Search results

This paper aims to provide an overview of the development of learning organization concepts from the perspective of Dr Peter Senge and presents an interesting evolution of his systems oriented view of the learning organization field over three decades.

Through a conversation with a thought leading scholar, Dr Peter Senge, this paper discusses several topics pertaining to the evolution of the learning organization through a systems approach and provides his perspectives on the development of his theories.

Dr Senge explains his origination of the learning organization from three distinctly different theoretical tracks. However, more important than the theory, he illuminates how the theories embedded within The Fifth Discipline actually originated from action research and have continued to evolve. Of particular interest, his sites personal mastery as the most often cited of the five disciplines and offers readers explanations as to why the personal change dimensions are so important, and so often neglected. He clearly describes what it takes to make genuine progress in becoming a learning organization.

The discussion with Dr Senge reveals his perspective on the evolution of the learning organization debate from his personal perspective. He provides insights that lead the reader to understand “what is a learning organization” and “what does it mean”.

This study aims to investigate whether the learning organization, as envisioned by Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline (1990), facilitates responsible innovation.

The authors analyze the component characteristics of the learning organization as defined by Senge (1990) to identify any conceptual or causal connections to responsible research and innovation (RRI). To define RRI, the authors make use of a commonly cited framework from the academic literature that is consistent with the vision of RRI promoted in European Union policy.

The authors find significant complementarities between being a learning organization and practicing responsible innovation. Some of the practices and characteristics of a learning organization in the sense of Senge (1990) do not merely facilitate RRI, they are RRI by definition. One important caveat is that to qualify as a responsible innovator according to the proposed framework, an organization must involve external stakeholders in the innovation process, a requirement that has no parallel in The Fifth Discipline. The authors conclude that there is at most a small step from being a learning organization to becoming a responsibly innovating learning organization.

The authors propose a reconsideration of the scope of applicability of Senge’s theory, opening new possibilities for drawing inspiration from The Fifth Discipline 30 years after the book was first published. The authors conclude that there may be significant non-economic advantages to being a learning organization, and that The Fifth Discipline may be more valuable for its ethical perspectives on the organization than as a prescription for how to achieve business success.

Learning is now widely accepted as the currency of survival in an era of constant change. Many businesses, however, are struggling to learn how to learn. The cultural and structural issues they need to confront in order to acquire the flexibility and responsiveness to learn were articulated in 1990 in The Fifth Discipline by Peter M Senge of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Measuring Business Excellence revisits this now landmark work to review its continuing relevance to the aspirant learning organization.

Aims first, to develop an instrument for a holistic analysis of learning organizations; and second, to test the validity and reliability of this instrument. The framework developed was mainly influenced by the work of Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell and John Burgoyne, Peter M. Senge as well as Chris Argyris and Donald A. Schön. Analyses eight existing diagnosis tools. The Learning Organization Diamond Tool was based on a concept of a learning organization regarded as a structure of related elements. Data consisting of 691 answers were gathered from 25 Finnish organizations in 1998. After analysis the reliability of the instrument was measured with Cronbach’s alpha. Cronbach’s alphas for the elements of the tool varied between 0.5141 and 0.8617. Validity of the tool was established by presenting the process as a chain of phases from theory to statements. Comparison between the tool developed and other tools presented in this article yields somewhat contradictory findings, because the purposes of the instruments differ. The tool developed here aims to create a holistic picture for further analysis and discussions and to serve as an internal tool for development. More tailored instruments should be developed for more specific purposes. The article is aimed at an audience involved in learning organizations and their development.

Discusses “organizational learning”, and the contribution of simulations and system dynamics to the improvement of managers′ “mental worlds” in accelerating anticipatory learning.

States that organizational learning is currently a fashionable concept, and this is due to an attempt by many large organizations to develop structures and systems that are more adaptable and responsive to change. Reviews a framework for organizational learning and discusses the two main perspectives on the learning organization, that is, the focus on generative or transformational learning and the focus on incremental or adaptive learning. First, reviews a framework for organizational learning and examines the learning organization with regard to the twofold nature of organizational learning. Second, examines the generative or transformational perspective of the learning organization and how this has been developed in the literature. Third, looks at the incremental or adaptive perspective of the learning organization that has been presented in some recent literature. Examines a formula for a learning organization for application. Shows that this model integrates leadership vision, measurement of goals, internal/external data collection, inventiveness and proactive implementation to create a successful design. Concludes by integrating the two perspectives on the learning organization into the reviewed framework for congruence.

By definition, all organizations that survive as their environment evolves are learning, at least to some degree, but proposes that the learning capabilities of most organizations are extremely limited, especially when learning requires that diverse constituencies build shared understanding of dynamically complex business environments. As such, learning capabilities become increasingly needed, and those organizations which possess them will have unique advantages. Discovering how organizations might develop such learning capabilities represents a unique opportunity for partnership between researchers and practitioners. Suggests that to do this will require consensus about the research territory, research methods and goals, and how meaningful field projects can be designed and conducted.

Improving early diagnosis of cancer through system change initiatives is endemic in England’s NHS cancer services. These initiatives, however, often fail to gain traction due to the complexities of health system structures. The purpose of this paper is to explore whether using a change framework grounded in systems thinking could be of help to system leaders.

A portfolio of geographically independent projects, all implementing cancer service changes as part of the Accelerate, Coordinate, Evaluate Programme, was used for the study. Eight projects were purposively selected to give a varied case-mix. Two semi-structured interviews were conducted with each project. Analysis of interviews was carried out using the Framework Method.

Processes working for (growth processes) and against (limiting processes) change were evident in and common across all eight projects. Projects commonly encountered challenges of relevance, time and bounded thinking. Having a network of committed people was vital for both initiating and sustaining change. Furthermore, understanding stakeholders’ emotional responses to change helped mitigate emergent challenges.

Leaders should pay constant attention to the dynamics of change, taking time to anticipate and diffuse challenges whilst simultaneously working to create the conditions that help change flourish. A change framework rooted in complex systems theory can help leaders understand the contradictory and non-linear processes inherent in transformational change.

Few studies seek to understand change dynamics by comparing the experiences of separate change initiatives implemented contemporaneously. The findings offer leaders practical insights on how to implement transformation.

The purpose of this research is to provide an overview of the learning that has emerged from two initiatives in which a multinational company, Unilever, and an international non‐governmental organization, Oxfam have worked together: the Sustainable Food Laboratory Initiative, a project focusing on the global food production system, and “Exploring the Links”, a joint research project exploring the links between wealth creation and poverty reduction in one country, Indonesia.

The paper presents an overview of learning as expressed by participants in the Sustainable Food Laboratory and a summary of the final report published by the joint research project, giving an overview of the process and highlighting the key lessons learned by both organizations.

The paper finds that the common success of both projects is a contribution to a better understanding of current global systems and local impacts, as well as an indication of the opportunities for systemic change that emerge when different organizations are willing to learn with and from each other. Oxfam and Unilever participants came to realize that, despite their very different missions and goals, they share a commitment to poverty reduction, healthy resource systems, and truly sustainable development. Although common ground may be found, such projects do not attempt to cover over differences. On the contrary, understanding differences can lead to more balanced and integrative pictures of complex problems, reveal limitations of what individual organizations can do, and identify areas where partnerships can have the greatest benefits for real and lasting change.

The paper draws on personal learning from a limited number of participants in the three year pilot of the Sustainable Food Laboratory and solely on the research and findings published in the Indonesia project's final report.

This paper highlights the valuable learning that can emerge when different kinds of organization work together to explore and address common challenges. Understanding their differences in outlook and experience can lead to more balanced and integrative pictures of complex problems, reveal limitations of what individual organizations can do, and identify areas where partnerships can have the greatest benefits for real and lasting change.

This paper gives real examples of the kind of learning that can emerge from cross‐sector initiatives, and highlights lessons about how such learning can be achieved and why it is valuable.