The Learning Organisation by Ernest Costas - Book Report/Review Example

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LEARNING ORGANISATION BY P.W. ERNEST COSTAS (BSc.) From the preamble, P.W. Ernest Costas' article is a part-eclectic, part-inferential abstract on the learning organisation. Thus, with brevity and concision, he has not only indicated his sympathies with the academics and theorists whose submissions and investigations he sets out in this article, but has also culled from various authors presumably to corroborate and complement the summary of his gleanings from the academics and the theorists His article identifies the five parameters of a "typical" learning organisation as: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building a shared vision, and team learning. It briefly depicts some of these parameters with illustrations, finally advocating the transformation of other unions into learning organisations in the name of their defined aspirations. But does this beautiful concoction satisfy the common criteria of integrity, practical reasoning, clarity and intelligibility of language; of sequential illustrations that readily bear on the conceptions that prompted them, and of such incontestability as should readily recommend the learning organization as a model into which other organisations should necessarily transform Are its results and conclusions fully or partially coincidental with their texts of reference Or do they diverge from them, not justifying the reference for which the texts were employed Besides, does it define and specify its audience, in order correspondingly to match its language and structure with content and audience A closer look at the writing should answer these questions satisfactorily. First, the question of audience. There is apparently no clearly defined audience for which the writing is intended. It can, however, be inferred from the nature of the journal (an academic journal) and from the last four words of the preamble, "business transactions and prosecutions", that the article is intended for academic business men and women, who need practicable theories for the successes of their businesses. If one takes this as the intended audience, then the language and structure of the article are apt, clear and intelligible. Then, the integrity. The sheer presence of one adjectival clause in the preamble makes the integrity of this article less than satisfactory; the development and flow of its body are otherwise natural and sequential, but the flawing clause "who carried out various investigation to confirm the thoughts and the postulations they once held about the learning organization", a clause identifying the theorists and academics, will fail to fulfil the expectation of the critical reader, because he will naturally expect to see in this article the thoughts and postulations "once held" by the theorists and academics, the various investigations they carried out to confirm the thoughts and postulations, and how these investigations actually confirmed these thoughts and postulations. At best, the article makes only weak, indirect references to the investigations of the theorists and academics. For instance, in the second sentence of the fourth paragraph (preamble exclusive): "It has been shown that in every union or organization, members, rather than some external influence, are often the custodian of the well-being of the union or organization" (Who has shown it and how has it been shown). Sixth paragraph, second sentence: "It is, of course, readily understandable that the learning and the attendant skills and knowledge of each member mass up in to a greater body of knowledge for the organization as a body" (An ambiguous sentence: "readily understandable" to the theorists and academics who confirmed it-or to the audience for which the article was written, who are, for the most part, certainly not part of the investigations by the theorists and academics). Seventh paragraph, fourth sentence: "A middle-aged man whose upbringing has taught to be fastidious and perfectionist was once interviewed by a psychologist and asked what" (Should the article be concerned with interviews by psychologists, or by the investigating theorists and academics). The integrity of the body of the article is thus ramshackled; it does not firmly blend with the points and suggestions of the preamble. Thirdly, "practical reasoning is not only theoretically and intellectually logical, but is demonstrated in the practical results it achieves or indicates." (Dongo, 1989) There are few cases of truly practical reasoning in the article. Most of the ideas are truncated in their realistic development. In the introductory sentence of the first paragraph (not the preamble), Ernest Costas writes: "The learning organization is a group of people who continually enhance their capabilities to create what they want to create." But, in the last sentence, we read: It is basically a proactive system, which cultivates in each member of the organization the ability to adapt to, improve in, and face new unanticipated situations." "What they want to create" refers to the present; but "it is basically a proactive system" considered in the context of "new unanticipated situations", speaks of the future. He, therefore, portrays the learning organisation as having nothing to do with the both the present and the future, since what is "basically a [future-] proactive system" cannot at the same time continually -i.e. basically-enhance "what they [in the present] want to create". Proactivity in the context of this first paragraph clearly has it focus on future possibilities. Consequently, we are presented with the learning organisation as an organisation without a definite focus-now preoccupied with current wishes, then, with after-time proactivity. Thus, in this paragraph, there is failure in both intellectual logicality and practical relevance. Consequent upon this inconsistency, one should not immediately take the word "leaning", the second word in the second paragraph, as a typographical error. ("Leaning" is not consistent with "learning", just "the present" is not consistent with the "future-proactive".) It would not be wrong to see in this paragraph an ambiguity which justifies the questions: "What is a 'leaning' organisation" "What relationship has a 'leaning organisation' with the 'learning organisation' of our current interest" "Was 'learning' intended" Therefore, at this stage, there emerges a bedevilment which makes us wonder whether or not to substitute "leaning" with "learning", wherever "learning" is used, in our attempt to fathom this wavering second paragraph. Then, the next paragraph begins with "Five basic principles are identified as distinguishing learning from any other traditional organization." The immediate inference from the reference to two organisations here is that the learning organisation is a "traditional" organisation. But neither in the preceding nor in the subsequent paragraphs is mention made again of "traditional" organisation. Therefore, what is the relevance of including or of telling us about "traditional organisation" in an article on The Learning Organisation The next paragraph carries on with the shortcoming. In the third sentence, we read "Senge, a notable theorist, highlights this with the use of a system map which depicts the key elements of the system of an organization, so that blame is properly attached to the actual rather than to the presumed culprit." Even if Ernest Costas did not wish to enter into details on it, his mere mention of "system map" as depicting the "key elements" of the system of an organisation warrants the inclusion of some further information on Senge's "system map"-perhaps in brief outline for the purpose of his summarisation. Then, mention is made of "blame" and "culprit". What blame What culprit His thoughts here are half-expressed, and remain obscure by any stretch of implication. Again, the third and penultimate sentences of the next paragraph read respectively: "Personal mastery is hence a discipline which concentrates on a continual clarification and deepening of personal vision" and "Hence personal mastery is living in a continual learning mode". In the context of the reality of a learning organisation, which, by definition, is merely a part of the members' day-to-day life, and not a principle of their day-to-day living or a member of their physical bodies, personal mastery cannot in any sense be simultaneously a "discipline" and a "living". A discipline is a part of a system of learning, thus a part of the activities of the man or woman; living, however, is everything about him or her, the totality of their activities. Ernest Costas is consequently guilty here of faulty diction and unenlightened equivocality, a betrayal either of an incomplete grasp of the parameter of personal mastery, or of a diffuse concentration in the writing process. Fourth, the matter of sequentiality of illustration. There are actually two concrete illustrations in the article. One in fifth and the other in the seventh paragraph. The fifth-paragraph illustration on fraud and misappropriation is (subtly) insequential. To justify and excuse the fraud and misappropriation of a treasurer merely on account of the prevalence of such vices in an organisation, and out of the belief that this misconduct exemplifies "systems thinking", is not only an unthinking advocacy of evil and crime, but a misunderstanding of the fact and the spirit of the parameter of "system learning" in a learning organisation. Typical systems-thinking is always positive and progressive, irrespective of the vices of the organisation members. It always has as its purported aim ( and purport should remain actuality for any serious organisation), the edifying and result-oriented inter-influence of its members, in terms of principles, philosophies and objectives, which each constituent member should have, consequent to individual input and to cross-fertilisation. Every erring male or female of any learning organisation is solely to blame for their transgression, the bearable or unbearable influences that instigated their misdeeds notwithstanding. The second illustration on the fastidious perfectionist, however, bears on what prompted it, and does well with its concise elaboration. Nevertheless, on account of the misconception on "systems-thinking" as revealed in the illusive illustration about the treasurer, the writer does not faithfully represent the content of his references. None of the texts he claims to have referred to depicts the learning organisation as justifying fraud and misappropriation on any account-or as pandering compassionately to any sort of misdemeanour. In the light of his bibliography, his reference could, therefore, be considered partial or incomplete, in spite of his, perhaps, complete listing of bibliography. Finally, on account of the fundamental omissions of the forms and results of the investigations of the theorists and academics, on account of the irrelevant illustration on fraud and misappropriation, on the one hand, and of the odd reference to psychology-instead of to the academics and theorists-to illustrate mental models, on the other; on account of the scantiness of illustrations of the article, which in ample supply would have served to concretise theories on the learning organisation more cogently and recommendingly; and on account, finally, of the conflicts, ambiguities and inconsistencies with which this article is fraught- I would adjudge Ernest Costas' article questionable and simplistic. It does little to recommend itself to the businessman or woman (to whom it is possibly directed), the need to advocate for a transformation of their current business or trade union into a vibrant learning organisation. Reference List Dongo, AB 1989, Logic and Pragmatism, 1st edn Gbogi, Akure, Ondo State. Victoria, D 1975, Critical Analysis,2nd edn, Toson Education R.A, Igbegunrin. Agatha, KM 1996, The Learning Organisation, 1st edn, KC IMOE, Imo State. Argyris, C., & Schn, D 1978, Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E 1997 Reframing Organizations. Artistry, choice and leadership 2nd edn, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Richard, Karash, 1994-2002, Learning-org Dialogue on Learning Organizations 1, August 2005 < http:// world.std.com/ lo / Excerpted from the Academic Digestive of the 11th December 2003, pages 28&29 .Volume No.35, Issue No.63. THE LEARNING ORGANISATION BY P.W. ERNEST COSTAS (BSc.) PREAMBLE: This article is my summary of reviews by two academics and theorists (Dr. James and Mr.Adebayo) who carried out various investigations to confirm the thoughts and the postulations they once held about the learning organization. It also draws from some of the researches and findings of notable theorists and authors such as, Bolman Castells and, PeterSinge who has been able to translate theories about the learning organization into an enhancement of business transactions and prosecutions. The learning organization is a group of people who continually enhance their capabilities to create what they want to create. In it, people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, and collective aspirations set free. Team work is fundamental and people are continually learning to see the whole of the organization together. It is basically a proactive system, which cultivates in each member of the organization the ability to adapt to, improve in, and face new unanticipated situations. The leaning organization is founded on two basic kinds of learning: adaptive learning and generative learning. Adaptive learning enhances and cultivates the ability of the members of the organization to adjust and acclimatise, the ability to make the most of new conditions, which they have never anticipated. Generative learning, on the other hand, is concerned with the ability of the members to unite thoughts and ideas generally accepted by the group. Generative learning is learning that enhances our capacity to create. (Senge 1990:14). Five basic principles are identified as distinguishing learning from any other traditional organization. The are: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, and team learning. Systems thinking has the purpose of inculcating in members an appreciation of the influences of people within the organization upon one another, so that the future of each member and of the organization as whole is secure. It has been shown that in every union or organization, members, rather than some external influence, are often the custodian of the well-being of the union or organization. Senge, a notable theorist, highlights this with the use of a system map which depicts the key elements of the system of an organization, so that blame is properly attached to the actual rather than to the presumed culprit . Consequently, there is little wisdom in blaming a treasurer for fraud and misappropriation, when a number of the members of an organization wallow in corruption and fraudulence. Personal mastery is concerned entirely with the individual constituents of a learning organization. It is, of course, readily understandable that the learning and the attendant skills and knowledge of each member mass up into a greater body of knowledge for the organization as a body. Personal mastery is hence a discipline which concentrates on a continual clarification and deepening of personal vision, on a continual canalizing of mental powers towards the development of patience, tolerance and forbearance. It is also concerned with the continual cultivation of objective judgment within its members, which makes members begin to see matters from balanced and demonstrable perspectives rather than from what they have assumed as true through culture, religion or personal fancies and illusions. Hence personal mastery is living in a continual learning mode. It thus ensures that the reservoir of knowledge of the learning organization remains intact and unadulterated. Personal mastery is closely linked with the third parameter, which has to do with mental models. Mental models are assumptions, conceptions, pictures or images that influence our understanding of the world and how we take action. If organizations are to develop the capacity to work with mental models, it will be necessary for people to learn new skills and develop new orientation and for there to be institutional changes that further such a change. A middle-aged man whose upbringing has taught to be fastidious and perfectionist was once interviewed by a psychologist and asked what kind of life he would like his two female children, aged 17 and 20, to live. His response, supported absolutely by his inflexions, facial expressions and gesticulations, suggest an outrage against Fate and Destiny, because his circumstances were annoyingly different from his wishes and expectations. He would have his "lovely girls attend the best of schools, subjected to such tutelages as would refine and civilize and cultivate them towards perfect culture-in speech, in carriage, in thought and in aspiration." "My girls," he regrettingly added, "are a crude version of what they should and must be." His mental model in respect of his children expects too much of life, and will naturally be intolerant towards the paces of his own development towards the realization of his goals and aspirations. It will be necessary to disabuse his mind of such mental disposition- of such a mental model, and introduce him to the naturalness of human imperfection and the normalcy of gradualism. The fourth parameter concerns the building of a shared vision. This involves building a shared picture, a goal towards which each and every member of the organization aspires. Naturally, the active participation of the members is called for, with the result that they are urged to think and imagine creatively and in so doing draw nearer towards the realization of their actual dreams and aspirations. There is the added advantage of the opportunity for experimentation, creativity and innovation on the part of the members. Finally, team building is sequel to the fourth parameter, that is, building a shared vision. Building a shared vision calls for the pooling together and developing the capacity of the team, or the organization to bring the built vision into realization. The function of the learning organization builds on the assets of personal mastery, co-operation, and collaboration. When teams learn and create together, the gospel of their achievements will naturally go abroad -will even broadcast itself, thus attracting new members to the organizations who have various shades of potentials and potentialities to contribute towards the sustenance and upliftment of the learning organisation. Thus, more and more organizations which are today unmethodical in many a respect will turn into typical learning organisations. REFERENCES Argyris, C., & Schn, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Argyris, C. and Schn, D. (1996) Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (1997) Reframing Organizations. Artistry, choice and leadership 2e, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 450 pages. Castells, M. (2001) 'Information technology and global capitalism' in W. Hutton and A. Giddens (eds.) On the Edge. Living with global capitalism, London: Vintage. DePree, M. (1990) Leadership is an Art, New York: Dell. Drucker, P. (1977) Management, London: Pan. David, M 1996, The Business Man and the Learning Organisation the, MA Dissertation Bowell University, Iwo Adebayo,J., Self-realisation and Mental Models, PhD thesis, Bowell University, Iwo. Read More