ORGANIZATION and MANAGEMENT IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Organization - a social unit of people, systematically structured and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals on a continuing basis. All organizations have a management structure that determines relationships between functions and positions, and subdivides and delegates roles, responsibilities, and authority to carry out defined tasks. Management - is the process of getting activities completed efficiently and effectively with and through other people. Organization Theory - concerned with structure and interrelationships and functions of key components of organization, primarily individuals and groups that compose them.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ORGANIZATION THEORY The first known management ideas were recorded in 3000-4000 B.C. One Pyramid built by Egyptian ruler Cheops required work to be done by 100,000 men for over twenty years in 2900 B.C. It covered 13 acres of land and measured 481 meters in height. The stone slabs had to be moved thousands of kilometres of distance. As folklore goes, even the sound of a hammer was not heard in the villages in the vicinity of the site of these pyramids. Such monumental work could not be completed without adherence to principles of sound management.

Classical Organization Theory One of the first schools of management thought, the classical management theory, developed during the Industrial Revolution when new problems related to the factory system began to appear. Managers were unsure of how to train employees (many of them non-English speaking immigrants) or deal with increased labor dissatisfaction, so they began to test solutions. As a result, the classical management theory developed from efforts to find the one best way to perform and manage tasks. This school of thought is made up of two branches: classical scientific and classical administrative, described in the following sections.

Classical Scientific The classical scientific branch arose because of the need to increase productivity and efficiency. The emphasis was on trying to find the best way to get the most work done by examining how the work process was actually accomplished and by scrutinizing the skills of the workforce. The classical scientific school owes its roots to several major contributors, including Frederick Taylor, Henry Gantt, and Frank and Lillian Gilbreth. Frederick Taylor is often called the father of scientific management. Taylor believed that organizations should study tasks and develop precise procedures. As an example, in 1898, Taylor calculated how much iron from rail cars Bethlehem Steel plant workers could be unloading if they

Organizational Theory

Page 1

were using the correct movements, tools, and steps. The result was an amazing 47.5 tons per day instead of the mere 12.5 tons each worker had been averaging. In addition, by redesigning the shovels the workers used, Taylor was able to increase the length of work time and therefore decrease the number of people shoveling from 500 to 140. Lastly, he developed an incentive system that paid workers more money for meeting the new standard. Productivity at Bethlehem Steel shot up overnight. As a result, many theorists followed Taylor's philosophy when developing their own principles of management.

Henry Gantt, an associate of Taylor's, developed the Gantt chart, a bar graph that measures planned and completed work along each stage of production. Based on time instead of quantity, volume, or weight, this visual display chart has been a widely used planning and control tool since its development in 1910.

Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, a husband-and-wife team, studied job motions. In Frank's early career as an apprentice bricklayer, he was interested in standardization and method study. He watched bricklayers and saw that some workers were slow and inefficient, while others were very productive. He discovered that each bricklayer used a different set of motions to lay bricks. From his observations, Frank isolated the basic movements necessary to do the job and eliminated unnecessary motions. Workers using these movements raised their output from 1,000 to 2,700 bricks per day. This was the first motion study designed to isolate the best possible method of performing a given job. Later, Frank and his wife Lillian studied job motions using a motion-picture camera and a splitsecond clock. When her husband died at the age of 56, Lillian continued their work. Thanks to these contributors and others, the basic ideas regarding scientific management developed. They include the following:

Developing new standard methods for doing each job Selecting, training, and developing workers instead of allowing them to choose their own tasks and train themselves; Developing a spirit of cooperation between workers and management to ensure that work is carried out in accordance with devised procedures; Dividing work between workers and management in almost equal shares, with each group taking over the work for which it is best fitted Classical administrative Thought Whereas scientific management focused on the productivity of individuals, the classical administrative approach concentrates on the total organization. The emphasis is on the development of managerial principles rather than work methods. Contributors to this school of thought include Max Weber, Henri Fayol, Mary Parker Follett, and Chester I. Barnard. These theorist s studied the flow of

Organizational Theory

Page 2

information within an organization and emphasized the importance of understanding how an organization operated. In the late 1800s, Max Weber disliked that many European organizations were managed on a personal family-like basis and that employees were loyal to individual supervisors rather than to the organization. He believed that organizations should be managed impersonally and that a formal organizational structure, where specific rules were followed, was important. In other words, he didn't think that authority should be based on a person's personality. He thought authority should be something that was part of a person's job and passed from individual to individual as one person left and another took over. This nonpersonal, objective form of organization was called a bureaucracy. Weber believed that all bureaucracies have the following characteristics:

A well-defined hierarchy. All positions within a bureaucracy are structured in a way that permits the higher positions to supervise and control the lower positions. This clear chain of command facilitates control and order throughout the organization; Division of labor and specialization. All responsibilities in an organization are specialized so that each employee has the necessary expertise to do a particular task; Rules and regulations. Standard operating procedures govern all organizational activities to provide certainty and facilitate coordination; Impersonal relationships between managers and employees. Managers should maintain an impersonal relationship with employees so that favoritism and personal prejudice do not influence decisions; Competence. Competence, not who you know, should be the basis for all decisions made in hiring, job assignments, and promotions in order to foster ability and merit as the primary characteristics of a bureaucratic organization; Records. A bureaucracy needs to maintain complete files regarding all its activities;

Henri Fayol, a French mining engineer, developed 14 principles of management based on his management experiences. These principles provide modern-day managers with general guidelines on how a supervisor should organize her department and manage her staff. Although later research has created controversy over many of the following principles, they are still widely used in management theories. Division of work: Division of work and specialization produces more and better work with the same effort; Authority and responsibility: Authority is the right to give orders and the power to exact obedience. A manager has official authority because of her position, as well as personal authority based on individual personality, intelligence, and experience. Authority creates responsibility; Discipline: Obedience and respect within an organization are absolutely essential. Good discipline requires managers to apply sanctions whenever violations become apparent; Unity of command: An employee should receive orders from only one superior; Unity of direction: Organizational activities must have one central authority and one plan of action; Subordination of individual interest to general interest: The interests of one employee or group of employees are subordinate to the interests and goals of the organization; Remuneration of personnel: Salaries the price of services rendered by employees should be fair and provide satisfaction both to the employee and employer;

Organizational Theory

Page 3

Centralization: The objective of centralization is the best utilization of personnel. The degree of centralization varies according to the dynamics of each organization; Scalar chain: A chain of authority exists from the highest organizational authority to the lowest ranks; Order: Organizational order for materials and personnel is essential. The right materials and the right employees are necessary for each organizational function and activity; Equity: In organizations, equity is a combination of kindliness and justice. Both equity and equality of treatment should be considered when dealing with employees; Stability of tenure of personnel: To attain the maximum productivity of personnel, a stable work force is needed; Initiative: Thinking out a plan and ensuring its success is an extremely strong motivator. Zeal, energy, and initiative are desired at all levels of the organizational ladder; Esprit de corps: Teamwork is fundamentally important to an organization. Work teams and extensive face-to-face verbal communication encourages teamwork

Mary Parker Follett stressed the importance of an organization establishing common goals for its employees. However, she also began to think somewhat differently than the other theorists of her day, discarding command-style hierarchical organizations where employees were treated like robots. She began to talk about such things as ethics, power, and leadership. She encouraged managers to allow employees to participate in decision making. She stressed the importance of people rather than techniques a concept very much before her time. As a result, she was a pioneer and often not taken seriously by management scholars of her time. But times change, and innovative ideas from the past suddenly take on new meanings. Much of what managers do today is based on the fundamentals that Follett established more than 80 years ago. Chester Barnard, who was president of New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, introduced the idea of the informal organization cliques (exclusive groups of people) that naturally form within a company. He felt that these informal organizations provided necessary and vital communication functions for the overall organization and that they could help the organization accomplish its goals. Barnard felt that it was particularly important for managers to develop a sense of common purpose where a willingness to cooperate is strongly encouraged. He is credited with developing the acceptance theory of management, which emphasizes the willingness of employees to accept that managers have legitimate authority to act. Barnard felt that four factors affected the willingness of employees to accept authority:

The employees must understand the communication; The employees accept the communication as being consistent with the organization's purposes; The employees feel that their actions will be consistent with the needs and desires of the other employees; The employees feel that they are mentally and physically able to carry out the order.

Barnard's sympathy for and understanding of employee needs positioned him as a bridge to the behavioral school of management, the next school of thought to emerge.

Organizational Theory

Page 4

Behavioral Management Theory As management research continued in the 20th century, questions began to come up regarding the interactions and motivations of the individual within organizations. Management principles developed during the classical period were simply not useful in dealing with many management situations and could not explain the behavior of individual employees. In short, classical theory ignored employee motivation and behavior. As a result, the behavioral school was a natural outgrowth of this revolutionary management experiment.

The behavioral management theory is often called the human relations movement because it addresses the human dimension of work. Behavioral theorists believed that a better understanding of human behavior at work, such as motivation, conflict, expectations, and group dynamics, improved productivity. The theorists who contributed to this school viewed employees as individuals, resources, and assets to be developed and worked with not as machines, as in the past. Several individuals and experiments contributed to this theory. Elton Mayo's contributions came as part of the Hawthorne studies, a series of experiments that rigorously applied classical management theory only to reveal its shortcomings. The Hawthorne experiments consisted of two studies conducted at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company in Chicago from 1924 to 1932. The first study was conducted by a group of engineers seeking to determine the relationship of lighting levels to worker productivity. Surprisingly enough, they discovered that worker productivity increased as the lighting levels decreased that is, until the employees were unable to see what they were doing, after which performance naturally declined. A few years later, a second group of experiments began. Harvard researchers Mayo and F. J. Roethlisberger supervised a group of five women in a bank wiring room. They gave the women special privileges, such as the right to leave their workstations without permission, take rest periods, enjoy free lunches, and have variations in pay levels and workdays. This experiment also resulted in significantly increased rates of productivity. In this case, Mayo and Roethlisberger concluded that the increase in productivity resulted from the supervisory arrangement rather than the changes in lighting or other associated worker benefits. Because the experimenters became the primary supervisors of the employees, the intense interest they displayed for the workers was the basis for the increased motivation and resulting productivity. Essentially, the experimenters became a part of the study and influenced its outcome. This is the origin of the term Hawthorne effect, which describes the special attention researchers give to a study's subjects and the impact that attention has on the study's findings. The general conclusion from the Hawthorne studies was that human relations and the social needs of workers are crucial aspects of business management. This principle of human motivation helped revolutionize theories and practices of management. Abraham Maslow, a practicing psychologist, developed one of the most widely recognized need theories, a theory of motivation based upon a consideration of human needs. His theory of human needs had three assumptions:

Human needs are never completely satisfied;

Organizational Theory

Page 5

Human behavior is purposeful and is motivated by the need for satisfaction; Needs can be classified according to a hierarchical structure of importance, from the lowest to highest.

Maslow broke down the needs hierarchy into five specific areas:

Physiological needs. Maslow grouped all physical needs necessary for maintaining basic human wellbeing, such as food and drink, into this category. After the need is satisfied, however, it is no longer is a motivator. Safety needs. These needs include the need for basic security, stability, protection, and freedom from fear. A normal state exists for an individual to have all these needs generally satisfied. Otherwise, they become primary motivators. Belonging and love needs. After the physical and safety needs are satisfied and are no longer motivators, the need for belonging and love emerges as a primary motivator. The individual strives to establish meaningful relationships with significant others. Esteem needs. An individual must develop self-confidence and wants to achieve status, reputation, fame, and glory. Self-actualization needs. Assuming that all the previous needs in the hierarchy are satisfied, an individual feels a need to find himself.

*Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory helped managers visualize employee motivation. Douglas McGregor was heavily influenced by both the Hawthorne studies and Maslow. He believed that two basic kinds of managers exist. One type, the Theory X manager, has a negative view of employees and assumes that they are lazy, untrustworthy, and incapable of assuming responsibility. On the other hand, the Theory Y manager assumes that employees are not only trustworthy and capable of assuming responsibility, but also have high levels of motivation. An important aspect of McGregor's idea was his belief that managers who hold either set of assumptions can create self-fulfilling prophecies that through their behavior, these managers create situations where subordinates act in ways that confirm the manager's original expectations. As a group, these theorists discovered that people worked for inner satisfaction and not materialistic rewards, shifting the focus to the role of individuals in an organization's performance.

Organizational Theory

Page 6

Systems Approach Management Theory The systems management theory has had a significant effect on management science. A system is an interrelated set of elements functioning as a whole. An organization as a system is composed of four elements:

Inputs material or human resources Transformation processes technological and managerial processes Outputs products or services Feedback reactions from the environment

In relationship to an organization, inputs include resources such as raw materials, money, technologies, and people. These inputs go through a transformation process where they're planned, organized, motivated, and controlled to ultimately meet the organization's goals. The outputs are the products or services designed to enhance the quality of life or productivity for customers/clients. Feedback includes comments from customers or clients using the products. This overall systems framework applies to any department or program in the overall organization. Systems theory may seem quite basic. Yet decades of management training and practices in the workplace have not followed this theory. Only recently, with tremendous changes facing organizations and how they operate, have educators and managers come to face this new way of looking at things. This interpretation has brought about a significant change in the way management studies and approaches organizations. The systems theory encourages managers to look at the organization from a broader perspective. Managers are beginning to recognize the various parts of the organization, and, in particular, the interrelations of the parts. Contemporary system theorists find it helpful to analyze the effectiveness of organizations according to the degree that they are open or closed. The following terminology is important to your understanding of the systems approach:

An organization that interacts little with its external environment (outside environment) and therefore receives little feedback from it is called a closed system. An open system, in contrast, interacts continually with its environment. Therefore, it is well informed about changes within its surroundings and its position relative to these changes. A subsystem is any system that is part of a larger one. Entropy is the tendency of systems to deteriorate or break down over time. Synergy is the ability of the whole system to equal more than the sum of its parts.

Organizational Theory

Page 7

Contingency Theory The contingency school of management can be summarized as an it all depends approach. The appropriate management actions and approaches depend on the situation. Managers with a contingency view use a flexible approach, draw on a variety of theories and experiences, and evaluate many options as they solve problems.

Contingency management recognizes that there is no one best way to manage. In the contingency perspective, managers are faced with the task of determining which managerial approach is likely to be most effective in a given situation. For example, the approach used to manage a group of teenagers working in a fast-food restaurant would be very different from the approach used to manage a medical research team trying to find a cure for a disease. Contingency thinking avoids the classical one best way arguments and recognizes the need to understand situational differences and respond appropriately to them. It does not apply certain management principles to any situation. Contingency theory is a recognition of the extreme importance of individual manager performance in any given situation. The contingency approach is highly dependent on the experience and judgment of the manager in a given organizational environment.

Contingency Theory is a class of behavioral theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. An organizational / leadership / decision making style that is effective in some situations, may be not successful in other situations. In other words: The optimal organization / leadership / decision-making style depend upon various internal and external constraints (factors). Contingency Theory factors

Some examples of such constraints (factors) include:

The size of the organization. How the firm adapts itself to its environment. Differences among resources and operations activities. Assumptions of managers about employees. Strategies. Technologies being used. etc.

Contingency Theory on the organization 1. There is no universal way or one best way to manage an organization. 2. The design of an organization and its subsystems must 'fit' with the environment. 3. Effective organizations not only have a proper 'fit' with the environment, but also between its subsystems. 4. The needs of an organization are better satisfied when it is properly designed and the management style is appropriate both to the tasks undertaken and the nature of the work group.

Organizational Theory

Page 8

Learning Organization Approach Theory

Peter M. Senge (1947- ) was named a Strategist of the Century by the Journal of Business Strategy, one of 24 men and women who have had the greatest impact on the way we conduct business today (September/October 1999). While he has studied how firms and organizations develop adaptive capabilities for many years at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), it was Peter Senges 1990 book The Fifth Discipline that brought him firmly into the limelight and popularized the concept of the learning organization'. Since its publication, more than a million copies have been sold and in 1997, Harvard Business Review identified it as one of the seminal management books of the past 75 years. According to Peter Senge (1990: 3) learning organizations are: organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together. The basic rationale for such organizations is that in situations of rapid change only those that are flexible, adaptive and productive will excel. For this to happen, it is argued, organizations need to discover how to tap peoples commitment and capacity to learn at all levels. While all people have the capacity to learn, the structures in which they have to function are often not conducive to reflection and engagement. Furthermore, people may lack the tools and guiding ideas to make sense of the situations they face. Organizations that are continually expanding their capacity to create their future require a fundamental shift of mind among their members. 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 become quite clear those, 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. (Senge 1990: 13) For Peter Senge, real learning gets to the heart of what it is to be human. We become able to re-create ourselves. This applies to both individuals and organizations. Thus, for a learning organization it is not enough 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 (Senge 1990:14).

Organizational Theory

Page 9

The dimension that distinguishes learning from more traditional organizations is the mastery of certain basic disciplines or component technologies. The five that Peter Senge identifies are said to be converging to innovate learning organizations. They are: Systems thinking, Personal mastery, Mental models, Building shared vision,Team learning. He adds to this recognition that people are agents, able to act upon the structures and systems of which they are a part. All the disciplines are, in this way, concerned with a shift of mind from seeing parts to seeing wholes, from seeing people as helpless reactors to seeing them as active participants in shaping their reality, from reacting to the present to creating the future (Senge 1990: 69). It is to the disciplines that we will now turn. Systems thinking the cornerstone of the learning organization A great virtue of Peter Senges work is the way in which he puts systems theory to work. The Fifth Discipline provides a good introduction to the basics and uses of such theory and the way in which it can be brought together with other theoretical devices in order to make sense of organizational questions and issues. Systemic thinking is the conceptual cornerstone (The Fifth Discipline) of his approach. It is the discipline that integrates the others, fusing them into a coherent body of theory and practice (ibid.: 12). Systems theorys ability to comprehend and address the whole, and to examine the interrelationship between the parts provides, for Peter Senge, both the incentive and the means to integrate the disciplines. Here is not the place to go into a detailed exploration of Senges presentation of systems theory (I have included some links to primers below). However, it is necessary to highlight one or two elements of his argument. First, while the basic tools of systems theory are fairly straightforward they can build into sophisticated models. Peter Senge argues that one of the key problems with much that is written about, and done in the name of management, is that rather simplistic frameworks are applied to what are complex systems. We tend to focus on the parts rather than seeing the whole, and to fail to see organization as a dynamic process. Thus, the argument runs, a better appreciation of systems will lead to more appropriate action. We learn best from our experience, but we never directly experience the consequences of many of our most important decisions, Peter Senge (1990: 23) argues with regard to organizations. We tend to think that cause and effect will be relatively near to one another. Thus when faced with a problem, it is the solutions that are close by that we focus upon. Classically we look to actions that produce improvements in a relatively short time span. However, when viewed in systems terms short-term improvements often involve very significant long-term costs. For example, cutting back on research and design can bring very quick cost savings, but can severely damage the long-term viability of anorganization. Part of the problem is the nature of the feedback we receive. Some of the feedback will be reinforcing (or amplifying) with small changes building on themselves. Whatever movement occurs is amplified, producing more movement in the same direction. A small action snowballs, with more and more and still more of the same, resembling compound interest (Senge 1990: 81). Thus, we may cut our advertising budgets, see the benefits in terms of cost savings, and in turn further trim spending in this area. In the short run there may be little impact on peoples demands for our goods and services, but longer term the decline in visibility may have severe penalties. An appreciation of systems will lead to recognition of the use of, and problems with, such reinforcing feedback, and also an understanding of the place of balancing (or stabilizing) feedback. (See, also Kurt Lewin on feedback). A further key aspect of systems is the extent to which they inevitably involve delays interruptions in the flow of influence which make the consequences of an action occur gradually (ibid.: 90). Peter Senge (1990: 92) concludes:

Organizational Theory

Page 10

The systems viewpoint is generally oriented toward the long-term view. Thats why delays and feedback loops are so important. In the short term, you can often ignore them; theyre inconsequential. They only come back to haunt you in the long term. Peter Senge advocates the use of systems maps diagrams that show the key elements of systems and how they connect. However, people often have a problem seeing systems, and it takes work to acquire the basic building blocks of systems theory, and to apply them to your organization. On the other hand, failure to understand system dynamics can lead us into cycles of blaming and self-defense: the enemy is always out there, and problems are always caused by someone else Bolam and Deal 1997: 27; see, also, Senge 1990: 231). The core disciplines - Alongside systems thinking, there stand four other component technologies or disciplines. A discipline is viewed by Peter Senge as a series of principles and practices that we study, master and integrate into our lives. The five disciplines can be approached at one of three levels: Practices: what you do. Principles: guiding ideas and insights. Essences: the state of being those with high levels of mastery in the discipline (Senge 1990: 373). Each discipline provides a vital dimension. Each is necessary to the others if organizations are to learn. Personal mastery Organizations learn only through individuals who learn. Individual learning does not guarantee organizational learning. But without it no organizational learning occurs (Senge 1990: 139). Personal mastery is the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively (ibid.: 7). It goes beyond competence and skills, although it involves them. It goes beyond spiritual opening, although it involves spiritual growth (ibid.: 141). Mastery is seen as a special kind of proficiency. It is not about dominance, but rather about calling. Vision is vocation rather than simply just a good idea. People with a high level of personal mastery live in a continual learning mode. They never arrive. Sometimes, language, such as the term personal mastery creates a misleading sense of definiteness, of black and white. But personal mastery is not something you possess. It is a process. It is a lifelong discipline. People with a high level of personal mastery are acutely aware of their ignorance, their incompetence, their growth areas. And they are deeply self-confident. Paradoxical? Only for those who do not see the journey is the reward. (Senge 1990: 142) In writing such as this we can see the appeal of Peter Senges vision. It has deep echoes in the concerns of writers such as M. Scott Peck (1990) and Erich Fromm (1979). The discipline entails developing personal vision; holding creative tension (managing the gap between our vision and reality); recognizing structural tensions and constraints, and our own power (or lack of it) with regard to them; a commitment to truth; and using the sub-conscious (ibid.: 147-167). Mental models These are deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures and images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action (Senge 1990: 8). As such they resemble what Donald A Schn talked about as a professionals repertoire. We are often not that aware of the impact of such assumptions etc. on our behaviour and, thus, a fundamental part of our task (as Schn would put it) is to develop the ability to reflect-in- and on-action. Peter Senge is also influenced here by Schns collaborator on a number of projects, Chris Argyris.

Organizational Theory

Page 11

The discipline of mental models starts with turning the mirror inward; learning to unearth our internal pictures of the world, to bring them to the surface and hold them rigorously to scrutiny. It also includes the ability to carry on learningful conversations that balance inquiry and advocacy, where people expose their own thinking effectively and make that thinking open to the influence of others. (Senge 1990: 9) If organizations are to develop a capacity to work with mental models then it will be necessary for people to learn new skills and develop new orientations, and for their to be institutional changes that foster such change. Entrenched mental models thwart changes that could come from systems thinking (ibid.: 203). Moving the organization in the right direction entails working to transcend the sorts of internal politics and game playing that dominate traditional organizations. In other words it means fostering openness (Senge 1990: 273-286). It also involves seeking to distribute business responsibly far more widely while retaining coordination and control. Learning organizations are localized organizations (ibid.: 287-301). Building shared vision Peter Senge starts from the position that if any one idea about leadership has inspired organizations for thousands of years, its the capacity to hold a share picture of the future we seek to create (1990: 9). Such a vision has the power to be uplifting and to encourage experimentation and innovation. Crucially, it is argued, it can also foster a sense of the long-term, something that is fundamental to the fifth discipline. When there is a genuine vision (as opposed to the all-to-familiar vision statement), people excel and learn, not because they are told to, but because they want to. But many leaders have personal visions that never get translated into shared visions that galvanize an organization What has been lacking is a discipline for translating vision into shared vision - not a cookbook but a set of principles and guiding practices. The practice of shared vision involves the skills of unearthing shared pictures of the future that foster genuine commitment and enrolment rather than compliance. In mastering this discipline, leaders learn the counter-productiveness of trying to dictate a vision, no matter how heartfelt. (Senge 1990: 9) Visions spread because of a reinforcing process. Increased clarity, enthusiasm and commitment rub off on others in the organization. As people talk, the vision grows clearer. As it gets clearer, enthusiasm for its benefits grow (ibid.: 227). There are limits to growth in this respect, but developing the sorts of mental models outlined above can significantly improve matters. Where organizations can transcend linear and grasp system thinking, there is the possibility of bringing vision to fruition. Team learning Such learning is viewed as the process of aligning and developing the capacities of a team to create the results its members truly desire (Senge 1990: 236). It builds on personal mastery and shared vision but these are not enough. People need to be able to act together. When teams learn together, Peter Senge suggests, not only can there be good results for the organization, members will grow more rapidly than could have occurred otherwise. The discipline of team learning starts with dialogue, the capacity of members of a team to suspend assumptions and enter into a genuine thinking together. To the Greeks dia-logos meant a

Organizational Theory

Page 12

free-flowing if meaning through a group, allowing the group to discover insights not attainable individually. *It+ also involves learning how to recognize the patterns of interaction in teams that undermine learning. (Senge 1990: 10) The notion of dialogue that flows through The Fifth Discipline is very heavily dependent on the work of the physicist, David Bohm (where a group becomes open to the flow of a larger intelligence, and thought is approached largely as collective phenomenon). When dialogue is joined with systems thinking, Senge argues, there is the possibility of creating a language more suited for dealing with complexity, and of focusing on deep-seated structural issues and forces rather than being diverted by questions of personality and leadership style. Indeed, such is the emphasis on dialogue in his work that it could almost be put alongside systems thinking as a central feature of his approach. Leading the learning organization Peter Senge argues that learning organizations require a new view of leadership. He sees the traditional view of leaders (as special people who set the direction, make key decisions and energize the troops as deriving from a deeply individualistic and non-systemic worldview (1990: 340). At its centre the traditional view of leadership, is based on assumptions of peoples powerlessness, their lack of personal vision and inability to master the forces of change, deficits which can be remedied only by a few great leaders (op. cit.). Against this traditional view he sets a new view of leadership that centres on subtler and more important tasks. In a learning organization, leaders are designers, stewards and teachers. They are responsible for building organizations were people continually expand their capabilities to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared mental models that is they are responsible for learning. Learning organizations will remain a good idea until people take a stand for building such organizations. Taking this stand is the first leadership act, the start of inspiring (literally to breathe life into) the vision of the learning organization. (Senge 1990: 340) Many of the qualities that Peter Senge discusses with regard to leading the learning organization can be found in the shared leadership model (discussed elsewhere on these pages). For example, what Senge approaches as inspiration, can be approached as animation. Here we will look at the three aspects of leadership that he identifies and link his discussion with some other writers on leadership.

Organizational Theory

Page 13