Obstacles to developing a learning organisation

Certain barriers to change provide obstacles to developing a learning organisation, as previously discussed. Some of these obstacles and others will now be explored in the context of a small organisation in South Africa. These include the organisation’s understanding of key concepts or references, such as the learning organisation and its view of its people; people and power dynamics within the organisation, which are closely linked to the legacy of Apartheid; an understanding of learning theories and how these apply to the learning organisation; and the very nature of business itself.

Diverse understandings of what a learning organisation is

As discussed in Chapter Two, organisations have diverse understandings of what it is to be a learning organisation and this factor is likely to impact the implementation of Senge’s model.

With the many definitions and understandings of ‘learning’ (Fenwick, 2001) and ‘learning organisation’, companies may not adopt Senge’s model, but may adopt a different model, such as Garvin’s 3M approach (Meaning, Management and Measurement) (Garvin, 1993) or Ortenblad’s (2001) four aspects: learning at work; organisational learning; developing a learning climate; and creating learning structures. The adoption of a different understanding of a learning organisation does not make the company any less of a learning organisation, but it makes it a different type of learning organisation to Senge’s.

Related to diverse understandings of what a learning organisation is, cultural context cannot be ignored.

Many researchers and management theorists argue that a wide range of behavioural and management theories and models may not be universal and that many have been developed in industrialised countries and based largely on cultural assumptions predominating in that specific national cultural context. (Coldwell et al, 2007, p121)

Thus, the effectiveness of Senge’s five disciplines in non-Western countries may be influenced by cultural dimensions and “may not be …successful when implemented in societies with cultural values that differ from those held in the United States” Coldwell et al, 2007, p126). This statement is applicable to South Africa, which is considered to be essentially non-Western, and so the successful implementation of Senge’s model may be limited.

Leadership view of staff

How the leadership of an organisation views their people may also impact the setting up of an environment that is conducive to a learning organisation. For example, people (staff) are often referred to in the policies and documentation of an organisation either as ‘human resources’ or

‘human capital’. Although the difference may be argued as being semantics, there is a connotation associated with the different terms: the term ‘human resources’ can be understood to reflect resources that can be exploited and used for the organisation’s purposes (as resources are), while the term ‘human capital’ is associated more with an asset, something that has value and is valued, is invested in and assists in generating more wealth (Hitt, Bierman, Shimizu &

Kocchar, 2001). The term used may have an impact on how the leaders perceive and treat their staff and the consequent culture of the organisation.

People and power dynamics

Underlying the notion of a learning organisation is the assumption that there is some degree of openness, democracy, and freedom from duress present and valued with organisations that enables organisational learning to flourish. Sadly, in many contemporary organisations, such values are impoverished and simply lead to a different kind of learning, a dysfunctional sort.

(Mavin & Cavaleri, 2004, p285)

This quotation implies that organisations should be democratic to enable the learning organisation to develop. However, in the absence of democracy, the process of organisational learning, which contributes to developing a learning organisation, still occurs, but the learning may not drive performance improvement, which ultimately contributes to sustainability; it “may in fact undermine performance” (Mavin & Cavaleri, 2004, pp285-286). The role of the leader is highlighted here and the type of culture that he/she encourages to develop – if the leader practices democracy, then he/she assists in developing the course to becoming a learning organisation.

It is often difficult for individuals to agree on mental models; this difficulty can be exacerbated in groups, even in a democratic organisation. For example, organisation members may agree to solve a problem, but their different disciplines (departments or skill sets) may present a

challenge on how to solve it: a consultant, accountant and marketer may perceive the same issue as a problem, but may have difficulty reaching consensus on its resolution due to their differing frames of reference, or mental models (Henderson, 1997).

Small organisations may often be perceived as being more ‘family-oriented’ with closer relationships and a sense of community and trust. However, they are not exempt from power dynamics and organisational politics. Irrespective of the size of the organisation, power relations and dynamics occur and impact the working environment. These relations often undermine the trust, community and openness that are needed for a learning organisation, making this state of being a more difficult one to attain (Macri et al, 2002). Such dynamics are evident at an individual level (individuals trying to assert their views over others) and team or departmental level (with a ‘silo mentality’ and different departments being unaware of what is taking place outside of theirs within the same organisation).

Related to power dynamics is the perception on the part of organisation members about who is empowered by or benefits from Senge’s model. In implementing this model, staff may be urged to learn more, better, and faster, with little control of what is to be learned or explanations why.

This may lead to worker subjugation and control (Fenwick, 1997).

Furthermore, Brookfield (2000) comments on the purpose of education and learning to transform society. He states that through critical reflection and informed action, transformation can take place. For Senge, the purpose of critical reflection is to trigger changes in the business environment (Senge, 1990). However, power relations between management and employees in organisations cannot be neglected, and impact on whether the changes, and vehicles that encourage critical reflection, will be implemented. If changes are implemented, managers may attempt to dominate and control these (English, 2005). In addition, critical reflection features quite frequently in Senge’s model and is a skill that not all people practise – it is a skill that needs to be developed in order to be effectively practised. Time is needed to address the development of this skill (as discussed in Chapter Two).

Leaders of small companies may inadvertently contribute to a lack of empowerment of staff.

These leaders often tend to be the founders of their companies and hold the company, its vision and ownership very closely to themselves. They may find it difficult to allow decision-making throughout the organisation and be reluctant to hand over responsibility. A scenario may occur where the company desires to be a learning organisation and begins the journey, but the leader

may change his/ her mind concerning the implementation of certain factors, possibly confusing the staff as they receive mixed messages. The qualities of trust in the organisation and servant-leadership are important to be able to overcome these obstacles (Choueke & Armstrong, 1998).

Power relations based on the position of the role may also influence the development of a learning organisation. An individual who attains new knowledge and insight may be unable to influence a change in behaviour in the organisation because of his/her lowly position while a particular individual, such as the leader/owner-manager may be able “to affect organisational behaviour and learning in a spurious way” (Henderson, 1997), particularly if this leader is domineering and does not display servant-leadership.

Within a South African context, the pursuit of the learning organisation is further impacted by the legacy of Apartheid and the consequent dehumanising of black people. This has left an imprint on the psyche of many South Africans, where interactions between different race groups are sometimes tainted by distrust (Horwitz, Bowmaker-Falconer & Searll, 1996; Seekings, 2008). Developing a learning organisation with this type of legacy can prove difficult in the South African context, as additional effort is required to overcome the legacy.

Learning theories and their application to the learning organisation

As discussed in Chapter Two, the learning organisation encompasses many learning theories and accommodates various perspectives on learning, illustrating that the concept is well-grounded in theory. However, knowledge of these theories may be too much for the leader of a small organisation to understand and implement, making the pursuit of a learning organisation an unattainable one.

Learning theories also tend to ignore power relations and so provide little, if any, insight on how to deal with these in the context of organisations (Fox, 2000; Henderson, 1997). Managing people and power dynamics is thus an important skill for a leader to possess.

Nature of the business

The nature of business itself can impact the implementation of a learning organisation, specifically with reference to time, the focus of the organisation, the stress of the environment and the pursuit of profit. There is often a perception in organisations that there is insufficient time to plan and reflect (Farago & Skyrme, 1995). Organisations tend to be too focused on systems and processes, and have an inadequate focus on people and learning (Farago & Skyrme,

1995) with time being sacrificed for critical reflection, a skill which is key to developing a learning organisation.

The skill of critical reflection lends Senge’s model to being a cognitive model. Cognitivism views learning as an internal process of meaning-making which depends on the knowledge (cognitive) structures of an individual (Fasokun, Katahoire & Oduaran, 2005; Merriam &

Caffarella, 1991). Related to learning and the human brain, learning is impacted by stress (de Jager, 2006). When people experience stress, little cognitive processing takes place as the human system is focused on survival behaviour (staying alive), which is processed in the lower-order survival (reptilian) brain (de Jager, 2006). Change causes stress, and the rate of change in the environment is constantly increasing. It is quite difficult to access the cognitive functions of critical reflection, when individuals are in a state of stress and survival functioning. In such situations reactive behaviour is common place supplanting planned responses and critical reflection. Small companies are not exempt from this stress and it may make the journey of being a learning organisation a difficult one to attain or maintain.

Organisations need to maintain a balance between profit and people. If too much attention is given to people, not enough profit is produced in order to sustain the company. If too much attention is given to profit, people may fall by the wayside. Senge (1990) states that we should not forget that the purpose of business is business – making profits. He provides an example of a company that was focussed on people but still failed (People Express Airlines) (Senge, 1990, p128). It is important for organisations to set up structures, approaches and an environment that assists them to pay attention to both and develop a learning organisation.

“Managers rarely set knowledge as their prime target of activity” and “learning is seen as a consequence of carrying out managerial activity rather than a prerequisite” (Henderson, 1997, p101). As such, learning is not given priority and learning that occurs may be superficial, based on guesswork and anecdotal evidence (Henderson, 1997). This impedes double-loop learning (discussed in Chapter Two) from taking place and increases the risk of the organisation repeating the same behaviours and actions while expecting a different result.

Organisations may be too focused on planning rather than on setting direction (Kotter, 1990).

Planning complements direction setting, but organisations may plan even without charting a direction, with the result that planning becomes a burdensome activity, absorbing much time and energy (Kotter, 1990). “A competent direction-setting process provides a focus in which

planning can then be realistically carried out” (Kotter, 1990, p105), which aids in determining what kind of planning is relevant, especially in a dynamic business environment where the unexpected is often the norm.