Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning Organisation or Learning Community? A Critique of Senge

  • Published:
Philosophy of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper takes a close look at a central aspect of the work of Peter Senge,1 namely his advocacy of the learning organisation and the ‘Communities of Commitment’ that he suggests are its central dynamic. Echoing strands of the liberal-communitarian debate, Senge argues for ‘the primacy of the whole’ and ‘the community nature of the self ’ as two of the three Galilean shifts2 which have the potential to enable business to accomplish fundamental changes in our ways of thinking and being which have thus far eluded other agencies of social and political transformation. My concern is that Senge is not at all clear about the relationship between organisation and community, or, indeed, what community actually is. Arguing that his account is disappointingly partial and damagingly flawed, I then suggest a number of sites for future philosophical work for those who wish to develop an emancipatory notion of community. I end by advocating the work of John Macmurray as a major source of philosophical insight and human wisdom, both with regard to community and the development of a person-centred philosophy of work. A second paper will explore some of this ideas on these matters more fully..

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. See Senge, P The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization Century Business, London 1990; Senge, P ‘The Leader’s New Work: Building Learning Organisations’ Sloan Management Review 22 (1) Fall 1990 pp 7–23; Senge, P ‘The Learning Organization Made Plain’ Training & Development October 1991 pp 37–44; Kofman F & Senge P M ‘Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations’ Organizational Dynamics 22 (2) Autumn 1993 pp 5–23; Senge P, Roberts C, Ross R C, Smith B J, & Kleiner A The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization Nicholas Brealey, London 1994; Senge P, Kleiner A, Roberts C, Ross R, Roth G, & Smith B The Dance of Change: The Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations Nicholas Brealey, London 1999; and O’Neil J ‘On Schools as Learning Organisations: A Conversation with Peter Senge’ Educational Leadership 52 (7) April 1995 pp 20–23. Senge is not, of course, alone in developing and promoting the notion of a learning organisation. The literature is now substantial. For a useful, short overview see Jones A & Hendry C ‘The Learning Organization: Adult Learning and Organizational Transformation’ British Journal of Management 5, 1994 pp 153–162. They locate the emergence of the term (though not the idea) in the USA with Hayes R H, Wheelwright S C, & Clark K B Dynamic Manufacturing: Creating the Learning Organization Free Press, New York 1988. In the UK they locate the term’s emergence with Pedler M, Burgoyne J, & Boydell T The Learning Company Project: A Report on Work Undertaken October 1987 to April 1988 The Training Agency, Sheffield 1988; Pedler M, Burgoyne T & Boydell T ‘Towards the Learning Company’ Management Education & Development 20 (1) 1989 pp 1–8; and Pedler M, Burgoyne T & Boydell T The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development McGraw Hill, London 1991. In this paper I will be drawing primarily, though by no means exclusively, on Kofman & Senge’s ‘Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations’ (1993) since, as the title suggests, it provides one of Senge’s most focused tr eatments of community and its place in the learning organisation

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kofman & Senge op cit1993 p 7

  3. Barber, M ‘No More Marx. Future success is in your imagination’ Times Educational Supplement April 3, 1998 p 20

  4. Barber, M ‘Chelsea scores an own goal for learning society’ Times Educational Supplement March 6, 1998 p 22

  5. Fielding, M ‘Taking Education Really Seriously: Four Years Hard Labour’ in Fielding, M (ed) Taking Education Really Seriously: Four Years Hard Labour Routledge Falmer, London 2001 pp 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gardner, J W Building Community Independent Sector, New York 1991 p 15

    Google Scholar 

  7. Senge 1991 loc cit p 42

  8. Ibid p 38

  9. Senge 1991 loc cit

  10. Kofman & Senge 1993 p 22

  11. Ibid

  12. Kofman & Senge 1993 loc cit p 5

  13. Ibid p 19

  14. Ibid p 6

  15. At various points in this paper Kofman and Senge do themselves no favours by making claims that are wildly overblown. For example, their claim to be making ‘Galilean’ shifts is, to say the least, immodest. I realise that with the intellectual hype and postmodern turbulence of the early 21st Century one can hardly draw breath before someone else has claimed another paradigm shift on our behalf. However, I would have thought that Kofman and Senge’s work has enough internal str ength to make recourse to G alilean imager y unnecessary.

  16. Ibid

  17. Ibid p 14

  18. Ibid

  19. Ibid p 16

  20. Ibid

  21. I take Senge to task for this carefree oscillation in ‘Organisation, Community and the Dangers of Linguistic Sleight of Hand’ below

  22. Coopey, J ‘The Learning Organization, Power, Politics and Ideology’ Management Learning 26(2) 1995 pp 193–213 (quotation p 197)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Willmott, H ‘Postmodernism and Excellence: The De-differentiation of Economy and Culture’ Journal of Organizational Change Management 5(1) 1992 pp 58–68 (quotation p 65)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Compare Alvesson, M & Willmott, H ‘On the Idea of Emancipation in Management and Organization Studies’ Academy of Management Review 17(3) 1992 pp 432–464 (quotation p 434)

    Google Scholar 

  25. du Gay, P ‘Making up managers: bureaucracy, enterprise and the liberal art of separation’ British Journal of Sociology 45(4) 1994 pp 655–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Grey, C ‘Towards a Critique of Managerialism: The Contribution of Simone Weil’ Journal of Management Studies 33(5) September 1996 pp 591–611(quotation p 604)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ibid

  28. Brown, D S ‘The ‘Essences’ of the Fifth Discipline: Or Where Does Senge Stand to View the World?’ Systems Research 13(2) 1996 pp 91–107 (quotation p 101); Lyons, D The Electronic Eye: The Rise of the Surveillance Society Polity Press, Cambridge 1992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Coopey op cit 1995 p 202

  30. Ibid p 203

  31. Brown 1996 op cit

  32. Scarborough, H & Corbett, M Technology and Organization Routledge, London 1992

    Google Scholar 

  33. Brown op cit 1996 pp 100–101

  34. Brown op cit 1996 p 106)

  35. Coopey op cit 1995 p 199

  36. Kofman & Senge op cit 1993 p 22

  37. Brown op cit 1996 p 99

  38. Supek, R ‘Organisation as an Intermediary Between the Individual and Society: The Democratic and Humanitarian Form of Organisation’ in Horvat B, Markovic M, & Supek R (eds) Self-Governing Socialism Vol.2 M.E. Sharp, New York 1975 pp 49–60

    Google Scholar 

  39. Willmott, H ‘Strength is Ignorance; Slavery is Freedom: Managing Culture in Modern Organizations’ Journal of Management Studies 30(4) 1993 pp 515–552 (quotation pp 524–525)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Senge insists that the redefined role of leaders in a learning organisation is enormously demanding (eg Senge ‘The Leader’s New Work’ loc cit 1990 pp 8, 22) and that, leadership is the prime responsibility of those “at the top” (Senge loc cit 1991 p 38). In his later, joint paper with Fred Kofman he is equally emphatic that in the learning organisation ‘leaders are those building the new organisation and its capabilities... the ones ‘walking ahead’ regardless of their management position or hierarchical authority" and the observation that "such leadership is inevitably collective (Kofman & Senge op cit 1993 p 17).

  41. Senge ‘the Leader’s New Work’ loc cit 1990 p 11

  42. Ibid

  43. Kofman & Senge op cit 1993 p 19

  44. Willmott, H op cit 1993 p 525

  45. Senge op cit 1991 p 38

  46. Willmott op cit 1992 p 63

  47. Rose, N ‘Governing the enterprising self’ in: Heelas, P & Morris, P (eds) The Values of the Enterprise Culture Routledge, London 1992 pp 141–164

    Google Scholar 

  48. Grey op cit 1996 p 604

  49. Deetz, S ‘Disciplinary Power in Modern Corporations’ in Alvesson, M & Willmott, H (eds) Critical Management Studies Sage, London 1992 pp 21–45

    Google Scholar 

  50. Coopey op cit 1995 p 209

  51. Randall, D M ‘Commitment and the Organisation: The Organisation Man Revisited’ Academy of Management Review 12(3) 1987 pp 460–371 (quotation p 467)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Brown, J S ‘Research that Re-invents the Corporation’ Harvard Business Review January/February 1991 pp 147–179

  53. Jones & Hendry op cit 1994 p 156

  54. Ibid p 159

  55. Ibid p 160)

  56. Drucker, P F ‘The New Society of Organisations’ Harvard Business Review 70(5) September–October 1992 pp 95–104. “Executives in an organization — whether business or university or the Boy Scouts — must believe that its mission and task are society’s most important mission and task as well as the foundation of everything else. If they do not believe this, their organization will soon lose faith in itself, self-confidence, pride, and the ability to perform.” (p 103)

    Google Scholar 

  57. See for example Fraser, E & Lacey, N The Politics of Community: A Feminist Critique of the Liberal-Communitarian Debate Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead 1993; Plant, R ‘Community: Concept, Conception and Ideology’ Politics & Society 8 (1) 1978 pp 79–107

  58. Ree, J ‘Selflessness’ London Review of Books 8 May 1997 pp 16–19

  59. It is both interesting and encouraging to note that recent work in sociology (eg Giddens, A Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics Polity Press, Oxford 1994), political philosophy (eg Fraser & Lacey op cit 1993) and philosophy of education (eg Noddings, N ‘On Community’ Educational Theory 46 (3) Summer 1996 pp 245–267) seems to be giving fresh impetus to some of the insights Macmurray began to offer us some sixty years ago.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sussex, Sussex, USA

    Michael Fielding (Reader in Education)

Authors
  1. Michael Fielding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fielding, M. Learning Organisation or Learning Community? A Critique of Senge. Philos. of Manag. 1, 17–29 (2001). https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20011211

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20011211

Keywords

Search

Navigation