V The Fifth Discipline The Five Disciplines of

V The Fifth Discipline The Five Disciplines of the Learning Organization And applications to Clemson and CREDO A review of The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization by Peter M. Senge Published 1990 by Currency Doubleday (a Division of Random House) Presented by Jonathan R. A. Maier Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization Laboratory February 9 th, 2000 1 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Presentation Map Roadmap to the Presentation: • What is a Learning Organization? • The five disciplines of a Learning Organization • How can we use this stuff in CREDO and Clemson in general? 2 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Learning Organizations What is a Learning Organization, and Why Be One? “The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage” lifetime of the largest “A fundamental shift of mind…from “The average seeing problems as caused by something ‘out industrialseeing how our own actions there’ to enterprises is less than forty years” “A Learning Organization isexperience” create the problems we a place where people are if the high corporate mortality rate “What continually discovering how they create only“It’s just andof deeperany longerthat is theirareality, not possible problems toit. ” symptom how they can change figure it afflict all out from the top and have every one else companies? ” following the orders of the grand strategist” 3 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Learning Organizations Examples of prototype learning organizations: • Herman Miller Furniture • Hanover Insurance Companies • Kyocera Electric • Boeing • Royal Dutch / Shell Oil • Harley-Davidson 4 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V The Five Disciplines What are the five learning disciplines? I. Personal Mastery II. Mental Models III. Shared Vision IV. Team Learning V. Systems Thinking 5 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Thinking Basic Ideas of Systems Thinking: Structure influences behavior Structure in Human systems is subtle Cause and effect are not closely related in space and time. There is no outside. You and the cause of your problems are part of a single system. Leverage often comes from new ways of thinking I. III. IV. V. 6 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes “Reality is made up of circles but we see straight lines” • Systems Thinking is a discipline for seeing the “structures” that underlie complex sistuations, and for discerning high from low leverage change. • In many systems, doing the obvious thing does not produce the obvious, desired change. • Systems Thinking simplifies life by helping us see the deeper patterns lying behind the events and the details. I. III. IV. V. 7 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes Nature’s Templates • Balancing process with delay • Limits to growth • Shifting the burden • Eroding goals • Fixes that fail • Success to the successful I. III. IV. V. 8 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes . . Balancing Process with Delay be. Act ha ua vio l r Actual conditions Desired behavior Corrective action time I. III. IV. V. 9 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes . . Balancing Process with Delay. Example 1: A Sluggish Shower Current water temperature Delay HOT! Desired warm cold Shower tap setting cold time Moral: In a sluggish system, aggressiveness produces instability. Either be patient or make the system more responsive. I. III. IV. V. 10 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes . . Balancing Process with Delay. Example 2: The Real Estate Market Current demand for new houses time to build a house Glut: lots of houses, no demand Sustained demand production High demand, no houses Build more or less time Notice the more drastic the response, the longer it takes to reach stability-exactly the opposite of what was intended. I. III. IV. V. 11 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes . . Limits to Growth. Limiting Condition Growing Action Slowing Action Condition I. III. IV. V. 12 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes . . Limits to Growth. Example: A Growing Enterprise Motivation and productivity Revenue Morale Size of market niche Morale $ $ $ Saturation of market niche Growth time Promotion opportunities time De lay Moral: Don’t push on the reinforcing (growth) process. Remove or weaken the source of limitation. . I. III. IV. V. 13 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes . . Shifting the Burden. Symptomatic “solution” Side effect De lay Problem symptom Fundamental solution The shifting the burden structure explains a wide range of behaviors where well-intentioned “solutions” actually make matters worse over the long term. I. III. IV. V. 14 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes . . Shifting the Burden Example 1: . Personnel problems Staff Bring in HR expert costs $ Managers skills and respect $ Personnel performance problem time Expectation Dependency! De lay $ time that HR experts will solve problems Develop manager’s abilities Moral: Leverage lies in a combination of strengthening the fundamental response and weakening the symptomatic response. This usually requires a long-term orientation. I. III. IV. V. 15 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes . . Shifting the Burden. Example 2: Alcohol addiction Alcohol Stress Health Stress Alcohol consumption De lay Ability to control workload time Reduce workload Moral: Notice how insidious the reinforcing cycle is, fostering dependence on the symptomatic solution. Meanwhile the underlying problem grows worse and the capability for fundamental solutions atrophies. I. III. IV. V. 16 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes . . Eroding Goals. Goal Pressure to adjust goals Gap Actions to Improve Conditions Delay Condition Eroding Goals is a shifting the burden type structure in which the shortterm solution involves letting a long-term, fundamental goal decline. I. III. IV. V. 17 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes . . Eroding Goals Example: Quality standards. High quality standard Pressure to lower budgets Delay Quality below standard Customer Invest in new dissatisfaction higher quality methods Customer dissafisfaction Quality standard Quality time Quality standards and hence quality quietly erode. Meanwhile, the customer base becomes dissatisfied, driving down revenues and undermining the enterprise’s ability to invest in the fundamental solution. I. III. IV. V. 18 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes . . Fixes that Fail. Problem Fix Unintended Consequences Del ay Fixes that Fail describes a system where a fix is effective in the short term, but has unforseen consequences which may require even more use of the original fix, thus perpetuating the problem. I. III. IV. V. 19 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes . . Fixes that Fail Example: Maintenance. High maintenance costs Cutting back maintenance schedules Del Maintenance Costs Breakdowns Maintenance schedule time ay More breakdowns and higher costs Moral: Maintain focus on the long term. Disregard short term “fix, ” if feasible, or use it only to “buy time” while working on a long term remedy. I. III. IV. V. 20 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes . . Success to the Successful. Success of A Resources to A Allocation to A instead of B Success of B Resources to B In a Success to the Successful system, the more one competitor succeeds, the more resources it gets, thus starving its competitor. I. III. IV. V. 21 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Archetypes . . Success to the Successful. Example: Balancing work and home life Success at work Time and success at work Only 24 hours in a day Success in family Time at home Time and success at home time Because of the dominant reinforcing feedback, a Success to the Successful system is inherently unstable. The imbalances are not self-correcting. The only leverage lies in changing the underlying structure. I. III. IV. V. 22 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Systems Thinking Recap of Systems Thinking: “The bottom line of Sytems Thinking is leverage-seeing where actions and changes in structures can lead to significant, enduring improvements. ” “The art of Systems Thinking lies in seeing through complexity to the underlying structures generating change. ” Translation: Systems Thinking is not a magic bullet. It only helps you understand what’s going on and what to do about it. It’s still up to you to implement the necessary change. I. III. IV. V. 23 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V The Five Disciplines The Other Four Learning Disciplines: I. Personal Mastery II. Mental Models III. Shared Vision IV. Team Learning V. Systems Thinking I. III. IV. V. 24 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Personal Mastery “Personal Mastery” Means: • • The discipline of personal growth and learning Approaching one’s life as a creative work Continually clarifying what is important to us The ability to see current reality Pursuing a vision as a purpose rather than just a good idea That practicing the virtues of life and business success are not only compatible but enrich one another Not something possessed, but a process. I. III. IV. V. 25 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Personal Mastery The Discipline of Personal Mastery “The way to begin developing a sense of personal mastery is to approach it as a discipline, as a series of practices and principles that must be applied to be useful. ” • • Personal Vision Creative Tension Structural Conflict Commitment to the Truth I. III. IV. V. 26 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Personal Mastery: Personal Vision • Identify ultimate intrinsic desires, not only secondary goals • Coupled with Purpose (‘why’) (abstract) • Vision is a specific destination (‘what’) (concrete) • True vision is not composed of negatives of the now • Multifaceted (material+personal+service+…) • Takes courage to hold and pursue Personal Mastery is a process of continually focussing and refocusing on what one truly wants, on one’s visions. I. III. IV. V. 27 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Personal Mastery: Creative Tension Vision We are acutely aware of the gap between our vision and reality • • Current reality This gap can be discouraging, or. . . The gap can be a source of energy, in fact. . . • This gap is the source of creative energy! “There are only two possible ways for the tension to resolve itself: pull reality toward the vision or pull the vision toward reality. Which occurs will depend on whether we hold steady to the vision. ” I. III. IV. V. 28 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Personal Mastery: Structural Conflict “Practically all of us have a dominant belief that we are not able to to fulfill our Your Vision desires. ” Belief in Your powerlessness current or unworthiness reality • • • Our unawareness of this belief contributes to its power We “cope” by letting vision erode, focussing on erasing negatives, or through shear will-power But the only real leverage lies in gradually changing the underlying beliefs and by Commitment to the Truth. . . I. III. IV. V. 29 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Personal Mastery: Commitment to the Truth invovles. . . • • Rooting out the ways we limit or deceive ourselves Continually updating our theories of why things are the way they are Continually broadening our awareness Deepening our understanding of the structures underlying current events • Recognizing ‘coping’ with structural conflict and then making appropriate changes • Compassion: Seeing the structures that trap all of us unless discovered I. III. IV. V. 30 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V The Five Disciplines I. Personal Mastery II. Mental Models III. Shared Vision IV. Team Learning V. Systems Thinking I. III. IV. V. 31 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Mental Models The Discipline of Mental Models • • • Involves surfacing, testing, and improving our internal pictures of how the world works. Our mental models determine not only how we make sense of the world, but how we take action Problems with mental models arise when they are tacit --when they exist below the level of awareness I. III. IV. V. 32 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Mental Models and “Skilled Incompetence” • A worse problem is that we tend to trap ourselves in defensive routines • These insulate our mental models from examination • Consequently we develop “skilled incompetence, ” • We become skilled at protecting ourselves from the pain and threat posed by real learning situations (!) • Thereby we never learn to produce the results we truly desire!!! I. III. IV. V. 33 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Mental Models Example: General Motors The following tacit mental model was used at GM for decades until the crisis in the 1980’s, after losing 38% of their market share to overseas competitors: • GM is in the business of making money, not cars • Cars are primarily status symbols. Therefore styling is more important than quality • The US car market is isolated from the rest of the world • Workers do not have an important impact on productivity or product quality • Everyone connected to the system has no need for more than a fragmented, compartmentalized understanding of the business I. III. IV. V. 34 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Mental Models The “Ah-ha!” of Mental Models: • All we ever have are assumptions--never truths • We always see the world through our mental models • Our mental models are never complete • Our mental models are chronically nonsystemic So what are the skills necessary to use mental models effectively? …… I. III. IV. V. 35 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Mental Models Skills of Mental Models • Recognizing “Leaps of Abstraction” • Exposing the “Left Hand Column” • Balancing Inquiry and Advocacy • Excercising Scenarios in complex situations • Facing up to distinctions between espoused theories (what we say) and theories-in-use (the implied theory in what we do) I. III. IV. V. 36 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V The Five Disciplines I. Personal Mastery II. Mental Models III. Shared Vision IV. Team Learning V. Systems Thinking I. III. IV. V. 37 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Shared Vision A Shared Vision is… • • • the answer to the question, “What do we want to create? ” not an idea, not even an important idea rather a force in people’s hearts compelling enough to acquire the support of more than one person not imposed by one person or group onto others a vision that people are truly committed to, because it reflects their own personal vision I. III. IV. V. 38 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Shared Vision Mastering the discipline of Shared Vision requires. . . • • First giving up the idea that visions are always announced from “on-high” Sharing your personal vision and asking for support Enrolling others vs. getting them to “buy in” Fostering genuine commitment rather than compliance A committed person doesn’t play by the rules of the game. He/she is responsible for the game. A compliant person just plays by the rules. I. III. IV. V. 39 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Shared Vision Examples of Shared Visions: • • AT&T: Universal phone service Ford: everyone affording a car Apple: empowering people with easy to use computers Microsoft: a computer in every home Herman Miller: “a gift to the human spirit” JFK: a man on the moon by the end of the decade Medieval cathedrals You cannot have a learning organization without shared vision. Without a pull toward some goal which people truly want to achieve, the forces in support of the status quo can be overwhelming. I. III. IV. V. 40 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V The Five Disciplines I. Personal Mastery II. Mental Models III. Shared Vision IV. Team Learning V. Systems Thinking I. III. IV. V. 41 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Team Learning involves… • Alignment • Thinking insightfully about complex issues • The need for innovative, coordinated action • Dialogue and discussion • Practice I. III. IV. V. 42 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Team Learning Alignment An unaligned team with individual empowerment When a group of people function as a whole An aligned team with individual empowerment I. III. IV. V. 43 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Team Learning Dialogue (‘dia’ + ‘logos’) • • Occurs when a group becomes open to the flow of a larger intelligence IQgroup > IQindividual attempts to go beyond any one individual’s understanding Allows people to become observers of their own thinking Differs from discussion in that there is a free exploration of a complex issue, rather than presenting and defending individual viewpoints I. III. IV. V. 44 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Team Learning Three Conditions for Dialogue: • • • All participants must suspend their assumptions, literally to hold them “as if suspended before us” All participants must regard one another as colleagues There must be a facilitator who holds the context of the dialogue In dialogue, different views are presented as a means toward discovering a new view. Discussions converge on a single conclusion or course of action. Dialogues are diverging; they do not seek agreement, but a richer grasp of complex issues. I. III. IV. V. 45 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Team Learning Dealing with Conflict The difference between great teams and mediocre teams lies in how they face conflict and deal with the defensiveness that invariably surrounds conflict. Current understanding and behavior This is often a classic “shifting the burden” type structure Threat Learning Gap Delay Perceived need for new understanding and behavior Defensive routine Need for inquiry and change Skillful facilitators learn to confront defensiveness without producing more defensiveness I. III. IV. V. 46 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Applications Building a learning organization • Read The Fifth Discipline • Define our shared vision • Begin using systems thinking (every day) • Practice exposing our own mental models • Begin to foster individual’s personal mastery • Practice team learning as a team 47 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Applications Example: Trying to improve writing skills in ME 221: Marks on papers lay De Writing problems I realized this was a classic “shifting the burden” type structure. Dislike Consequently I of good am focussing on writing implementing the fundamental solution. Improve writing skills 48 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Applications Example: Why the graduate school is having trouble recruiting (1 st stab) Good economy Increase foreign students Lack of enrollment Xenophobia Del ay “Fixes that fail” 49 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Applications Example: Why the graduate school is having trouble recruiting (2 nd stab) Lack of enrollment Xenophobia, students returning overseas, & ? ? ? De Good economy lay Increase foreign students and/or lower standards Make graduate school more economically “Shifting the burden” valuable 50 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Applications Example: Why the graduate school is having trouble recruiting (3 rd stab) Goal: great graduate students Gap Lack of enrollment Make grad school more economically valuable Delay Good economy Pressure to lower admissions standards “Eroding Goals” 51 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Applications Example: Why the graduate school is having trouble recruiting (4 th stab) Success of economy Industry get students faster Students go to industry rather than grad. school Grad. School struggles Grad school gets less students “Success to the Successful” 52 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Applications My solution: Eroding Goals Success to the successful Success of economy Industry get students faster Goal: great graduate students Students go to industry rather than grad. school Gap Grad. School struggles Make graduate school more economically valuable Shifting the burden: fundamental solution Pressure to lower admissions standards Fix that fails Increase foreign and/or mediocre students Delay Lack of enrollment De lay Foreign students return overas +/mediocre students get grad. degrees Unintended consequence Xenophobia, (+possible less commitment to university / state / national vision) Shifting the burden: symptomatic solution Dela y Management principles from the combined systems archetypes point toward a long term focus, strengthening the fundamental solution, holding the vision, and disregarding the short term symptomatic solution if possible. 53 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization

V Conclusion We have now had an overview of Learning Organizations, the Five Disciplines, and how we might apply these techniques to CREDO and Clemson… The obvious question is, Where do we go from here? Opportunity for dialogue… 54 Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization