Kim Woods Only (602 week 7 revised)

Building Learning Organizations

Brandman University

Chad Hurt

Instructor: Professor Bob Lawrence

Course: OLCU 602

9 February 2018

Leadership

System archetypes are usually commonly reoccurring patterns of behavior in the organization. Such patterns mostly result in negative consequences. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization is a popular 1990 book by Peter Senge that explores system archetypes and documents some of most common patterns of behavior in the organization that have the tendency of reoccurring.

Over the years, Toyota has recalled most of its cars than any other company in the world today. This is a reflection of bad management as well as a lack of interest from the side of the company. It is important to understand that big companies such as Toyota are well recognized worldwide hence have a reputation to protect and maintain. Hence, not taking such issues seriously is a sign of negligence and incompetence from their side. It is important to understand that Toyota might be increasing sales globally but as a result of this inexplicable behavior, it is losing charm and credibility.

There are different systems archetypes that can be witnessed herein. To start with is drifting the goals. This is a situation whereby there exists a disparity between the actual performance and the set goals. The conscious decision for many companies and managers in the world is to lower the goal so that it accommodates the achieved performance. It is important to understand that the result of this decision is gradual decline of the system performance. The second archetype is successful to the successful. This is a situation where two more efforts tend to compete for finite resources. Hence, the more successful effort tends to be allocated disproportionately larger resource allocation at the detriment of others.

Considering the learning disabilities, as an organization grows, effective management of the flow requires the move from one department to another. In the effort to make such teams more accountable, specific solutions are established to ensure the efforts that are being undertaken do not breed systemic thinking (Senge, 2010). For instance, some organizations will consider meeting their own members so as to push the work to the next level. Despite the fact that there is a probable win in the short term, the long-term sustainability of the organization triggers dire consequences. This is one of the reasons that make the customers remain disgruntled.

It is no accident that a vast majority of organizations such as Toyota learn poorly. This is manifested in the manner in which they are managed and designed, the manner in which the jobs of the people are defined and the way that people are taught on how to think and as well interact with other people. These are some of the aspects that create fundamental learning disabilities that operate despite the fact that there might be consistent best effort from brilliant and committed people. In other words, often the more they strive to remedy the existing problems, the worse the results that are achieved.

The illusion of taking charge is a disability evident in Toyota. In this case herein, people tend to mistake reactivity with proactivity. In other words, a problem may arise and people in the organization raise the concern and the efforts to contain the impending shortcoming. However, in some occasions, if the leaders are not proactive to orchestrate effective and realistic solutions, it is difficult to address the problem with utmost efficiency and diligence (Senge, 2010).

As mentioned above, the major problem facing Toyota is lack of innovative efforts. For instance, since the business world is significantly dynamic, it is difficult to find a company that has maintained the same product design for a long period of time. This is because the tastes and preferences of the customers tend to change with time. It is for this reason that the company has been losing customers because of lost satisfaction and focus on products that do not reflect their demand patterns. This is, in fact, what has also made it not become a learning organization.

Considering drifting the goals, this archetype affects the organization in the sense that leaders tend to become overoptimistic such that even the most successful decisions are not treated proactively. It is important to understand that decisions in an organization must be made consultatively and consensus must be arrived so that assignment of tasks and duties is done in the most effective manner. In other words, actual performance must be aligned with the set goals so that issues that tend to impend their achievement are addressed in the most efficient manner. The second archetype is successful to the successful that lays emphasis how management is carried out in the event of limited resources. In other words, Toyota has not invested immensely in innovation as it has done in marketing. These are two conflicting entities. However, the latter is more critical as the products and services of an organization tend to lose credibility and charm once they fail to meet the demands and preferences of the customer. It follows that well-thought strategies must be implemented to ensure that organizational performance is optimized and prioritized as much as possible.

A keen analysis of the performance issues facing Toyota shows that the company lacks the aspect of proactiveness in its pursuits. For instance, the management of the company has reported the issue in the company as one of the major challenges behind its dismal performance today. However, the management has not been proactive enough to contain the situation before it worsens further. Much needs to be done to make sure that innovation is given more attention. It is of imperative to underscore the fact that it is difficult to maintain a talent pool of brilliant employees in an environment where there are inadequate resources allocated for research and development. Hence, because it is well known that Toyota has done very little to ensure that its products are competitive in the global arena, much needs to be do be done to make sure that the challenge has been addressed proactively. Taking a proactive approach will help Toyota address some of the pertinent issues undermining its growth and development today.

Recommendation and Action Plan

Systems learning can be used to analyze the patterns in the organization as an approach to addressing the prevailing problem at Toyota. It supposes that a holistic viewpoint other than the small unrelated manageable parts can help solve innovation issues in the organization. It is important to understand that the set of common system archetypes exhibit their own distinctive storyline. Such a storyline is universal and tend to have the understanding of individual manifestations evident inside organizations. Senge (2010) describes the approach of system leaning in terms of the elephant metaphor. Hence, when the elephant is split into two, this does not mean that there are two small elephants that can be taken care of. In other words, it is only one big elephant that is taken care of.

From the understanding above, an organization tend to behave just like a living organism. It is for this reason that Senge supposed that it should be managed onerously. A holistic approach to management is all inclusive and every person in the organization is accordance significance. Whether in the management level or the subordinate staff, every person is important when it comes to the progress of an organization.

One of the ways in which the systems learning approach should be executed is based on explanation of the employees. For instance, in the production line, the employees are the ones that interact with the machines every now and them. The work of the management is just mere oversight. Hence, the hands-on skills are possessed by the employees meaning that they have full understanding of the weaknesses and strengths of a given machine. Hence, whenever changes are being made in an organization, it means that these employees must be consulted holistically to ensure that the major issues that are critical to the organizational progress are addressed and the results optimized.

There are three explanations that can be used to explain the systems approach. This is the reactive explanation based on events, behavior and structural level. The three ways of explaining the systems approach are intertwined and linked to one another. Specifically, the latter leads to the second one which eventually leads to certain events in the first one.

With the above understanding, the best way to orchestrate change of events in an organization is to change the system. In other words, the rationale herein is to restructure the system in such a manner that the productivity of every employee is optimized as much as

possible (Flood, 2017). For instance, the IT people should never be assigned procurement duties. If this happens, it means that incompetence is inevitable. Unless there is a proper match between skills and expertise, it means that dismal performance will unequivocally be reported. Changing the system in such a manner that every employee is assigned duties in the areas where they are passionate about enhances productivity and motivates them to pursue the organization’s agenda as much as possible.

The systems approach focuses on lifelong learning. It is vital for the organization because what is learnt is eventually implemented and the results are felt in the organization. Hence, the more people in the company learn, the more value they tend to create for the organization. For instance, talking in terms of tasks can only result in lack of accountability for the services and products the company delivers.

One of the constraints for learning in an organization is the ‘enemy is there syndrome.’ It results from the ‘I-am-my-position syndrome’. This is witnessed when the company focuses on the tasks that are performed in an organization rather the value that employees add to the company as far its goals and objectives are concerned (Thite, 2017). In other words, when more emphasis is laid on tasks rather than results, the aspect of accountability is undermined.

It is imperative to understand that when people are task-focused, they do not care about the influence they have in the organization. It is for this reason that they view others as the root cause of the issues affecting the organization. Whenever the blame game arises, it means that the

focus is not on results but to complete the assigned tasks and duties irrespective of the results that are achieved in the organization. The management should design the systems in such a manner that results are optimized as much as possible.

As the starting point for the systems thinking, Senge described nine system archetypes. These are behavior patterns that deserve the attention of the management. To start with, there is a delay between when the actions are executed and the long-term results that are achieved at the end of a given process. Secondly, it is important for the management to understand that there is a pattern of limited growth. Hence, the focus must be given on these activities that improve the status of the organization and smoothen the operations. In other words, the firm should stress the growth accelerating factors and deviate from the growth limiting factors (Vaiman, 2017).

The systems learning emphasize solving the problem rather than reacting on it. For instance, on some occasions, the management of an organization may focus on the symptoms of a particular problem rather than addressing its root cause. This means that the problem must recur not only in the same department but also in the entire organization. As mentioned earlier, being proactive is one of the most effective approaches to the organization’s issues that mainly arise as a result of change. Being proactive enable the management to make evidence based solutions. This means that every decision that is made is based on data rather than mere imaginations that a certain issue may arise. Some organizations as well as managers are affected by the problem of procrastination. Instead of solving a problem, they postpone it and when crisis

looms, this is the time they starting grappling on the most effective approach of addressing such an issue. As mentioned earlier, the systems learning discourage deteriorating goals. This is especially when the situation gets tough. In other words, whatever the circumstances, the leader is tasked with the mandate to ensure that when the situations get tough, they also get harder upholding persistence and resilience in a manner that best serves the interests of the organization.

Being successful as a leader requires a lot of commitment because challenges are numerous. Problems follow one another consistently. It is important to understand from the systems learning that goals address a crisis and not because of any other reason. For instance, resources are limited to solve finite financial obligations. Hence, because of this challenge, the organizational goals and objectives are aimed at serving as the mantra for guiding the stakeholders. They are the guiding star that offers direction that every employee should follow. The mission and vision of the company also offer direction and especially makes the organization not to lose focus during tough times. In the times of crisis, many challenges ensue and the managers may find it difficult to cope up with them as the accountability officers of the company. It is for this reason that some may even end up setting inferior goals because of the fear of failure. However, the leaders who thrive in a crisis are leading some of the most prominent and successful organizations in the world today (Lawrimore, 2018).

According to the systems learning, the leaders should also beware of the escalation loop. For instance, price wars among organizations undermine the progress for both of them. Each entity

will strive to set their prices as low as possible to attract more customers and increase sales. However, some firms may go to the extent of contemplating a loss leader so as to capture the attention of the customers and make them prefer their products and ditch those of the competitor. This is a significantly dangerous move. It follows that some companies may fail to recognize this approach and may end up competing on this basis. This greatly negates the profitability of an organization to the extent of even making it become unable to manage its operational and overhead costs.

Revisiting the ‘success to the successful’ archetype, it is not a policy fit for the long-term (Lawrimore, 2018). This is because despite the fact that an organization is facing the challenge of inadequate resources, there is no challenge that is less critical or too small to be ignored. Hence, the management should focus on prioritization rather than ignoring organizational problems on the basis of the less important approach. Take for instance the issue of employee training and the purchase of a machine that is critical to the production process of the organization. Each one of them is urgent but that of purchasing the machine is even more urgent. This does not mean that the machine should be purchased at the expense of employee training. This is a dangerous and an unacceptable move. If the employees’ training is ignored, it means that a critical solution will not be solved. In other words, the short-term issues can accrue long-term managerial issues that are key precursors of dismal performance in an organization.

Overall, besides the systems learning, having a shared vision is an effective way of managing change in an organization. As mentioned earlier, a vision is authentic and the

employee will focus on the improvement processes so that they drive the organization closer to accomplishing its vision. In order to win physically, one must have won intrinsically. This can be evaluated in terms of the mental models including the generalizations and presumptions that the employees have that eventually impact on how they perform their actions.

Proactiveness and teamwork complements the systems learning discipline. Hence, the management should be keen when handling related issues because they are critical to the progress of the organization. In a nutshell, leaders are tasked with a tough role but the level of success that they achieve solely depend their approach to things especially in the times of crisis. It follows that this is the most vital time when leaders must strive to optimize the decision making process to make it as effective as possible. Evidence-based decision making is among the major factors that can lead to the accomplishment of optimal results. In other words, leaders must be situational in their pursuits. Otherwise it becomes difficult to solve a crisis strategically amid competition and pressure from all corners of the organization.

References

Flood, R. L. (2017). Rethinking the fifth discipline: learning within the unknowable. London: Routledge.

Lawrimore, E. W. (2018). The 5 key success factors: a powerful system for total business success. Charlotte, NC: Lawrimore Communications.

Senge, P. M. (2010). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Thite, M. (2017). Managing people in the new economy: targeted HR practices that persuade people to unlock their knowledge power. New Delhi: Response Books.

Vaiman, R. (2017). Employee-Organization Relationship: applications for the 21st century. S.l.: Taylor & Francis.