Senge's Fifth Discipline: A Model For School Leadership

Senge's Fifth Discipline:A Model for School LeadershipDonna B. Feldman, Ph.D. Cleveland Heights High School and Lakeland Community CollegeThe field of education routinely adoptssystems developed and used in otherprofessions. The practice of instructionalrounds comes from physicians. The use ofconsultancies and issues of accountability hails fromcorporate practices. Specific, unbending directivesfrom a central office mimic a monarchy or dictatorship.Often these professional habits involve strategies forpolicing teachers rather than suggestions for specificgrowth as an organization. The theory of institutionalgrowth as outlined in Senge's The Fifth Discipline:The Art and Practice of the Learning Organizationwould be far more beneficial for schools to adoptthan most other routines and procedures taken fromother professionals. That schools are not growinginstitutions is counterintuitive.Senge defines a growing institution as one that "iscontinually expanding its capacity to create its future"(Senge 2006, 14). To achieve this goal, he identifiesfive components or disciplines that must be followed;if all are not followed, the depth of learning will becompromised. If the five disciplines are followed asintended and not in isolation, the potential for schoolimprovement is great, and teachers will become moreengaged in helping create a successful environmentfor students and themselves to learn.Systems ThinkingThe first discipline, systems thinking, is the conceptualframework for an organization. It is the disciplinethat consists of the interrelatedness of the various55 ביטאון מכון מופ"ת 8 2013 מרס 8 50 גיליון The model of Peter Senge'sThe Fifth Discipline: The Artand Practice of the Learning Organization has successfullybeen used in the transformationof corporations into l earningorganizations. This article outlineshow his model of leadershipapplies to schools a nd definesthe obstacles which impede itsimplementation in education.

בימתדיון Personal MasteryThe concept of mastery is well-applied to education(Wong & Wong, 1998). Less so is the concept ofpersonal mastery. This discipline entails a "speciallevel of proficiency" (Senge, 2006, p. 7). It is thefocus of our efforts and the ability to see in anobjective manner, our sense of commitment, andthe deepening of our personal vision. Like otherprofessions, teaching requires the attainment ofcontinuing education units for renewed licensure.Mandatory professional development, while designedto improve school success, is not personal mastery;personal mastery is intrinsic and stems from a concretepersonal vision. Attaining personal mastery involvedcontinually focusing and refocusing on what is wantedand, once attained, permits a greater connection tothe world.A school will not become a learning organization ifemployees do not learn; however, individual learningautomatically does not necessarily produce a learningorganization (Senge 2006). Unlike other reforms orprograms imposed from outside sources, the basisfor Senge's model requires "ongoing bodies of studyand practice that people adopt as individuals andgroups" (Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith,Durtton, & Kleiner, 2000).Mental ModelsThe generalizations we make and the pictures orimages we form in our minds are our mental models,Senge's third discipline. Mental models increasepersonal awareness, influence what we see and howwe act (Senge, 2006) This discipline includes thesharing of our thinking with others effectively andhaving our thinking open to the influence of others.Working with mental models develops the skills ofreflection and inquiry. An end product of mentalmodels is the challenge of previous thinking, whichpaves the way for an examination of assumptionsand generalizations about organizational practices.In education, implementing this discipline requiresparts of the organization. The various departmentsand divisions of organizations are interdependent onone another and approached as such (Senge 2006).In schools, it is the realization that the first person astudent sees that day, whether a bus driver, secretary,or classroom teacher, makes an impact on her. Everyperson with whom the student interacts is a part ofthe system. This discipline is composed of and is aresult of the other four disciplines.Senge lists several "laws" for systems thinking. Whileall are important, it is perhaps the violation of his lastlaw that most undermines growth in schools – "thereis no blame" (Senge, 2006, p. 67). In true systemsthinking, all stakeholders are a part of a single systemand "there is no separate ‘other'" (p. 67). In practice, thesituation is far different. When explaining low studentproficiencies, college and university educators tendto blame high school teachers; high school teacherstend to blame their counterparts in middle school,and middle school teachers shift the blame to tendto blame elementary faculty, and most all educatorsblame the parents (Feldman, 2012). The reality ofeducation is that most faculty members, regardless ofgrade level taught, sees "other" and targets "other" forblame. Senge sees the relationships being the "cure"in creating and maintaining a learning organization.With relationships come dialogue and discussion anda start to systems thinking. Effective school leadershipshould foster and develop the needed dialogue anddiscussions needed for change.Dialogue and discussion require time. Time is also anobstacle in the development of relationships amongeducators. Teaching in itself is a time-consumingendeavor as teachers have lessons to plan, papers tograde, and mandatory professional development forlicensure. A systematic solution is to embed timefor teachers to meet and the skills where neededto create meaningful professional relationships. Byrespecting subordinates' time, school leaders showthey value and trust their faculty and staff.50 גיליון 8 2013 מרס 8 ביטאון מכון מופ"ת 56

Team learning requires proficiency in dialogue anddiscussion which can be complementary.The engagement of dialogue involves becoming awareof one's own assumptions, sharing one's assumptionswith other, and inviting others to inquire about one'sthoughts and beliefs. When dialogue happens, peoplelearn to think together (Senge, Cambron-McCabe,Lucas, Smith, Dutton, & Kleiner. 2000). Senge seesdialogue as causing exploration of complex issuesas members listen to one another while questioningtheir own views. The purpose of dialogue is to extendunderstanding. Discussion involves the presentationand defense of different views with the goal ofsupport for the best decision at hand. Unless teamslearn, there will be minimal or no growth in theorganization. Whereas the purpose of dialogue isnot to form a conclusion, the goal of discussion isto identify one. Discussion involves the presentationand defense of the different views espoused by thelearning team members with the goal of creatinga new view or opinion (Senge 2006). Productivediscussions result in a conclusion or course of action.True team learning fluctuates between the use ofboth dialogue and discussion.Schools currently have a vehicle for team learning,the professional learning community (PLC). Theliterature on PLCs indicates a wide variance ofinterpretation and implementation. Of the variousPLC models developed, Hord and Sommers' (2008) ismost logical to use when implementing Senge's fivedisciplines. Hord and Sommers defines five attributesof an effective PLC: (a) shared beliefs, values, andvisions; (b) shared and supportive leadership; (c)collective learning and its application; (d) supportiveconditions; and (e) shared personal practice (Hord,2008). The role of the educational leader is to a partof the creating of the vision, but she also shares thevision with other stakeholders. PLCs are dependenton whole school professional learning, involvement,and collaboration. Hord and Sommers acknowledgethat trust is a key part of PLCs and sees trust as agoal that requires substantial time and activities. A57 ביטאון מכון מופ"ת 8 2013 מרס 8 50 גיליון the creating of new definition of leadership andorganizational structure in terms of decision-making(Isaacson & Baumberg, 1992).Shared VisionPersonal mastery and the sharing of mental models arethe basis for creating a shared vision. Shared visionincludes the shared and collective goals, values, andmissions that characterize an organization. To trulyshare a vision, visions of the future are unearthed togain greater commitment and are not merely goals oroutcomes written and displayed in a hallway or office.It is evident in both the sharing of personal visionsand the physical space of the learning organization.Deriving a shared vision promotes trust from coworkersand creates a common identity. The key to successfulshared visions is communication. Shared visions arespread through enrollment or commitment ratherthan compliance. Employees who are enrolledor committed personally want the shared vision,whereas compliance is simply the acceptance ofanother's vision (Senge, 2006). Educational leaderscan move toward enrollment by inviting teachers tobe involved in the creation of the school's vision.When administrators create the vision in isolation,it will be merely tolerated by most staff.Team LearningIn any organization, be it a sports team, business,or school, the "intelligence of the team exceeds theintelligence of the individuals on the team" (Senge,2006, p. 9). This discipline begins with dialogue anda suspension of assumptions to permit the discoveryof insights through the free flow of ideas. A team isfar more than just a group of people who happen towork for the same company or in the same department.To be a learning team, members must have a sharedvision, comparable purpose, and complement another'sefforts. Team learning "is a process of aligning anddeveloping the capacity of a team to create theresults its members truly desire" (Senge, 2006, p.218) and building on personal mastery and vision.