may capture observable patterns of
behavior and explain why a complex of events occurs. Extending one's knowl-
edge of systems archetypes expands one's ability to get to grips with manage-
ment issues and consequently opens up and explains opportunities that exist for
improvement.
Working with systems archetypes helps to locate these opportunities, which
Senge calls points of leverage. Bringing about change at points of leverage
enables a disproportionate and desired impact to be achieved on important aspects
of the whole—whole in space and time. Leverage is thus achieved when action
is taken that leads to enduring improvement. Working on leverage points achieves
well-focused action that is normally less than obvious to most people operating
solely from intuition.
Senge reckons that about a dozen systems archetypes have been distin-
guished. These make up some kind of generic set. Senge covers nine of these
in Fifth Discipline and, with colleagues, in Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. The core
nine are introduced below, each as a story. (Senge's name for them is given in
parentheses where different from that employed below.)
Corrective Action with Delay (Balancing Process with Delay). An actual
condition and a desired condition/goal differ. That is, there is a gap between
how things are and the way we want them to be. Corrective action is taken to
close the gap. However, the impact of the corrective action is delayed. That is,
the results of the corrective action are not observed right away. The gap does
not appear to be closing and so further corrective action is considered necessary.
The impact of the initial corrective action then closes the gap as desired. Later,
the second corrective action has an impact, leading to a gap in the other direc-
tion. Further corrective action in ignorance of the delay leads to an oscillation
in the actual condition.
Eroding Goals. This is similar to the previous systems archetype "correc-
tive action with delay." However, rather than take further corrective action
when the impact of the initial corrective action is delayed, a strategy is adopted
to close the gap by adjusting the desired condition/goal. This then perpetuates,
with an erosion of the desired condition/goal.
Limits to Growth. A condition feeds on itself through a growing action to
produce a period of accelerating growth. Growth approaches a limiting condition
and experiences a slowing action. Growth eventually comes to a halt. However,
262 Flood

if delays occur in the slowing action, then the growth action may overshoot the
limiting condition and will later contract to the limiting condition.
Tragedy of the Commons. This is a story showing that rational local deci-
sion making may sum to irrational decision making for the whole. There are a
common resource and two individuals/groups drawing on it (there may be many
more). Each one maximizes its gain and increases activity and hence demand
on the resources. Initially, the common resource sustains growth, but in due
course a resource limit is encountered. This impacts negatively on the gains for
A's and B's activities and depletes resources, which becomes a cycle with the
tragic consequence that resources as well as A's and B's activities wither away—
unless A and B are able to make decisions about the whole that are mutually
beneficial and sustainable.
Growth and Underinvestment. An organization's demand and supply
increase, say, for a product or service, leading to a growing action. This improves
performance, say, in terms of number of sales. Existing capacity for the product
or service is met and so performance in this respect reaches its limit. However,
the performance standards for the sales of the product or service are raised and
a perceived need to invest surfaces. Investment experiences delay in realisation.
Meanwhile, demand continues to rise, but performance in terms of ability to
deliver what is promised severely falls, leading to a slump in demand. The
performance standards of sales (and indeed quality) are then lowered to justify
the slump and the perceived need to invest drops away, limiting demand that
can be met. Investment should have gone ahead in capacity and future invest-
ments made that stay ahead of demand.
Treating Symptoms, Not Fundamental Causes (Shifting the Burden). A
problem condition arises. A strategy is worked out to treat the fundamental
causes and is implemented, but experiences delay. The symptoms of the problem
condition, however, can be and indeed are treated with immediate results. An
increasing reliance on treating symptoms leads to the side effect that fundamental
causes are treated less and less until eventually the strategy to treat the funda-
mental causes becomes disabled.
Corrective Actions that Fail (Fixes that Fail). A problem is encountered
and a corrective action is worked out that is considered to be a solution. How-
ever, the corrective action leads to unthought of and unseen consequences that
feed back into the problem. Since these consequences are also unseen, the
reaction is to administer more of the same corrective action, but this leads to
more of the same consequences.
Escalation. A and B find themselves in competition. Whatever improve-
ment in condition that either A or B achieves for himself/herself, the other one
responds, leading to an improvement in his/her own condition. This cycle repeats
itself in an ever-escalating fashion. However, escalation may slow or even stop
due to lack of sustainability or delayed side effects.
"Fifth Discipline" 263

Success to the Successful. A resource allocation procedure allocates limited

resources according to a criterion of success. At a certain allocation point, A is
considered more successful than B and so A is allocated a larger share of the
resources than B. This increases A's chances of success and diminishes B's
chances of success for the next round of resource allocation.
As seen, systems archetypes may be employed to describe, predict, and
exlain patterns of behavior. The nine systems archetypes above illustrate how
this is possible qualitatively, for example, with qualitative simulation that pre-
dicts certain forms of behavior. Qualitative simulation is aided by translating a
story into a diagram, called an influence diagram, where points of leverage are
easier to locate. In special cases influence diagrams may be translated into
dynamic mathematical models that predict quantitatively certain forms of behav-
ior. It is argued that a well-validated mathematical model may be employed to
test out a range of possible strategies for improvement. Mathematical descrip-
tions are most relevant when modeling "natural processes," such as physical
and biological ones, where laws of behavior are established. Fifth Discipline
Fieldbook warns, however, that system dynamics all too easily can be reduced
to process-based thinking only, while the broader argument of systems arche-
types and underlying structure goes unheeded. Also, qualitative and quantitative
simulation exercises are found particularly helpful by Senge and co-workers in
training and learning about system dynamics.

3. PERSONAL MASTERY
Personal mastery centers on developing one's own proficiency. The aim is
continually to clarify and deepen personal vision (extended into shared vision
in the learning organization). Personal vision means keying into what you want
while resisting occupation with what you do not want. When fully honed it is
an ability to converge on ultimate intrinsic desires and to do positive things
toward achieving them. A gap will exist between reality and personal vision
that causes tension. Creative tension can nourish personal vision and needs
feeding. Emotional tension can erode personal vision and requires dampening.
Furthermore, structural conflict may surface when a belief in one's own pow-
erlessness and unworthiness in achieving personal vision threatens to wear it
down. Energies must be directed toward changing these negative beliefs, thus
reducing structural conflict while preserving personal vision. Personal mastery
contributes to the learning organization by continually expanding individuals'
capacity to create their own future.
In Fifth Discipline Fieldbook a number of methods are introduced in support
of the discipline personal mastery. The fieldbook can be consulted for details.
One of the methods is called "drawing forth personal vision." The purpose is
to help people define personal vision. A suitable atmosphere for reflection is
264 Flood

essential. The process begins by "creating a result." This is a form of idealistic

thinking, seeking out a result in life that is deeply desired. Three questions are
asked. What does it look like? What does it feel like? and What words would
you use to describe it? The process continues by reflecting on answers to those
three questions. Were there reasons that made it hard to come to an ideal posi-
tion? How would it feel to achieve the ideal? What is the complete picture
relating to the ideal? Other methods introduced pursue different aims. These
include real-time reflection and seeking innovations in structure that encourage
personal mastery.
Systemic thinking is the discipline that integrates all five disciplines into a
coherent theory for the learning organization. With personal mastery, for exam-
ple, it helps to clarify the dynamic nature of structures. Systemic thinking illus-
trates the interrelated nature of creative tension and emotional tension, and how
we can better achieve intrinsic desires by amplifying creative tension and atten-
uating emotional tenison. Systemic thinking points to the link between negative
feelings we might have about ourselves and the way this impacts on erosion of
goals.
More broadly, systemic thinking enables us to appreciate our connectedness
to the world, to see more and more of the interdependencies between our actions,
our reality, and how our intrinsic desires fit in with this. A systemic view allows
us to learn about structures in the world in which we live our lives and to avoid
blinkered reactions to experiences such as blame and guilt. It is the systemic
structures that explain events, not the actions of individuals. Recognition of
these issues is an important step toward commitment to the whole.

4. MENTAL MODELS
Mental models are conceptual structures held in each person's mind that
shape the way each person perceives the world and as a result acts in it. Mental
models therefore define for all individuals their relationship with the world in
which they find themselves. Mental models are most often invisible in the
routines they discharge. The discipline of mental models encourages indiviuals
to recognize mental models they carry in their minds, to surface and test assump-
tions that define the mental models and their lives, and hence to consider trans-
forming mental models and accordingly their relationship with the world. This
mode of inquiry helps people to appreciate limits that mental models impose on
personal vision (and shared vision in the learning organization). Challenging
mental models expands individuals' as well as teams' capacity to learn and to
create their own future.
Methods for reflection and inquiry are considered central to the discipline
of mental models. Senge is keen here on the work of Chris Argyris and Donald
Schon called action science. Action science is concerned with spontaneous, tacit
"Fifth Discipline" 265

theories-in-use that enter into discussion and dialogue. These include actions
such as unilateral control, unilateral self-protection, defensiveness, smoothing
over, and covering up. Such actions are employed whenever feelings of embar-
rassment or threat come into play. People are often unaware of these so-called
intrapsychic forces and consequences that they lead to in discussion and dia-
logue.
One method that addresses intrapsychic forces is called "the left-hand col-
umn." The purpose is to become aware of the tacit assumptions that shape
conversation and often prevent us from achieving things we set out to do. A
two-column table is drawn up for the exercise. The idea is to place in the right-
hand column of the table things said in a situation experienced as difficult. After
reflection, things are recorded that were thought and felt but not said. Reflection
on the table some time later may help clarify issues such as why things in the
left-hand column were not said, what comments were made that contributed to
the difficulty, and what prevented a different form of action from happening. In
short, the question is, What/which mental model(s) was/were in force?
Systemic thinking helps further by testing whether mental models are sys-
temically flawed in the sense that they neglect critical feedback or delays, or
miss points of high leverage. It helps to expose assumptions mental models are
making about the dynamic nature of reality and to evaluate the validity of the
assumptions. The aim is not to draw elaborate systemic diagrams of the world,
but to understand better and indeed improve our mental models of the world.

5. SHARED VISION
Shared vision is a vision to which many people are committed since it
comes out of and so is created some each one's personal vision. Shared vision
refers to shared operating values, a common sense of purpose, indeed, a basic
level of mutuality. It extends insights and principles from personal mastery into
a world of collective aspiration and shared commitment. For this reason, mul-
tiple visions are encouraged to coexist in a course of action that at once tran-
scends and unifies personal visions. Managing each individual's vision and
extending them into shared vision helps expand an organization's capacity to
create its future.
The core idea on which methods for shared vision are constructed is inten-
sive dialogue between involved and affected people. The process is develop-
mental. This is the antithesis of visioning exclusively from the top of a
management hierarchy. Fifth Discipline Fieldbook suggests how to move vision-
ing from the top of management hierarchy to widespread intensive dialogue—
from "telling" to "cocreating." Telling is where those at the top "know what
vision should be and the organisation is going to have to follow it." People do
what they are told because they either think that those at the top know best or
266 Flood

simply believe that they have no choice. There is little generative learning.
Cocreating is a widespread and collaborative process where a shared vision is
built in a mood of generative learning.
Systemic thinking explains the spread of shared vision in generative learn-
ing as a reinforcing process where communication of the ideas gathers pace and
the vision becomes increasingly clear, leading to rising enthusiasm. As with any
process of growth, system dynamics encourages us to look for limiting factors.
Potentially, there are several of these.
One possible limiting factor comes into play when more people become
involved. Although a certain amount of shared vision is achieved, the ore people
who get involved, the greater is the potential for a diversity of views to break
out. This dissipates focus and generates conflict. Equally, like personal vision,
it is possible that people may see a gap between shared vision and how things
actually are, which gives rise to negative feelings and erosion of goals. Fur-
thermore, it is possible for people to forget their connection to one another and
that they are part of a whole, which lets slip the approach from one of joint
inquiry to one of individuals in conflict.

6. TEAM LEARNING
Team learning aims to align people's efforts by directing their energies,
creating synergy. It harnesses the potential of many minds but requires mastering
practices of discussion and dialogue. Discussion is where different views are
presented and defended in search of a view to support decisions that must be
made. Dialogue involves suspending one's own views, exploring issues from
many points of view, and visiting the mental models and personal visions of
others. Discussion and dialogue need to be balanced. Also, team membranes
must learn how to cope with forces that break down meaningful discussion and
dialogue by developing skills in inquiry and reflection. A learning organization
manifesting teams equipped with competencies in inquiry and reflection will be
better prepared continually to expand its capacity to create its future.
Discussion and dialogue are necessary counterparts in the quest for con-
sensus. However, there may be forces at work that prevent productive discussion
and dialogue. Again, Senge makes reference to the research of Argyris and
Schon, called action science. Action science attempts to identify defensive rou-
tines people employ in discussion and dialogue that break down those processes.
For example, even when one team member knows that another one has made a
mistake, they might prefer not to comment honestly about this because it can
cause embarrassment or offence. Senge sees the challenge as transforming all
forms of defensiveness into inquiry—indeed reflective inquiry. This is the dis-
cipline of team learning.
Team learning in Senge's outlook is best pursued through methods of dia-
"Fifth Discipline" 267

logue. Senge makes reference to David Bohm's book On Dialogue, in which

he writes about a stream of meaning flowing among us and between us. In this
way people make genuine attempts to appreciate matters of concern through the
eyes of people who raise the concerns. People leam from this by expanding
their understanding of circumstances that prevail. The basic components of a
dialogue session as set out in Fifth Discipline Fieldbook are as follows. Invite
people and give them a chance to participate. Enter into generative learning
where close attention is paid by all to what is said. Create time and silence
where people have the chance to reflect on their own and other people's thoughts.
Suspend assumptions to avoid the possible imposition of ideas on other people.
The perspective and tools of systemic thinking feature strongly in team
learning of this sort. In particular, the tools of systemic thinking bear relevance
to many forms of team learning. Take management teams as an example. The
primary task of all management teams is dealing with complexity. Management
teams deal with a variety of complex situations. Attention may be directed at
possible structures that support the learning organization. Management teams
inquire into the future through strategic visioning and policy analysis. The trou-
ble is that conventional analysis tends to employ language that seeks to analyze
such situations as somewhat static, relatively simple situations. Systemic think-
ing offers a language through systems archetypes that helps people get to grips
with complexity. It helps to bring together people's mental models in a shared
systemic language, generating team learning and understanding and a shared
sense of purpose.

7. OPENNESS AND LOCALNESS

Senge emphasizes in the learning organization openness and localness.
There are two types of openness in Senge's view—participative and reflective.
Participative is the most common. It is the freedom to speak one's mind and to
state one's views. Participative openness encourages wide involvement in deci-
sion making. However, Senge argues, this mode of contribution leads to very
little learning. A more potent generative learning comes from reflective open-
ness. This entails challenging one's own thinking. It necessitates surfacing
assumptions that shape our views and subject these to open criticism. Senge
speculates a little about positive synergy between participative and reflective
openness.
Senge goes out of his way to reinforce ideas of openness as a challenge to
power and politics in organizations. He expresses sorrow at the many examples
of power and politics today. There is both formal and informal power, which
couple with game playing and an acceptance that such games represent conven-
tion. This "given" is challenged by learning organizations in a search for open-
ness. What motivates people is questioned. The idea that power, wealth, and
268 Flood

self-interest are sole motivators is challenged. The learning organization assumes

over and above self-interest that people want to be a part of something larger
than themselves and desire to build something important with other people. The
learning organization in this sense is about cooperative relationships between
people.
As well as enjoying cooperative relationships, Senge reckons, people also
want to take responsibility for their actions, which is where localness comes in.
People learn most rapidly when they have a genuine sense of responsibility. A
genuine sense of responsibility follows empowerment at a local level, where
people experience things that matter most to them. Responsibility invites initi-
ative, gets people going, and encourages them to share and come up with new
ideas. Systemic thinking and localness are partners that work together by focus-
ing on matters of proximate relevance while preventing myopic thinking.

8. DISCUSSION
Peter Senge has made popular in management thinking the learning orga-
nization and the many valuable insights that come with it. If attended to thought-
fully, these insights can source enrichment in both personal and working lives.
Senge's account of the learning organization is potentially empowering, as the
following examples extracted from the above review of his five disciplines illus-
trate.
Personal mastery may empower people by helping them to clarify and
deepen personal vision and come to grips with intrinsic desires. Mental models
may empower people by educating them about the way cognitive processes shape
what they see and define their relationship with other people and the world.
Shared vision may empower people by generating a common sense of purpose
on which they focus energy in a meaningful way. Team learning may empower
people by aligning their thoughts and energies, which triggers resonance and
synergy in learning. Systemic thinking may empower people by enabling them
to begin to appreciate rather than be confused by the interrelated nature of the
world and how this might explain their experiences. It is systemic thinking,
Senge argues, that integrates all five disciplines and brings about the empowering
potential of the learning organization.
Senge offers a view of systemic thinking from the vantage point of system
dynamics. System dynamics explains people's experiences through systems
archetypes and underlying structure in behavior that they help to locate, which
is indeed one useful insight. However, contributions from other systemic think-
ers, like Ackoff, Beer, Bertalanffy, Checkland, and Churchman, locate many
more central insights that systemic thinking can offer and which people might
take into account. These insights traverse a comprehensive range of organiza-
tional issues, such as how to attain efficiency in processes, what makes for
"Fifth Discipline" 269

effectiveness in structure, why discourse is the vehicle for culture change, and
that ethics is central to all of these concerns. True, Senge does broach these
matters in one way or another through his other four disciplines, and in general
discussions, but stops short of drawing his thoughts together in a coherent theory
of systemic thinking. Senge's readers are continually referred back to the narrow
focus of system dynamics for an account of what systemic thinking has to offer.
Consequently, while enjoying a certain sense of empowerment from the many
valuable insights Senge spotlights, people may still battle with confusion arising
from unconvincing systemic encounters with a profoundly systemic world. Let
us explore this matter further.
Systemic thinking is about holism, or holistic thinking, which means for-
mulating appreciation in terms of wholes. A central issue for systemic thinking,
taking interrelatedness as a key insight, is that in the process of formulating
holistic appreciation, the only discovery is indeed that everything is interrelated
with everything else and that, in practice, systemic appreciation is an ever-
expanding exercise. What use is that to anybody? Therefore to be pragmatic,
systemic appreciation must be bounded, yielding a viewpoint that is both rele-
vant and on a manageable scale.
In this act of boundary setting we can locate a second central issue for
systemic thinking, that is, Who is to judge that any one viewpoint is relevant?
Each jugment is based on a rationality that decides where a boundary is to be
drawn, thus who is in and benefits and who is out and does not benefit. Accord-
ingly, to be holistic, systemic thinking must also question, What are the con-
sequences of the Judgment? and How do we feel about them? Addressing these
questions will mean thinking about efficiency and effectiveness but will also
entail issues concerning "the rights and wrongs" of the judgment—whether
such matters are considered or not. Systemic thinking is a process that quite
simply cannot avoid judgments of an ethical nature, and therefore as a key
principle it must remain ethically alert. (This insight is attributable to C. West
Churchman.) As far as I am aware, Senge has not grappled in his writings with
the two central issues of systemic thinking mentioned above, or the dilemmas
of ethical practice that they raise.
So, how does Senge deal with boundary judgments? He is not clear about
this and could be fingered for neglecting the point. By inference, however, it
may be observed that Senge allows boundary judgment to happen through
"problem identification." If a problem can be known, then clients and other
stakeholders who are interrelated through the problem can also be known. And
so "a system is identified" that can be investigated with systems archetypes in
search of structural explanations for behavior and leverage points for change.
A crucial question here is, verily, Can "a problem" be known? Senge is clear
on this point.
In Fifth Discipline (p. 283) the notion of convergent and divergent problems
270 Flood

is introduced. We are told that convergent problems do have correct solutions.

Intelligent study leads to answers that converge. Senge claims that finding the
best site for an oil refinery is a convergent problem. A correct solution can be
found once production and final distribution points, volume of demand, and
costs of transport are identified. Divergent problems, however, have no correct
solution. The more they are studied, the more contradictory answers appear to
be. Genuine openness allows people to deal productively with them. Seeking
the best way of educating children is an example of a divergent problem referred
to by Senge.
The impression set by Senge that so-called convergent problems have cor-
rect solutions is immediately refutable. For example, finding the best site for
an oil refinery is not clear-cut given that certain technical parameters are in
place. Only a wave of reductionist mentality would come to this conclusion.
No problem exists that is purely technical. People are always involved. All sorts
of people may be involved or affected and thus want to participate in discussion
or dialogue about the siting of an oil refinery—environmentalists, government,
farmers, residents, and promoters of tourism are just a few possible ones. A so-
called convergent problem is the phantom result of an uncritical choice of bound-
ary and a lack of awareness of the ethical nature of boundary setting.
The idea of divergent problems also runs into difficultues. It is not so much
the idea itself, but the way Senge reckons that divergent problems can be han-
dled. Openness is needed, we are told, for a productive journey to a result-
But what exactly is the nature of the result? The desired result for Senge is
consensus.
Senge introduces his perspective of consensus in Fifth Discipline (p. 248).
There are two types of consensus: a "focusing-down" consensus and an "open-
ing-up" consensus. A focusing-down consensus seeks the common denominator
in multiple individual views. It is constructed from the content of our individual
views. It is a process of discovering what part of my view is shared by you and
others. Discussion is adequate here. An opening-up consensus, on the other
hand, seeks a picture larger than any one person's view. It is constructed by
each person looking at things from each other person's view. Dialogue is nec-
essary here. Presumably opening-up consensus differs from focusing-down con-
sensus in the way people's views are expanded before consensus is achieved.
In any case, at some point a consensus is achieved, which means unanimity.
Unanimity is a switch that dims critical reflective inquiry. This makes
opaque the inevitable result that a boundary is indeed now set and that some
people are in and benefit and others are out and do not benefit, just like in the
oil refinery example above. The purported "solution to the problem" is nothing
more than "a problem to other people that demands a solution." And so it goes
on. Here we encounter a vicious circle of problem-solution-problem. The circle
may be broken with a fundamental shift in thinking, replacing the idea of a
"Fifth Discipline" 271

"problem to be solved or at least dealt with by consensus" with one of "inter-

acting issues and dilemmas to be managed on a continuous basis."
One possible explanation for Senge's apparently erroneous belief in con-
sensus is a limited appreciation of forces that can break down discussion and
dialogue that preceed consensus. This in turn restricts thinking on what is required
in critical reflective inquiry to counter such forces. As we have seen, Senge
hangs on Argyris and Schon's action science. Action science recognizes intra-
psychic forces and defensive routines in discussion and dialogue that mask
people's true feelings and make problematic team learning and shared vision.
Senge therefore recommends methods such as "left-hand column" to subdue
intrapsychic forces and bring about open and meaningful discussion and dia-
logue. Senge also discusses politics in organizations and appeals for his readers
to consider the negative impact that political dynamics have on learning orga-
nizations.
Going no further in this direction, Senge stops well short of a central issue
in the social sciences—knowledge-power and social transformation. Knowledge-
power is a term which recognizes that what is considered to be valid knowledge
may be determined by powerful people. "The ruling ideas are forever the ideas
of the ruling class" is the way Marx and Engels expressed this point some time
ago in the Communist Manifesto, in their search for transformation to a classless
society.
In modern society the knowledge-power concern is broadened to incorpo-
rate management hierarchy, gender, race, disability, and other issues. In each
of these cases, knowledge-power relationships are argued to exist that lead to
entrenched patterns of behavior, which bias outcomes from discussion and dia-
logue. People are alienated and disadvantaged. Such patterns of behavior under-
mine people's capacity to create their own future and hence undermines the
learning organization as such. Bias can be removed only through social trans-
formation that alters patterns of behavior. Transformation requires skills in
reflection and inquiry that so far have evaded Senge's account of the learning
organization.
Senge does prescribe treatment for one of these knowledge-power relation-
ships—management hierarchy. His prescription is to abandon management hier-
archy in favor of some other model, which he only loosely describes in terms
of openness and merit. He also refers to the Royal Dutch/Shell participatory
model. Senge does not mention that all forms of structure have their strengths
and weaknesses, including those sold as participatory.
Ironically, Senge's dismissal of management hierarchy in a search for more
participation is a kind of confining act. He is, in a sense, laying down his way
to all people for all situations. From a systemic point of view, this is absurd.
The idea of systemic thinking, let us be reminded, is to develop a whole appre-
ciation, in this case a whole appreciation of possible organizational structures.
272 Flood

Such an appreciation may be achieved only through wide-ranging discourse

about the relevance of optional organizational structures in each local context,
that is, local in space and time. This must include management hierarchy as
one option. People must be allowed to decide for themselves. If not, then, they
are confined in their thinking and are not afforded all possible opportunities to
learn.
Senge has recognized an importance in localness, as noted earlier, but has
not grasped what this fundamentally means for systemic thinking. Localness
means that there can be no preset judgments concerning, for example, the rel-
evance of any model or method to any situation—such as management hierarchy.
It rneans therefore that systemic thinking in practice is nothing more or less than
a directed process of critical reflective inquiry looking into the nature of a
situation and the relevance of possible different ways of handling the situation-
including systems archetypes. It is a process that guides people to their own
appreciation of matters of direct concern and how they might deal with them.
In summary,
• systemic thinking yields processes for learning, and
• systemic thinking ultimately is critical reflective inquiry that remains
ethically alert.

Perhaps an overhaul of Senge's learning organization in these terms would

realize a contemporary management strategy with even more to offer than has
so far been achieved.

REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the Corporate Future. Wiley, New York.
Ackoff, R. L. (1994). The Democratic Organisation, Oxford University Press, New York.
Argyris, C., and Schon, D. (1985). Strategy, Change and Defensive Routines, Ballinger, Cam-
bridge, MA.
Argyris, C., and Schon, D. (1991). Participatory action research and action science compared. In
Whyte, W. F. (ed.), Participatory Action Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Beer, S. (1979). Heart of the Organisation, Wiley, Chichester.
Beer, S. (1981). Brain of the Firm, Wiley, Chichester.
Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the System for Organisations, Wiley, Chichester.
Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, Braziller,
New York. [Enlarged edition (1971). Penguin, London.]
Bohm, D. (1990). On Dialogue, David Bohm Seminars, Ojai, CA.
Checkland, P. B. (1991). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester.
Checkland, P. B., and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester.
Churchman, C. W. (1968). The Systems Approach, Delacorte Press, New York.
Churchman, C. W. (1979). The Systems Approach and Its Enemies, Basic Books, New York.
de Geus, A. (1997). The Living Company, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
 "Fifth Discipline" 273

Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. A. (1996). Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning, Wiley,
Chichester.
Senge, P. (1990). Fifth Discipline: The An and Practice of the Learning Organisation, Century,
London.
Senge, P., et al. (1994). Fifth Discipline: Fieldbook, Century, London.

View publication stats