Due to the limitation of space and time, I do not intend to discuss the details of Senge’s (1990) five disciplines or perspectives, for example, Personal mastery, Mental models, Shared vision, Team learning and Systems thinking. However, I have taken to heart Senge’s (1990:178) articulation and caution that mental models or internal images appear to have an inherent tendency to either impede learning on the one hand, or accelerate learning. Impeded learning is a consequence of a ‘learning disability’. Learning disabilities operate and thrive, despite the best efforts of bright, committed people, and they are the underlying reason why some of the best ideas fail to translate into action:
One thing all managers know is that many of the best ideas never get put into practice.
Brilliant strategies fail to get translated into action. (Ibid, 1990:174).
I have been puzzled by the pervasive underperformance in public schools despite the interventions mentioned earlier by officials of the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education, subject advisors, circuit managers, district directors and even members of parliament nationally. Learning disabilities cause tragic individual failure or institutional failure. Jansen, and Blank (2014:25) made the startling revelation that the education system in South Africa works only “for about 20% of our schools; the remaining 80% of public schools are marked by
low pass rate, few university-level passes and small numbers passing in the gateway subjects of Mathematics and Physical Sciences”.
6.8.1 Three-steps model of Kurt Lewin
To address this issue we should perhaps revisit Lewin’s (1958) notion of The 3-Step Model that follows the pattern: ‘Unfreezing, Moving and Refreezing’. Central to this approach, is a shift in mind-set from a regressive mode to a progressive mode of thinking and way of doing things (Bateman and Snell, 2009:661; Burnes, 1992:166). ‘Unfreeze’ involves realizing the pressing need, the felt-need, to change the current practices that are inappropriate and obsolete. As a result, the individual and the collective break away from or discard old assumptions, attitudes, behaviours, culture, norms and values. ‘Moving’ involves actually taking action or implementing the change process. In this respect, individuals and the collective should strive relentlessly to live their core values more fully in practice – that is, practice what they preach.
In short, they learn the art and courage of instituting or executing practical change in the organizational context. ‘Refreeze’ ensures that the organization is safe from regression by establishing supportive mechanisms in terms of working policies and practices (Cummings and Husse, 1989). This doctoral enquiry has attempted to act as both an antidote and a catalyst in dealing with my own learning disabilities and those of others.
Figure 11 The Three-Step Model of Learning & Change: ‘Unfreezing, Moving, and Refreezing’
Source: Kurt Lewin (1958:169)
We should also recall Senge’s (1990:14) diagram of ‘Adaptive Learning’ and ‘Generative Learning’.
6.8.2 Adaptive learning and Generative Mode of Inquiry
Figure 12 ‘Adaptive Learning’ and ‘Generative Learning’
Source: Peter Senge (1990:106)
The central issue in this approach is the recognition of the fact that, when faced with an ill- defined problem situation, managers like to adopt short-term ‘quick fix’ solutions instead of trying to find enduring solutions. The adaptive learning mode of inquiry (top circle) represents the symptomatic intervention. By contrast, the generative learning mode of inquiry (bottom cycle) represents a delayed and responsive fundamental intervention to the fuzzy problem situation at hand. This may be the way to turn ‘vicious cycles’ of underperformance into
‘virtuous cycles’ of sustainable competitive performance in organizations and in schools, but we must also remember Forrester’s (1969) assertion that the causes of many pressing public issues, from urban decay to global ecological threat, lie in the very well-intentioned policies designed to alleviate them. These problems were actually caused by systems that lured policymakers into interventions that focused on obvious symptoms and not on underlying causes, which produced short-term benefit but long-term malaise, and fostered the need for still more symptomatic interventions (Senge, 1990:15).
6.8.3 Single and double loop learning model
A related approach is the ‘Single-loop’ and ‘Double-loop’ learning modes of inquiry as proposed by Senge, on the one hand, and on the other hand the double-loop learning mode is reminiscent of the generative learning mode of inquiry. Like Senge, Argyris (1991) articulates that the ‘Learning Dilemma’ has an inherent potential to impede learning capacity, which leads to ‘institutional entropy’ or decline in terms of performance (Hamel, 2002: 29), mainly due to the management disciplines we inherited from the industrial age perspectives of Frederic Winslow Tayor, known as ‘Taylorism’, which was founded on ‘mechanistic thinking’
grounded in concepts of command, control and compliance and not on commitment (Ibid.
1990:206).
SINGLE LOOP DOUBLE LOOP
Figure 13 Single-loop and Double-loop Learning mode of inquiry Source: Argyris and Schon (1978)
6.8.4 Triple loop learning
Another model learning was developed by William Torbert (1989). This is called the ‘Triple- loop Learning mode of inquiry’. This involves what Torbert (1976) terms a ‘mystery mastery’
which refers to a mystical experience and deep change from old ways of doing things to complete new ways of doing things: a paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1962, 1970).
6.8.5 Three levels of learning
Then there is the model developed by Gregory Bateson (2000), which operates on three levels of learning and change using the analogy of the cybernetic system namely, the central heating system.
Figure 14 Bateson's Levels of Learning
Bateson noted that at level 0 there is absolutely no learning at all. This is similar to a young child putting a hand into a fire. The child may not learn that fire is dangerous. Learning only begins at Level 1 which is analogous to single loop learning or the adaptive learning mode.
However, at level 2, which is similar to double loop learning or generative learning, the situation begins to change due to the changed mental model. Level 3, according to Gregory Bateson (1972) pertains to a mystical change, which as Rowan (2008:113) claims. is indeed ineffable. People learn the art of holding in abeyance their own assumptions, attitudes, values, and norms and they embrace a core ideology and the core values of the organization (Collins and Porras, 1994:54). Bateson claims that an integrating thread throughout level 3 is the achieving of extraordinary results in an organizational context. In brief, they stay focused on maters or issues of utmost importance to them (Senge, 1990: 246).
The fourth, level ‘Learning 111’ relates to learning about the meaning and purpose of our existence. This mystical experience, captures an ecstatic experience which Robert Quinn (2000: 210) refers to as ‘ecstasy’; Carl Rogers (1961:27) refers to ‘flowing and floating in a
complex stream of life’; and, finally, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1997) refers to this as a sense of ‘flow’.
6.8.6 Four learning cycles
Finally, consideration is given to the Kolb learning Cycle.
Figure 15 The Kolb Learning Cycle Source: David A. Kolb (1984: 21)
Concrete experience, or immersing oneself in the ‘doing’ of a task is the first stage in
which the individual, team, or organization simply carries out the task assigned. At this stage the core business pertains to the practical, concrete experience of the messy problem situation.
Observation and reflection involves a process of periodically stepping back from the task at hand and reviewing what has been done thus far. In essence, this stage pertains to holding in abeyance one’s assumptions, attitudes beliefs, values and norms.
Conceptualization involves the process whereby the individual engages in interpreting the events or makes sense of the experience. In addition, it is at this stage that the individual engages in a problem-solving framework or typology grounded on insight of paradigms: a shift from old to a new paradigm-capacity to see issues or events in a new way.
Planning encapsulates new insights about appropriate action to be taken in order to improve messy problem situations at hand. This model is analogous to the initial three stage model (Plan, Do /implement and Review or Evaluate), and subsequent models with four or five frames of iterative action – reflection cycles (observe, reflect, act, evaluate, and modify) developed by John Dewey (1938) and Kurt Lewin (1946).