THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE
It
is vital that the five disciplines develop as an ensemble.
This is challenging because it is much harder to integrate
new tools than simply apply them separately. But the
payoffs. are immense.
This
is why systems thinking is the fifth discipline. It
is the discipline that integrates the disciplines, fusing
them into a coherent body of theory and practice. It
keeps them from being separate gimmicks or the latest
organization change fads. Without a systemic orientation,
there is no motivation to look at how the disciplines
interrelate. By enhancing each of the other disciplines,
it continually reminds us that the whole can exceed
the sum of its parts.
For
example, vision without systems thinking ends up painting
lovely pictures of the future with no deep understanding
of the forces that must be mastered to move from here
to there. This is one of the reasons why many firms
that have jumped on the "vision band-' wagon"
in recent years have found that lofty vision alone fails
to turn around a firm's fortunes. Without systems thinking,
the seed of vision falls on harsh soil. If nonsystemic
thinking predominates, the first condition for nurturing
vision is not met: a genuine belief that we can make
our vision real in the future. We may say "We can
achieve our vision" (most American managers are
conditioned to this belief), but our tacit view of current
reality as a set of conditions created by somebody else
betrays us.
But
systems thinking also needs the disciplines of building
shared vision, mental models, team learning, and personal
mastery to realize its potential. Building shared vision
fosters a commitment to the long term. Mental models
focus on the openness needed to unearth shortcomings
in our present ways of seeing the world. Team learning
develops the skills of groups of people to look for
the larger picture that lies beyond individual perspectives.
And personal mastery fosters the personal motivation
to continually learn how our actions affect our world.
Without personal mastery, people are so steeped in the
reactive mindset ("someone/something else is creating
my problems") that they are deeply threatened by
the systems perspective.
Lastly,
systems thinking makes understandable the subtlest aspect
of the learning organization—the new way individuals
perceive themselves and their world. At the heart of
a learning organization is a shift of mind—from
seeing ourselves as separate from the world to connected
to the world, from seeing problems as caused by someone
or something "out there" to seeing how our
own actions create the problems we experience. A learning
organization is a place where people are continually
discovering how they create their reality. And how they
can change it. As Archimedes has said, "Give me
a lever long enough . . . and single-handed I can move
the world."
METANOIA—A SHIFT OF MIND
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 becomes 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.
The
most accurate word in Western culture to describe what
happens in a learning organization is one that hasn't
had much currency for the past several hundred years.
It is a word we have used in our work with organizations
for some ten years, but we always caution them, and
ourselves, to use it sparingly in public. The word is
"metanoia" and it means a shift of mind. The
word has a rich history. For the Greeks, it meant a
fundamental shift or change, or more literally transcendence
("meta"—above or beyond, as in
"metaphysics") of mind ("noia,"
from the root "nous," of mind). In
the early (Gnostic) Christian tradition, it took on
a special meaning of awakening shared intuition and
direct knowing of the highest, of God. "Metanoia"
was probably the key term of such early Christians as
John the Baptist. In the Catholic corpus the word metanoia
was eventually translated as "repent."
To grasp
the meaning of "metanoia" is to grasp the
deeper meaning of "learning," for learning
also involves a fundamental shift or movement of mind.
The problem with talking about "learning organizations"
is that the "learning" has lost its central
meaning in contemporary usage. Most people's eyes glaze
over if you talk to them about "learning"
or "learning organizations." Little wonder—for,
in everyday use, learning has come to be synonymous
with "taking in information." "Yes, I
learned all about that at the course yesterday."
Yet, taking in information is only distantly related
to real learning. It would be nonsensical to say, "I
just read a great book about bicycle riding—I've
now learned that."
Real
learning gets to the heart of what it means to be human.
Through learning we re-create ourselves. Through learning
we become able to do something we never were able to
do. Through learning we reperceive the world and our
relationship to it. Through learning we extend our capacity
to create, to be part of the generative process of life.
There is within each of us a deep hunger for this type
of learning. It is, as Bill O'Brien of Hanover Insurance
says, "as fundamental to human beings as the sex
drive."
This, then, is the basic meaning of a "learning
organization"—an organization that is continually
expanding its capacity to create its future. For such
an organization, it is not enough merely 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.
A few
brave organizational pioneers are pointing the way,
but the territory of building learning organizations
is still largely unexplored. It is my fondest hope that
this book can accelerate that exploration.
|