Before a successful attempt to reflect on Senge’s and Goodwin’s book in relation to the topic of organizational learning can be accomplished, I must indulge myself a couple of things in hopes my dissatisfaction will not hang over and color each word I write. To be honest, this may be one of the most painful writing assignments I have ever endured. Senge’s book does not attract me in any way as I begin to write this paper. In contrast to Gardner’s Leading Minds, Northouse’s Leadership, Myers’s Gifts Differing, Shafritz’s, Classics…, Senge does not leave me wishing I had more time to spend understanding the material and internalizing the concepts. I simply do not get it, and I have no intrinsic desire to get it. There are several points with which I have experienced considerably difficulty: vocabulary, structure, and style. If it were Senge’s desire was to keep his audience at arm’s length, he succeeded by his unnecessary use of jargon and created phrases such as “technologies.” His stringing together of words and phrases, which almost undermine each other, is evident in his explanation of disabilities and the "delusion" of learning from experience. He writes, “Traditionally, organizations attempt to surmount the difficulty of coping with the breadth of impact from decisions by breaking themselves into components” (Senge, 2006, p. 24). This passage reminds me of the kindergarten song about the hole in the bottom of the sea. His Poe-esque style shows when he condescends with his explanation of the words “mastery” and “discipline.” Basically, this text was difficult for me to read, and I really do not have a good explanation. I understand Senge’s scholarly position. I am just frustrated that valuable material is hidden behind elevated speech and style unnecessarily.
When reflecting on Senge’s Organizational Theory in regards to Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals his component technologies may become apparent. This case study’s intent will review Lincoln’s decisions as outlined by Goodwin and Dr. Hubbard through the writings of Senge. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization is a book by Peter Senge that focuses on group problem solving using the systems thinking method in order to convert companies into learning organizations. The five disciplines represent approaches (theories and methods) for developing three core learning capabilities: fostering aspiration, developing reflective conversation, and understanding complexity (The Fifth Discipline, 2010). The question becomes whether or not Lincoln was able to convert his cabinet into a true learning organization.
Lincoln was unaware of leadership theory, organization theory, and the idea of learning organizations since they had not been discovered, researched, and/or written about. This fact makes it even more amazing that he was able to accomplish much of what he did almost as if he had an executive leadership handbook in his possession. Much has been written about Lincoln’s approach with his generals (Borritt, 1994; Davis, 1999; Donald, 1995; Gienapp, 2002; Leidner, 2002; Markley, 2006; Phillips, 1992; Williams, 2002; Williams, Pederson, & Marsala, 1994) and although Senge’s ideas could be applied to Lincoln regarding the military and the American public, I will take a purposive approach rather than an exhaustive one and limit this discussion to his cabinet due to the nature of Goodwin’s book to answer the question. Smith states that for Senge the dimension that distinguishes learning from more traditional organizations is the mastery of certain basic disciplines or “component technologies” (2001). The five components (Systems thinking, Personal mastery, Mental models, Building shared vision, and Team learning) that Peter Senge identifies are said to be “converging to innovate learning organizations” (2006, p. 6). I will look at each of these components as I discuss Lincoln’s decisions concerning the make-up of his cabinet.
Hubbard (2010) and Goodwin (2005) agree that Lincoln carefully selected his cabinet and both seem to support his choices during the creation of his cabinet. There are some differences in their opinions, but they seem to hang on the semantics of the word friend. It seems to be more important to Goodwin that Lincoln and his cabinet members were true friends while Hubbard maintains that Lincoln guarded himself to the point that he kept himself from really have what would be called a friend by today’s standards. It is true that because of his choices he was able to accomplish more than he could have by himself or otherwise, and he was also able to elevate the work and accomplishments of those in his cabinet. According to Hubbard’s speech (2010) Lincoln had several strong supporters who lobbied the delegates at the nominating convention, and their goal was for Lincoln to make no enemies and be everyone’s second choice. He needed to placate people from different regions and people who had different politics. He made sure to have appointees from as many states as possible: Burlingame, a Republican with free soil and know-nothing roots, from Massachusetts via Michigan and Ohio; Clay, a passionate abolitionist/Republican, and Speed, a Republican/former-Whig, from Kentucky; Wells, a democrat from Maine; Seward (Republican) from New York; Chase (Republican) from Ohio; Cameron, a Republican/peoples-party member, from Pennsylvania; and Bates, a sort-of-Republican, in that he never officially became a Republican (Goodwin, 2005, p. 26), with Whig roots, from Missouri via Maryland and Virginia. For this paper, I intend on focusing on Seward, Chase, Bates, and Stanton, even though Stanton was not one of his original appointees.
According to Goodwin (2005), Seward, a senator for decades and governor for two terms, was the “favorite” candidate for the 1860 nomination not Lincoln. Seward needed a first-ballot victory at the 1860 Chicago convention. But, Seward had some problems. He had enemies. Seward made the statement “call upon the ‘higher law’ not the Constitution” referring to God, which stamped Seward as a radical in the western states and ended up giving Lincoln the advantage when the election of 1860 came. He had met Lincoln twelve years earlier where he ironically encouraged Lincoln to clarify and intensify his moderate position on slavery. Besides being involved in public service, Goodwin (2005) points out other qualities: admirable, political courage, unquestionable integrity, impressive intelligence, good nature, genial deposition, kind, lenient, frank, reliable, patriotic, leader of anti-slavery. She still acknowledges some weaknesses: he had enemies in other states and in his home state of NY, assumed he would be nominated, prepared resignation for Senate before ballot announcement, negative, flamboyant, enjoyed celebrity, shifting ground to strengthen his own ambition, radical, opportunistic, and jealous.
His strategy was to win the nomination on 1st ballot.
With regards to Chase’s political strengths, Goodwin (2005) points out that he was the Ohio Senator and Governor; he helped with the formation of the national Republican Party, he dressed meticulously; he had daily scripture readings with family; he was punctual; he was a massive contributor to formation of Republican Party; and he argued antislavery principles in Biblical terms. It also important to note that he, having never met Lincoln, campaigned for Lincoln and the Republican Party in Illinois in 1858. Some of his weaknesses were that he was more radical than Seward, and he suffered from presidential fever; he believed he owed it to the country and the country owed it to him, and it was evident in his lack of a campaign. His strategy was simple: To prevent Seward from getting nominated on 1st ballot.
Bates also had several political strengths according to Goodwin (2005). He was an elder statesman, a delegate to the convention, and he formed the Missouri Constitution. He was a congressman whose opinion on national matters were widely sought. He also served as judge of St. Louis land court. He valued family and declined offers to run for public government offices. Bates was a former slaveholder who emancipated his slaves while opposing both radical abolition in the North and proslavery in the South. He acknowledges that he never joined the Republican Party officially. He believed that slavery must be restricted to the states where it already existed and that is was necessary to prevent the expansion of slavery. Goodwin (2005) describes him as a peacemaker. He and Lincoln met briefly when Lincoln sat in the audience as Bates delivered a mesmerizing speech to the River/Harbor Convention. Some of his weaknesses are that was reluctant to allow his name to be entered for nomination because he felt he stood in second place. His strategy was to return the nation to peace, progress and prosperity.
Next, it is important to discuss Senge’s five component technologies (Systems thinking, Personal mastery, Mental models, Building shared vision, and Team learning) as it pertains to Lincoln’s cabinet.
Systems thinking is the fifth discipline. It is, according to Senge (2006), where all four of the other components converge. It is a conceptual framework, a body of knowledge and tools that has been developed over the past fifty years, to make the full patterns clear, and to help us see how to change them effectively. There is the on-going debate of whether or not Lincoln acted deliberately to dictate outcomes, or if he just reacts successfully to events. There are several examples. Did he force the first shot at Sumter or was it just “dumb-luck?” Was the issuing of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation deliberate or happenstance? Was his selection of generals arbitrary, and most importantly, were the selections for his cabinet well-crafted or merely coincidental. If one were to look at each of the events during Lincoln’s tenure in isolation, one might be able to say that these events being successful were coincidental, but when one looks at the bigger picture, as Senge would have his audience do, the most logical response is that he had an uncanny ability to predict all of the possible outcomes. It is almost as if he dictated the outcomes. Lincoln used his habit of reflection, his ability to mold the perception of his contemporaries, his gift for efficiently incorporating the story of others into his own vision, and his affinity for synergy to create an evolving learning organization (albeit a work in progress) within his cabinet. These were Lincoln’s “component technologies.” Lincoln had refined and practically applied Senge’s organizational learning theories one hundred and thirty years before Senge first published them.
The first of the four converging components is Personal mastery which is the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively. According to Senge (2006) this is an essential cornerstone of organizational learning. Lincoln believed firmly in the art of reflection. There is ample evidence of the importance President Lincoln put on the habit of reflection (Lincoln, 1953). A simple search shows more than fifty references from Lincoln himself to reflection. He even refers to Douglas’s affinity for becoming wiser in his “House-divided Speech in 1858 by offering a critique. Senge believes that people with a high level of personal mastery are able to consistently realize the results that matter most deeply to them. (Senge, 2006, p. 7).
An organization's commitment to learning and capacity for learning can be no greater than that of its members. Lincoln began with himself and created an expectation for others by holding them accountable to their actions and words.
Mental Models are deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how people understand the world and how they take action. One can only assume what Lincoln’s cabinet members viewed symbolically, but it is safe to say Lincoln was able to help mold their perceptions via his communication skills. He was able to identify those common threads from among much diversity by identifying and accentuating the positive that each had to offer. A perfect example is how he handled Seward early in his presidency. According to Phillips (1994), Seward thought he would be able to lead the country and even select the remainder of Lincoln’s cabinet, but Lincoln firmly handled the situation by gaining Seward’s trust. He did the same thing with Stanton upon the death of Stanton’s child (Hubbard, 2010). Both men honored Lincoln with their words. Seward, in a letter to his wife, indicated that Lincoln is “the best of us” (Thomas, 1952, p. 269). And, Stanton is the one who is credited with saying, “Now, he belongs to the ages” which is the epitome of the mental model.
Perhaps Lincoln’s strongest gift was his ability to reaffirm the vision he shared with cabinet members. Building Shared Vision, according to Senge (2006) is the capacity to hold a shared picture of the future we seek to create. People excel and learn, not because they are told to, but because they want to. Senge likens the phenomenon to sexual desire. Several sources discuss Lincoln’s ability to share the vision. Phillips (1994, p.165) points out that Lincoln preached the vision throughout the four years of his administration. He made sure that is was clear and concise. Lincoln shared this vision through speeches, letters, and conversations. This practice of shared vision involves the skills of unearthing shared “pictures of the future” that foster genuine commitment and enrollment rather than compliance. Lincoln is reported to spend hours at the home of Seward, at the offices of the War Department with Stanton (Goodwin, 2005).
Team Learning is another of Lincoln’s best attributes. Hubbard (2010) points out that they, Lincoln and his cabinet, accomplished more together than they could have ever accomplished individually. Senge (2006) tells us that when teams are truly learning, not only are they producing extraordinary results, but the individual members are growing more rapidly than could have occurred otherwise. The discipline of team learning starts with “dialogue.” The capacity of members of a team to suspend assumptions and enter into genuine “thinking together.”
Lincoln definitely encountered learning disabilities or roadblocks. He was able to turn most of them into advantages through careful analysis and pragmatic decision making. With Seward he battled the “I am my own position.” It is when people focus only on their position within the organization and have little sense of responsibility for the results produced. He confronted the roadblock Senge calls “The enemy is out there” by taking responsibility and allowing the blame placers to confront each other. An example can be seen in 1863 when Lincoln allows Chase to outed. There syndrome is when we focus only on our position; we do not see how our own actions extend beyond the boundary of that position. Lincoln tackles“The illusion of taking charge” by appointing Stanton and learning about strategy. “The parable of the boiled frog” is handled classically in Lincoln’s dealing with his cabinet and the respective releases of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation and the actual one. Lincoln is also careful to not be the boiled frog. This is illustrated when he accepts the resignation letters of both Seward and Chase, but does not act on them right away. He calls them pumpkins in each saddle bag (Hubbard, 2010). This roadblock is in relation to the maladaptation of organizations, according to Senge to recognize gradually building threats to survival; just as the frog placed in a pot of water brought to boiling temperature will not attempt to jump out of the pot but adjusts to the temperature and slowly dies (2005).
Lincoln’strategies were successful. His main strategies were to balance his cabinet, both politically and geographically, and to give as much, information, pressure, etcetera, as could be handled by his cabinet members and the American public. He embraced, without knowing it, Senge’s strategy of “Starting Where You Are with Whoever Is There.” He also was able to “build learning communities” before it was popular. He was able to build relationships and have “Conversations with Heart and Meaning.” It can be argued that Lincoln was the father of the small learning community that is a popular trend in public schools. Another successful strategy that Lincoln employed was “Working with the Other - Building Bridges to Traditional Nonpartners.”
Finally, Lincoln’s choices were deliberate and fit well within Senge’s theories. His choices and methods also fit within several concepts encountered within the EdD program. He recognizes his story, the embedded stories, and by incorporating those into his own he is successful (Gardner, 1995). He is able to use efficiently Bolman and Deals frames of organizational theory especially the symbolic frame. He knew his own strengths and weaknesses and chose people to complement him. Goodwin (2005) points out the following:
“He has called around him in counsel,” the [Charleston, South Carolina]Mercury marveled, “the ablest and most earnest men of his country. Where he has lacked individual ability, experience or statesmanship, he has sought it, and found it.… Force, energy, brains, earnestness, he has collected around him in every department.”
Lincoln did not mind being challenged. His legacy and place in history was important to him. He wanted to make sure that he put the best people in the best position. Again, Goodwin (2005, p. 318) shows that his confidence allowed him to take such risks:
Lincoln’s “first decision was one of great courage and self-reliance.” Each of his rivals was “sure to feel that the wrong man had been nominated.” A less confident man might have surrounded himself with personal supporters who would never question his authority. Pp. 318 319
The thing that Lincoln adds to modern leadership theory is his sixth sense. His ability to forecast the outcome of events. He did so without tea leaves or crystal balls. He did so with powerful analytical skills and a didactic nature that almost seemed to allow him to repel mistakes. He was able to turn them into positive outcomes. Goodwin (2005, p. 104) aggrees when she says“His crowning gift of political diagnosis was due to his sympathy … which gave him the power to forecast with uncanny accuracy what his opponents were likely to do.”
A great deal of growth has occurred since I began to complete this assignment. I am deliberately leaving the introduction the way it is. I have a better appreciation of Senge’s work and now sincerely feel as though the ideas he presents are worth internalizing. I have even noticed the Phillips’s book; specifically the last chapter about preaching a (shared) vision draws from or at least has been indirectly influenced by Senge .
References
Borritt, G. S. (Ed.). (1994). Lincoln’s Generals. New York: Oxford University Press.
Davis, W. C. (1999). Lincoln’s men: How President Lincoln became father to an army and a nation. New York: The Free Press.
Donald, D. H. (1995). Lincoln. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
The Fifth Discipline. (2010, May 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:26, July 6, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fifth_Discipline&oldid=364099659
Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York: Basic Books
Gienapp, W.E. (2002). Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America: A biography. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goodwin, D. K. (2005). Team of rivals: The political genius of Abraham Lincoln. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
Hubbard, C. M. (2010, June). Lincoln and the selection of his cabinet. Speech presented in organizational development class for Lincoln Memorial University's EdD in executive leadership, Harrogate, TN.
Leidner, G. (2002, Fall). Lincoln as a transformation leader. The Lincoln Herald, 104 (3), 97 – 118.
Lincoln, A. (1953). The collected works of Abraham Lincoln (R.P. Basler, Ed.). (Vols. 1-8). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Retrieved from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/
Manzke, T. (2008). Listening and responding through storytelling: How Abraham Lincoln used short stories during his presidency. (Ph.D. dissertation, Cardinal Stritch University, United States – Wisconsin). Retrieved July 18, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT 3343538).
Markley, D. L. (2006) Contemporary leadership theory applied to Lincoln’s relationship with select Union generals. The Lincoln Herald, 108 (3), 104-118.
Phillips, D. T. (1992). Lincoln on leadership: Executive strategies for tough times. New York: Warner Books.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Smith, M. K. (2001). Peter Senge and the learning organization. The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/senge.htm
Thomas, B. P. (1952). Abraham Lincoln. New York: Knopf.
Williams, F. J. (2002). Judging Lincoln. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Williams, F. J., Pederson, W. D., & Marsala, V. J. (Eds.). (1994). Abraham Lincoln: Sources and style of leadership. NewYork: Greenwood Publishing.
