These control processes are necessary to maintain equilibrium and also to ensure that processes are efficient and effective. To a large extent these are information-driven systems for detect- ing and controlling process perturbations by initiating correc- tive actions to restore the organization to its state of equilibrium.
The problem is that many companies fail either to adopt a process perspective or, even when they do, their attention is con- fined primarily to work processes. Focusing narrowly on work processes without interlacing with all other processes, needless to say, will continue to deliver suboptimal results.
A common problem processes face, even when they are redesigned to represent the state of the art, is when they fail to deliver upon the promise. The sequence often witnessed is that when the process is redesigned there is initial enthusiasm but, once the revised process is documented and the people trained to use it, corporate commitment quickly drops off. You now have a well-designed process but the problem that it is not used. This lack of commitment is often the symptom but not the cause of the problem. The cause usually is that the corporate culture embraces aneventperspective rather than a process perspective. Once the process manuals are distributed and users trained, the job is con- sidered done. The failing is that companies often do not realize that the process is an ongoing, culture-embedded, continuously improvingliving system, thus leading to situations in which the redesigned process merely limps along.
One common way of looking at the process mode of organiza- tional structuring is simply as a series of interlinked activities co- ordinated and reviewed periodically by management. A better way of looking at processes, however, is also to see them as com- pany-wide decision-making systems. A process is a human-based system that incorporates all business disciplines. It is both defined by the corporate culture and made up of it. Processes enable a company to tap its full potential by engaging the skills, talents and intellectual capabilities of each of its members.
vented the natural development and growth of adult individuals, work teams and organizations by creating environments that impede learning and thus prevent employees and organizations from developing to their full potential.
According to Senge (1990) learning organizations are those in which people:
● continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire
● continually learn how to learn together
● share common goals that are larger than individual goals
● function together in extraordinary ways, complementing each other’s strengths and compensating each other’s limitations as part of a great team.
The significance of knowledge organizations derives from their ability to learn more quickly than competitors, and the ability to shift people’s attention from a ‘means to an end’ view of work to a ‘fulfilment’ view, in which people seek intrinsic benefits from work. In this view, employees need to understand that their prob- lems are not caused by someone ‘out there’, but by their own actions as part of a larger system.
In Senge’s view, generative learning is about creating learning, it requires systemic thinking, shared vision, personal mastery, team learning and creative tension between the vision and the current reality. According to Senge, the development of a learn- ing organization depends on the mastery of five disciplines. For learning organizations to function properly, all five component disciplines must be effective as an ensemble. These five are useful in defining the broad contextual considerations for knowl- edge management and learning: systems thinking,personal mas- tery,mental models,building a shared vision andteam learning.
Systems thinking
Systems are interconnected parts or events that resemble a spider’s web or a fisherman’s net. In a system, each part (which is usually hidden from view) has an influence on the rest of the system. Intervention in one part of a system can have unforeseen effects on the other parts of the system. Therefore, systems can only be understood by contemplating the whole rather than the individual parts.
Systems thinking enables us to make the full patterns of events clearer and to help us to change them effectively. Systems think- ing is necessary to balance the human tendency to focus on
events or snapshots of isolated parts of a system that may be dis- tant in time and space. According to Senge, systems thinking is the fifth discipline that integrates the other disciplines into a coherent body of theory and practice. It needs the other four to realize its potential. There are two other reasons which indicate the importance of adopting a systems perspective. First, managing change effectively requires changing behaviour pat- terns (Kanter, Stein and Todd, 1992). This can be most easily accomplished by changing the structure of the system and the rules that make some behaviours easier and others more difficult.
Systems thinking enables management to understand better the structure of the existing system. Second, to bring about signifi- cant performance improvement it is important to know where in the system management interventions are most likely to yield results. Using the systems approach to portray an organization’s structure makes it easier to identify the points of high leverage.
These are the system parts that can be changed with limited effort and bring about maximum possible changes and benefits.
Approaching performance improvement using high leverage points in the system not only makes change more efficient, but is likely to lead more easily to breakthrough improve- ments along a new higher performance curve. What managers must consider is how their actions are likely to affect perform- ance in both the short and the long run. Also, managers must gain insights into ‘hidden from view’ interactions that undermine per- formance.
Personal mastery
Even in today’s business world, very few organizations encourage the growth of their people. However, the foundation of any learn- ing organization is the personal mastery of its members. This is because an organization’s capacity for learning cannot exceed that of its members. Personal mastery is the discipline of contin- ually clarifying and deepening personal knowledge, of focusing energies and seeing realities objectively. People with a high level of personal mastery are able to realize consistently the results that matter most to them and the organization.
Mental models
Mental models are the deeply ingrained assumptions, generaliza- tions or even pictures or images that influence how we under- stand the world and how we take action. Very often, we are not
consciously aware of the mental models or the effects it has on our behaviour.
Building a shared vision
It is hard for any organization to achieve sustained success with- out goals, values and a mission. Building a shared vision is the capacity to develop and hold a shared picture of the future. The doors open for success when an organization’s leadership man- ages to bind people together around a common identity and sense of destiny. Organizations cannot be ordered to change, but a pow- erful vision can pull people in a desired direction.
It is not enough for a leader to have a vision; this vision must be translated into a shared vision that galvanizes an organization to focused action. Building a shared vision involves the skills of unearthing shared pictures of the future that foster genuine com- mitment and enrolment rather than compliance.
Team learning
Team learning is important because teams, not individuals, are becoming the fundamental unit in modern organizations. When teams really learn, they produce extraordinary results and the members of the team grow more rapidly than otherwise.
The discipline of team learning starts with dialogue. This is the capacity of its members to suspend assumptions and enter into genuine thinking together. Dialogue differs from discussion as it is the free flow of ideas which enables a group to think together.
The discipline of dialogue involves learning how to recognize the patterns of interaction in teams, such as defensive routines that undermine genuine learning. Effective dialogue depends on effective communication and the co-ordination of its parts which represent different subcultures (research and development, mar- keting, production, etc.), through different ‘languages’ and prior- ities.
Besides the five disciplines, Senge (1990) highlights the impor- tance of the leader in the success of a knowledge programme by emphasizing that the leader’s role in a learning company is that of a designer, teacher and steward who can build shared vision and challenge prevailing mental models. He or she is responsible for building organizations where people are continually expand- ing their capabilities to shape their future, i.e. leaders are respon- sible for learning. The emphasis is on innovation and the discovery of new ideas. Managers have to develop individual
commitment, accountability, ownership, technical excellence plus the ability to work together. Trust is an underlying charac- teristic that is a fundamental enabler for learning and sharing. It needs to be developed throughout the organization. Without trust, employees hesitate to contribute and the organization will fail in its efforts to manage knowledge and learn.
The final contextual determinant of whether the knowledge and learning programme is likely to be a success or failure is in the way the company processes its managerial experiences.
Learning organizations and learning managers learn from their experiences rather than getting bound up in their past experi- ences. In knowledge and learning environments, the ability of an organization/manager is not measured by what it knows – the product of learning, but rather by how it learns– the process of learning. Management practices should encourage, recognize, and reward openness, systemic thinking, creativity, a sense of efficacy and empathy.
Conclusion
In tomorrow’s business world, companies will have to rely on a continuous cycle of learning to capitalize fully on organizational capabilities and continually create new and fresh markets for goods and services. These organizations, the so-called learning or knowledge-led corporations, will be more agile and responsive to their environments. They will build their market success not on traditional economic drivers such as large size, economies of scale and proprietary technology, but on learning and knowledge strategies, and organization designs capable of constantly creat- ing and cultivating new sources of knowledge and ideas to develop products and services. These companies will redefine their industry’s landscapes.
Knowledge and learning are part of everyone’s task, not just knowledge managers. Knowledge and learning is not just prod- uct, it is process, and management.
3
Culture for knowledge sharing and transfer
Many people and companies talk about knowledge management and learning, and the importance of ‘managing’ knowledge. Many actually try to ‘do it’, yet only a few actually succeed. The unfor- tunate reality is that knowledge for the most part frightens organ- izations as it is inevitably linked to risk. Many companies merely pay lip service to the power and benefits of learning and knowl- edge. To a large extent most remain averse to the aggressive investment and commitment that managing knowledge demands.
Even though knowledge is debated in senior-level meetings as being the lifeblood of the company, and occasional resources and funds are pumped in, the commitment often dies there. Becoming a true-to-life learning and knowledge-led organization demands more than debate and resources; it requires an organizational cul- ture that constantly guides organizational members to strive for knowledge, and a climatethat is conducive to it.