DSpace at VNU: Creating learning organizations: A systems perspective

DSpace at VNU: Creating learning organizations: A systems perspective tài liệu, giáo án, bài giảng , luận văn, luận án,...

The Learning Organization

Creating learning organizations: a systems perspective

Hong Bui Yehuda Baruch

Article information:

To cite this document:

Hong Bui Yehuda Baruch, (2010),"Creating learning organizations: a systems perspective", The LearningOrganization, Vol 17 Iss 3 pp 208 - 227

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696471011034919

Downloaded on: 27 July 2016, At: 11:36 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 141 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5514 times since 2010*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2013),"Influences on leadership behaviour: a binomial logit model", International Journal of Social

Economics, Vol 40 Iss 2 pp 102-115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03068291311283580

(2010),"Creating learning organizations in higher education: applying a systems perspective", The LearningOrganization, Vol 17 Iss 3 pp 228-242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696471011034928

(2001),"On differences between organizational learning and learning organization", The Learning

Organization, Vol 8 Iss 3 pp 125-133 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470110391211

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:333301 []

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society The company

manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant The organization is a partner of the Committee

on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation

*Related content and download information correct at time of download

Creating learning organizations:

a systems perspective

Hong Bui Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Hanoi, Vietnam, and

Yehuda Baruch Norwich Business School, UEA, Norwich, UK

Practical implications – The paper proposes a causal model that links variables in the learning organization that would be instrumental for organizations to achieve competitive advantage For academia, it offers a further avenue for research, introducing a number of opportunities to test this model.

Originality/value – The paper provides significant added value both for academics and executives interested in the analysis of the complexity of Senge’s five disciplines.

Keywords Learning organizations, Systems theory Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionThe concept of learning organization (LO) has attracted significant attention from bothscholars and practitioners Senge’s (1990) seminal work, Pedler et al (1991), Garratt(1991), Watkins and Marsick (1993), and Marquardt (1996) have each provided distinctcontributions to the study of LO Senge’s (1990) and Pedler et al (1991) present LOthrough a reflection of the actual understanding and/or achievement by practitionerswithin organizations In contrast, Marquardt’s (1996) approach is more applied, takingthe form of how-to guide than a new contribution to the theory, which is in line withWatkins and Marsick (1993), who are concerned with the specifics of actions andbehaviours than with concepts The concept of LO focuses on learning as a tool, a lever,and a philosophy for sustainable change and renovation in organizations in afast-changing world

A significant number of scholars within the LO area consider Senge’s model to be

the most suitable framework for organizational development, incorporating it into their

work (An and Reigeluth, 2005; Boyle, 2002; Garcia-Morales et al., 2006; Jamali et al.,

2006; Kiedrowski, 2006; Reed, 2001; Rifkin and Fulop, 1997; Wheeler, 2002) His “fifth

discipline” philosophy is inspirational, yet difficult to translate into a model that would

enable systematic evaluation of the process of creating LO The lack of conceptual

frameworks which build on a set of identified antecedents and outcomes does not make

it easy to test the concept via quantitative methodology

Following a thorough literature review we constructed a model that translates

Senge’s LO theory to such an explicit, testable model, comprising a set of hypotheses

We followed a long tradition of inputs-process-outputs of an open system (Miernyk,

1965; Nadler and Tushman, 1980) We elaborate on each of Senge’s single disciplines:

personal mastery, mental model, team learning, shared vision and systems thinking,

and explicate the relation between a variety of factors First, for each of the disciplines

we offer a set of antecedents We then examine a variety of possible outcomes for each

of the disciplines, and examine what factors may moderate these relationships Overall,

we posit a systematic LO model of a complete five disciplines with antecedents,

moderators, and outcomes This way our paper offers work that is innovative and

distinct from other studies

The work is primarily intended to develop Senge’s LO model into a more applicable

model that would fit for quantitative analysis, and would enable testing across

different sectors, though certain adjustment may be needed when covering different

type of organizations (see an application for the higher education sector – Authors,

this/next issue) Senge’s model lends itself to qualitative research (Flood, 1999; Hong

et al., 2006; Mazutis and Slawinski, 2008) whereas its quantitative applications are far

less frequent Yet, knowledge development and progress in understanding

phenomenon may be gained from both qualitative and quantitative methods Both

streams of research methodology have strong merit It would be important to open the

study of Senge’s major contribution to management studies to both methodologies,

adding value to future knowledge development We believe that scholars inspired by

Senge’s LO idea will be able to utilize our model for further academic studies, whereas

practitioners interested in creating LO will be able to employ it in their organizations

The aim of this paper is to offer a conceptual framework that includes a wide set of

antecedents and outcomes of Senge’s five disciplines, as well as possible moderators

for these associations We explore these issues via a multi-level analysis (following

Klein and Kozlowski, 2000), starting at the individual level (personal mastery) through

the collective level (team learning, mental models), and up to the organizational level

(shared vision, systems thinking)

Theoretical development of the model

In this section we follow the five disciplines as depicted in Senge’s framework of the

LO We employ a systems model approach to explore Senge’s model For each

discipline we offer a set of possible antecedents and anticipated outcomes, and certain

factors that may serve as moderators We present the various constructs

independently, pointing out the connection between them to represent the umbrella

concept of individual disciplines The interaction of these aspects includes the

relationship between those suggested as antecedents and outcomes, as well as the way

Creating learning organizations

209

they interact with each other The model as presented lends itself to fairlystraightforward method of quantitative approach by using specific constructs, forwhich measures can be developed and tested for reliability and validity.

Personal masteryPersonal mastery refers to the personal commitment of continuously clarifying anddeepening a personal vision, of focusing energies, of developing patience, and theability to see reality as objectively as possible (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997) “Itgoes beyond competence and skills, though it is grounded in competence and skills Itgoes beyond spiritual unfolding or opening, although it requires spiritual growth Itmeans approaching one’s life as a creative work, living a life from a creative as opposed

to reactive viewpoint” (Senge, 1990, p 141) Senge regards it as “the learningorganization’s spiritual foundation” (Senge, 1990, p 7) Studying the literature related

to personal mastery, we identified five antecedents, three outcomes, and one possiblemoderator to explicate the model applicable for this discipline

The first antecedent to personal mastery is personal values Personal values are therelatively permanent perceptual frameworks which shape and influence the generalnature of an individual’s behaviour (England, 1976) Personal values direct personalcommitment to development Personal values have been explored over time and found

to be quite stable (Feather, 1975; Kahle, 1983; Rokeach, 1973; Schwarz, 1992).Employees bring their values into the work setting (Robertson, 1991)

The second antecedent is motivation Motivation has been extensively studied toidentify the meaning behind human actions and learn why humans are inspired to takecertain actions (Deci, 1975; Kanfer and Ackerman, 2000; Maslow, 1970; Rueda andMoll, 1994; Siebold, 1994) An individual with high personal mastery would beself-motivated (Ng, 2004) In addition, with sufficient motivation from organizationsthrough policies and culture, employees may be willing to commit themselves topersonal and professional development, which would result in better individualperformance and higher individual satisfaction (Mumford, 1991)

The third antecedent to personal mastery discipline is individual learning Alearning organization cannot exist without individual learning (Senge, 1990; Watkinsand Marsick, 1993) Individuals are the primary learning entities enabling organizationtransformation (Dodgson, 1993, p 377) Blackman and Henderson argue that personalmastery implies an “individual taking ownership” of individual learning (Blackmanand Henderson, 2005, p 50) Lifelong learning, an important form of individuallearning, is a part of commitment to personal mastery (Appelbaum and Goransson,1997; Barker et al., 1998; Davies, 1998; Senge, 2006)

The fourth antecedent is personal vision Personal mastery cannot be built withoutpersonal goals and vision (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997; Covey, 1989; Nightingale,1990; Senge, 2006) Personal vision is the “groundwork” for continually expandingpersonal mastery (Senge, 2006) For those with a high level of personal mastery, avision is a calling, not just a good idea, and behind their goals is a sense of purpose(Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997) The difficulty, according to Senge (1990), is thatpeople are often confused between goals and vision Vision is developed on the basis ofgoals (Senge et al., 1994) Personal vision relies not only on individuals, but also on thesupport of their employing organizations

The last antecedent to personal mastery is development and training Development

and training are believed important for employees’ personal mastery (Senge et al.,

1994) This process plays a significant role in making employees aware of Senge’s

concepts, including personal mastery (Kiedrowski, 2006) Research also shows the

effect of development and training on personal mastery (Blackman and Henderson,

2005) Professional development will benefit from development and training when

these are carried out effectively (Blackmore and Castley, 2005)

The positive outcomes of personal mastery can easily be recognised in

management Self-confidence and self-efficacy are crucial factors in progressing

individuals’ performance and subsequent career (Baruch et al., 2005) Employees with

high level of personal mastery often have better performance (Bloisi et al., 2007)

Further, personal mastery can create a balanced work and home life (Baruch, 2004;

Doherty and Manfredi, 2006; Johnson, 2006)

The relationships suggested above, of impact from a set of antecedents to outcomes

are not anticipated to be simplistic Certain factors may moderate such associations

The literature reveals that HR policies may work as a moderator for the impact of

personal mastery ( Jones and Fear, 1994) Organizations’ policies, in particular HRM

policies, play an important role in promoting personal and professional development

Organizations, however, normally pay more attention to professional development

than to personal development as professional schemes are likely to contribute directly

to the performance of organizations (Huselid, 1995) In the long term, organizations

would get benefits from personal mastery if they invested in personal development

The sector of operation may serve as a moderator Relationships between

work-related constructs may be moderated by the specific sector wherein the analysis

takes place (Cohen and Gattiker, 1994) For example, the added value of the human

resource management varies across different sectors (Laursen, 2002; Pare´ and

Tremblay, 2007) The higher the relevance of human capital the higher the impact of

personal mastery is anticipated (compared for example, with the relevant importance

of finance or other types of capital)

Mental models

Mental models are cognitive representations of external systems that specify the

cause-effect relationships governing the system (Gentner and Stevens, 1983b) Mental

models refer to “the ideas and beliefs we use to guide our actions We use them to

explain cause and effect, and to give meaning to our experience” (O’Connor and

McDermott, 1997, p 114) They refer to deeply held assumptions or metaphors through

which we interpret and understand the world, and take actions (Appelbaum and

Goransson, 1997; Senge, 1990) Mental models have the power to influence human

behaviours and mindsets Thus, mental models are important in the process of

organizational learning They form the underlying basis of tasks which involve

non-current skills and problem solving (Barker et al., 1998)

Mental models are influenced by a set of antecedents, such as organizational

commitment, leadership, and organizational culture Mental models are believed to

lead to outcomes such as knowledge sharing and better performance (Gentner and

Stevens, 1983a), with two moderators, including communication systems and learning

environment The following part covers these points

Creating learning organizations

211

First, organizational commitment is a crucial antecedent to mental models.Commitment is at the heart of a LO (Kofman and Senge, 1993) By sharing bestpractices, mental models strengthen people’s commitment to learning (Gephart et al.,

1996, p 39) Sharing mental models, both positive and negative ones, forms thefoundation of on-site learning, and contributes to saving time and money Organizations

as LOs encourage people to take risks, as they can be the precursors to innovation andcreation People might fail, but failing generates strong learning experiences, issometimes worth the loss Further, committed and loyal employees make up the core of asuccessful organization (Goulet and Singh, 2002; Larsen, 2003; Meyer and Allen, 1991;Meyer et al., 2002; Porter et al., 1974) When committed and knowledgeable staff arewilling to acquire new skills and implement institutional innovation, an organization’scapacity to work with mental models will improve (Senge, 1990)

Leadership is the second antecedent to mental models that we propose Leadership isthe process “in which an individual influences other group members towards theattainment of group or organizational goals” (Shackleton, 1995, p 2) When theorganization obtains employee commitment, leaders should play roles as “designers,stewards and teachers” (Fullan, 1993; Senge, 1990) selecting mental models andspreading them throughout the organization Leaders are responsible for learning andcreating a learning environment for the employees to continually expand theircapabilities to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared mental models(Fullan, 1993; Horner, 1997; Marquardt, 1996; Marsick and Watkins, 2003; Mintzberg,1998) Taking the role of designers, stewards and teachers, leadership gives a newmeaning to LOs Leaders are “walking ahead, regardless of their management position orhierarchical authority” (Kofman and Senge, 1993, p 12) Leadership is about identifyingmental models that challenge all organizational members with the question: “Whatvalues do you really want to stand for?” (Senge et al., 2000, p 67) In other words,transactional leadership is associated with Los (Bass, 2000; Senge et al., 1999)

Organizational culture is another proposed antecedent to mental models.Organizational culture describes the fundamental assumptions people share about

an organization’s values, beliefs, norms, symbols, language, rituals and myths thatgive meaning to organizational membership and are expected as guides to behaviour(Bloisi et al., 2007, p 751) The culture of an organizational environment can be highlyinfluenced by the societal culture in which it is embedded (Dimmock and Walker, 2000;Hofstede, 2001) Thus, organizational culture is influenced by the societal culture,where a framework of values has been established Different cultures tend to generatedifferent mental models (Alavi and McCormick, 2004) Specifically, Alavi andMcCormick (2004, p 413) add: “A high level of power distance may be problematic forimproving reflection skills as a key component of team learning and modifying mentalmodels” According to Alavi and McCormick (2004), organizations with low powerdistance culture are more likely to succeed in mastering mental models than in cultureswith high power distance, because “a culture of trust and openness encourages theinquiry and dialogue is needed to challenge assumptions” (Gephart et al., 1996, p 39).When mental models are developed and learnt throughout the organization, one ofthe outcomes is a higher level of knowledge sharing and knowledge creation (Argyris,1999; Senge, 2006; Watkins and Marsick, 1993) Such is the case, for example, whenorganizational members acquire strong team-work skills and behaviours, like mutualhelp, and knowledge sharing improves (Siemsen et al., 2007) Developing appropriate

mental models would generate more knowledge and can consequently lead to

improving job performance (Pedler et al., 1991), the second outcome of mental models

The acquisition and utilization of knowledge, particularly in an age of fast-changing

business environments, is of high relevance, as indicated by recent scholarly work

(Davenport et al., 1998)

We will now discuss two possible moderators: communication and learning

environment Communication influences fundamental beliefs, values, and attitudes

necessary for employee empowerment and commitment to quality and service (Kapp

and Barnett, 1983; Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Quirke, 1992; Snyder and Morris, 1984)

Jamali et al.’s (2006) show that mental models can be supported by effective

communication There is, however, little theoretical innovation in organization theory

grounded in communication, though communication has been emphasized as a

significant constituent of organizational life (Dixon, 1998) Poor communication at the

workplace costs national economies major financial loss and contributes to a

significant number of employee injuries and deaths (Shannon et al., 1997) In any

organization, particularly learning organizations, effective communication systems are

indispensable, instrumental in uncovering perceptual gaps and incongruence in mental

models and play a key role in facilitating collaborative learning and transforming

mental models within a group (Holton, 2001 cited in Jamali et al., 2006 p, 344) In

contrast, ineffective communication systems jeopardize mental models and prevent

sharing vision throughout the organizations

Ridder (2004) posits that internal communication can generate a sense of

commitment within the organization and establish trust in management, and this can

be applied to various modes of communication Computer-mediated communication

changes communication practices in organizations (Cecez-Kecmanovic et al., 2000;

Durham, 2000; Galvin, 2002; Scott and Timmerman, 2005) With the aid of technology,

organizations can create effective and efficient communication systems, producing a

new mental model of e-communication, via which they can share their mental models,

i.e share their ideas, experience, and their vision

The reason we argue that communication is a moderator rather than an antecedent

in this case is because the association between the mental models and performance will

work only if there is clear and strong communication Conversely, under poor

communication conditions, we believe that the association will not be significant

Learning environment is the second moderator to this discipline The learning

environment supports the development of mental models (Pedler et al., 1991) and

improves performance as well as knowledge sharing (Barker et al., 1998) Supportive

learning environments are necessary for LOs (Marsick and Watkins, 2003; Pedler et al.,

1991; Smith and Sadler-Smith, 2006; Watkins and Marsick, 1993) If the organizational

environment is not set up properly, it may destroy organizational learning (Doherty

and Manfredi, 2006) A learning environment cannot be created without the support of

leaders and managers: “The role of the center is to set up the conditions for cultivating

and sorting the wisdom of the system” (Fullan, 2004, p 6) Employing the same logic as

in the case of “communication”, the learning environment is suggested as a mediator

rather than an antecedent because the association between the mental models and

performance will work only if there is clear and strong learning environment, whereas

with an undeveloped learning environment the association will not exist

Creating learning organizations

213

Team learningTeam learning is “the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team tocreate the results its members truly desire” (Senge, 1990, p 236) This emphasizes thesignificance of team learning as the fundamental learning units Synergistic teams arethe “flywheel of the LO”, and thus are essential for the LO (Hitt, 1995, p 20) If anorganization consists of talented individuals that cannot collaborate within a team,their contribution towards reaching the organizational goals will be severely limited.Nevertheless, “despite its importance, team learning remains poorly understood”(Nissala, 2005, p 211) Thus, one of our purposes in this paper is to bridge this gap.Building on extant literature, we argue that team learning is influenced by five mainantecedents We further discuss a number of anticipated outcomes Communicationsystems and learning environment are proposed as two moderators that affect therelationship between team learning and knowledge sharing.

The first antecedent to team learning is team commitment Team learning appears

as “a concerted effort” to get all people participating in innovation (Molnar andMulvihill, 2003, p 172) All the members learn together and manifest a level ofcollective intelligence greater than the sum of the intelligence of the individualmembers (Hitt, 1995; Senge, 2006) In line with the previous part (mental model), teamlearning cannot happen without individual engagement and team commitment(Ellemers et al., 1998) According to Senge (2006), talented individuals do not ensure thecreation of talented teams if they do not have shared vision Katzenbach and Smith(2004) stress that the essence of team learning is a shared commitment

Leadership is another antecedent to team learning The most successful teams haveleaders who proactively manage the team learning efforts (Edmondson et al., 2004;Marsick and Watkins, 2003) “Leadership is about culture building that allows people

to be a part of a team that learn together” (Sackney and Walker, 2006, p 355).Leadership serves as the soul of the team, inspiring the innovation and creation ofknowledge in team members “Empowering is the fundamental component in qualityleadership: in essence it involves releasing the potential of individuals – allowing them

to flourish and grow, to release their capacity for infinite improvement” (Bell andHarrison, 1998, p 60) For team learning, it is not necessary to have a leader, butleadership should lie in each team member

The third antecedent to team learning is goal setting Goal setting is typicallyassociated with management by objectives, as suggested by Drucker (1954) While nolonger a novel idea, it is important in order to measure the result of team learning.Earlier, Ivancevich and McMahon (1977) found that the more educated people are, themore participative and effective their goal setting is Once people are committed toteam learning, they set clear goals for the team and themselves

Development and training is the fourth antecedent to this discipline Team skills areimportant for successful team learning (Bowen, 1998; Druskat and Kayes, 2000) To beeffective, team members must posses both genetic and specific team competencies(Prichard et al., 2006) Team skills training enhances collaborative learning (Prichard

et al., 2006) On the other hand, Garavan (1997) states that team learning andperformance is a team skill which needs to be practised if it is to result in improvedindividual and organizational effectiveness Strong emphasis on-job training maygenerate competitive advantage (Dalin, 1998; Maslen, 1992), and team skill training can

be one of these forms of training

The fifth antecedent proposed for team learning is organizational culture In a

similar way to that described and analyzed in the above section about mental models,

organizational culture is an antecedent determining the effectiveness of team learning

Albeit there is a scarcity of studies exploring this relationship, the impact of culture on

learning is inevitable in the knowledge economy (Tyran and Gibson, 2008) “A LO’s

culture should support and reward learning and innovation; promote inquiry, dialogue,

risk-taking and experimentation; allow mistakes to be shared and viewed as

opportunities for learning; and value the well-being of all employees” (Gephart et al.,

1996, p 39)

We posit that both “improved team performance” and “knowledge sharing” are the

anticipated outcomes of team learning Considerable research suggests that

organizational benefits of team learning include increased workplace productivity,

improvements to service quality, a reduced management structure, low level of

absenteeism, and reduced employee turnover (Park et al., 2005, p 464) Further, team

learning positively relates to team performance (Chan et al., 2003) Team learning plays

a critical role in a knowledge-creating organization as team members generate new

ideas through dialogue and discussion (Nonaka, 1991; Senge, 1990) This process,

therefore, helps the sharing of knowledge among members (An and Reigeluth, 2005)

Similar to the analysis in the section about mental models, we propose the same

possible moderators for this discipline We suggest that team learning needs

communication to promote dialogue within the team Communication boosts the

exchange of knowledge, information, and sometimes consolation Communication is

assumed to be a moderator rather than an antecedent because the association between

the team learning and its outcomes will work positively if there is clear and strong

communication, whereas under poor communication conditions, the outcomes might

lead to the opposite direction

In addition, appropriate working/learning environment would moderate the

association between the discipline of team learning and its outcomes People in the

organization will aspire to conduct a good job if they are provided with the right

support ( Jackson, 2003, p 126) Such an environment generates time and resources for

people to learn at work It is where people value the learning among team members

(Marsick and Watkins, 2003)

Shared vision

Shared vision is a vision that people throughout an organization are truly committed to

(Senge, 2006, p 192) Building shared vision is important for bringing people together

and to foster a commitment to a shared future (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997)

because shared vision provides members of an organization with a direction by which

they can navigate (Griego et al., 2000), and a focus for learning for its employees (Senge,

1990) Below we explicate the set of anticipated antecedents, outcomes and moderators

of this discipline

We first suggest personal vision as an antecedent to shared vision During the

pursuance of personal mastery, people bring along their personal visions Personal

visions are pictures or images that people carry in their minds In an organization it

will remain as isolated individuals’ visions unless they are shared to build up a picture

of the future the organization seeks to create Building a shared vision should begin

with a personal vision to which one is committed (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997)

Creating learning organizations

215

“Personal visions derive their power from an individual’s deep caring for the vision.Shared visions derive their power from a common caring” (Senge, 2006, p 192) “Whenthere is a genuine vision, people excel and learn, not because they are told to, butbecause they want to” (Senge, 1990, p 9) There is evidence that organizations cansucceed in aligning personal vision into organizational vision (Adair, 2005).

The second proposed antecedent to shared vision is personal values Personalvalues are rooted in an individual’s own set of values, beliefs, and aspirations (Ford

et al., 1996; Homer and Kahle, 1988; Kahle, 1983; Schwarz et al., 2006; Senge, 2006).Senge (1990, p 211) emphasizes that “personal mastery is the bedrock for developingshared vision” As analyzed above, similar to the antecedent of personal values informing the discipline of personal mastery, personal values also contribute a certaindegree of commitment to the shared visions (Eigeles, 2003; Gudz, 2004; Senge, 2006).Next we offer leadership as the third antecedent to shared vision Leaders who inspireothers usually possess extraordinary visions and commitments to high ideals (Fullopand Linstead, 1999; Marsick and Watkins, 2003; Senge et al., 2000), and constantly lookfor new information and opportunities that can help fulfil their visions (Mintzberg, 1998;Schrage, 1990) Mastering the discipline of shared vision means that people have to give

up the idea that visions come from top management or from an institutionalizedplanning process; it will grow as people interact with their own visions – as they expresstheir ideas and learn how to listen to the ideas of others (Appelbaum et al., 1997; Tsai andBeverton, 2007) This does not mean the role of leadership and management is neglected.The leaders’ new task for the future is building the LOs, sharing vision (Fullan, 1993;Senge, 1990) They are designers, stewards, and teachers (Fullan, 1993; Senge, 1990)

“They are responsible for building organizations where people continually expand theircapabilities to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared mental models– that is, they are responsible for learning” (Fullan, 1993, p 71) These issues have beenwidely discussed but scarcely implemented The reasons can be explained byunderstanding that leaders tend to be good designers and teachers, but less competent asstewards (Gudz, 2004; Tsai and Beverton, 2007)

The fourth antecedent to shared vision is organizational culture Organizationalculture is a major construct in management sciences (Pettigrew, 1979), and can bemeasured in a valid and reliable manner (O’Reilly et al., 1991) Organizational culturecan be regarded as a catalyst for creating a shared vision “Sharing and building avision for organizational learning in the public sector is far more complex than aninitial reading of the literature would lead one to suppose” (Reeves and Boreham, 2006,

p 483) According to Senge (2006, p 194) a shared vision is the primary step inallowing people to begin working together even if they might distrust each other.Sharing vision seems to be more effective in organizations that are embedded in a highsocietal collectivism and future orientation culture (Alavi and McCormick, 2004).Shared vision brings benefits for both individuals and organizations In terms ofindividuals, when people develop personal visions they are aware of what they areheading towards for their personal and professional success Second, it creates a goodpublic image of a healthy and wealthy education Put together, at the aggregate level,shared vision would be a key to organizational sustainability and growth (Schwarz

and communication systems It is difficult for organizations to gain shared vision if

they are large and highly complex, with a sizeable number of operations and divisions

It is easier for small organizations to share and reach common agreements (Smith and

Saint-Onge, 1996)

In relation to team learning and mental models, communication systems play an

important role in progressing and developing shared vision Personal vision and

insights cannot be shared effectively without effective communication systems among

members of the organization (Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Senge, 2006)

Systems thinking

Systems thinking can be understood as “people’s capacity to examine a problem in the

full setting of the interconnecting elements” (Hosley et al., 1994, p 12) It is a discipline

for seeing the “structures” that underlie complex situations, and for discerning high

from low leverage change Ultimately, it simplifies life by helping us to see the deeper

patterns lying beneath the events and the details (Senge, 1990) It also enables

understanding of system behaviour, which is not a function of parts but of how

different parts interact (Kofman and Senge, 1993) Appelbaum and Goransson (1997,

p 121) state that: “any attempt at creating an LO must start from the premises of the

organization as a system” Senge (1990) sees systems’ thinking as the foundation on

which an LO must be founded Senge (1990) argues that overall, the four disciplines –

personal mastery, mental models, team learning, and shared vision – are antecedents

of the fifth one, systems thinking Apart from that, follows are a set of antecedents,

outcomes and moderator of this discipline

Individual competence and leadership are one of the antecedents to systems

thinking McClelland (1993) describes competences as “basic personal characteristics

that are determining factors for acting successfully in a job or a situation” (cited in

Bergenhenegouwen et al., 1997, p 57) Individual competences include emotional

intelligence, interpersonal skills, and particularly systems thinking which actively

contribute to personal and professional success (Anderson et al., 2006; Marquardt,

1996) Individual competences and leadership are linked together in this section,

because according to Senge (1996) and Spreitzer (1995), people from all parts of the

organization, who are competent and genuinely committed to deep changes in

themselves and in their organizations, are leaders Once they can visualize profound

changes they can become systems thinkers Leadership becomes the quality of a

competent individual

Concerning individual competences, leaders need systems thinking to recognize

those who will be influenced by their decisions (Kumar et al., 2005, p 267) This

thinking system must be built as “creative holism” ( Jackson, 2003) In addition,

systems thinking can be taught, and as such, it should become a requirement for all

employees to acquire for better coping with constant changes (Cooper, 2005)

Organizational culture is another antecedent to systems thinking Systems thinking

can be taught and learned, and organizations can promote a culture that encourages

sharing mental models of systems thinking among members (Martin, 2005; Seligman,

2005) Alavi and McCormick (2004, p 412) find that an organization embedded in

cultures with high societal collectivism are more likely to be successful when working

collectively as their staff tend to be more inclined to effectively take part in teams for

systems thinking Practitioners and scholars come to a conclusion that becoming an

Creating learning organizations

217