Professional Documents
Culture Documents
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
I. Organizational effectiveness—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Wk,rk
gmups—Handbooks. manuals. etc. 3. Senge, Peter M. Fifth
discipline. I. Senge, Peter M. LI. Title: 5th discipline
(leldbook. Ill. Tide: Learning organization.
HD58.9.F54 1994
658.4’02—dc2O 93-50130
CIP
ISBN 0-385-47256-0
Copyright © 1994 by Peter M. Senge. Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts,
Richard B. Ross, and Biyan J. Smith
.‘dl Rights Reserved
Pnntedin the United States of America
D©i1i©
Fieldikook
PETER M SENGE
ART KLEINER Strategies and Tools for Building
CHARLOTTE ROBERTS
RICHARD B. ROSS
a Learning Organization
BRYAN 1. SMITH
, l1’
,,
The Ladder of Inference by Rick Ross
Tht ref/exivr.
Ioop(our
beIe1s
af-fet
I kVfl4t
‘ daz’L
W
i S/et
iie.)
ideas are exactly what his department needs. Now that I think
of it, he’s never liked my ideas.
Clearly, Larry is a power-hungry jerk. By the time I’ve retur
ned to my seat, I’ve made a decision:
I’m not going to include anything in my report that Larry can
use. He wouldn’t read it, or, worse
still, he’d just use it against me. It’s too bad I have an enem
y who’s so prominent in the company.
In those few seconds before I take my seat, I have climbed
up what Chris Argyris calls a “ladder
of inference,” a common mental pathway of increasing abstr
--
action, often leading to misguided
beliefs:
B alan C g In ir y
1 an
LXUIYOC&CY
7
S///I1t4I d/J’JJ1O7L
(81aic, adk-dcac:y
Zid Lfl fry
flue:
a/f
9 ent’tiiey tL’rloL,f
m4.e4( €4fo fl/ny 9
Yeat ,., Ld)lt4/44V
Co//et,L, t-hisK,I-1j 4.
4sserëij.. ‘JeYej e4aI/cI elSst, tL44. ê?)4P.l
-
VA4t /J-),, a,,d o,heyJ- ‘ibaut
i4-iIy /Sy 1
’ tvts
/&‘ Q
a Li
L) b eiM9
1
&p/4
: 1njn H,’eJ
LYI,’7C4/ R//é,ckn &iv’-’ npn’fr,o,.
:
5
oY
‘.‘ &1e L4.o yld ‘oJ-içç 9
olba f*’uH 4 v0c4€y afl(
1id thy / C’4.’. 5e tn uI
- W/d
9
iL tI-ia’ foJe- “inded(Ayj-
c-) LJflC6/O)qa/)
0
y8
S/4naiHq: M4k
wh, peai
,OYoCeJf, A,4s’ I-7
to
,
‘%e 4i
flJ’o /
fnjiny:
7 flQ4
4L4.- t.v,,%,ut S/9 ‘7cA,
bwt Keen, of a/i
‘-ht
Wi’AdYaiv,nj:
o’t a f
Ool, 4k7,
N
N. Lint’
c.
I
,
4-c;.
INQUIRY I/jilt—
dso see “Opening Lines” (page 263) bihp McArthur of Action Design; and
.
from The Fifth Discipline, pp. 200—I.
56 ‘ I lie lieth I)iscipliiie l’ieldh4Hk
Wh.t to (LI)
VVhat to say
‘tate oii r assi Iltiptions. and
1Icn’ s IL/ult I think. and iu’rt’
lescnbe the data that led to them. In w I ot thurt’.
1xplain your assumptions.
“I assumed that
Lake onr reas(min explicit. “I came to this t’onclusu,n
I)L’CttEISe
What to do
What to say
ncoIIrage others to explore your
“What do you think about what I
model, your assumptions, and
just said?” or “Do you see any
nur data.
flaws in my reasoning? or “What
((Iii 1/011 (1(1(1?
efrain from de(ensiveness when
\( n t r K [eas are p testion
ed. [1
vouLre advocating sonieth
in
vorthwhile. then it will only et
tronger by being tested.
Ientcd Models ‘ 257
What to (tO
What to av
I.
‘-.
That to (10
What to say
E’st what they say by asking
r “how teould your proposal
broader contexts, or for exa
mples . affect Is this similar
to Can you describe a
typical example
Check your understanding of
what “sin I correct that you’re cay
they have said. -
ing
Listen for the new understandin
g
that may emerge. Don’t conc
en
trate on preparing to des
troy
the other person’s argument
or
promote your own agenda.
3. PROTOCOLS FOR FA
CING A POINT OF VIEW
WHICH YOU DISAGR WITH
EE:
What to do
What to say
gain, inquire about what has
“I-low did you arrive at this
led the person to that view.
view?” “Are you taking into
account data that I have no
t con
sidered?”
Make sure you truly understan
d “ff1 understand you corre
the view, ctly,
you’re saying that.. .“
trige. but
data hnngs you all down the Iiace no data for 1/et?
ladder of infrence.) 1’hat don’t tue know?”
“What is unknowithle?
Look frr information which will ‘iVhat do we agree upon, and
help people move forward. what do we disagree on?”
Ask if there is any way you might
together design an experiment
or inquiry which could provide
new information.
Listen to ideas as if for the first
time.
Consider each person’s mental “Are we startingfrom two rery
model as a piece of a larger different sets of’ assumptions
puzzle. here? Where do they come
from?”
Ask what data or logic might “What, then, would have to
change their views, happen before you would con
sider the alternative?”
Ask for the group’s help in “It feels like we’re getting into an
redesigning the situation. impasse and I’m afraid we might
walk away without any better
understanding. Have you got any
ideas that will help us clarify
our thinking?”
Don’t let conversation stop with “1 don’t understand the assump
an “agreement to disagree.” tions underlying our disagree
inent.”
57 ConveraiionaI Reciipes
Robert Putnam
38 Opeiliiig Li]IIes
Philip MArthur
When... ...youmightsay...
Strong views are expressed with- “You may be right, but I’d like to
out any reasoning or understand more. What leads you
illustrations.., to believe...?”
The discussion goes off on an “i’m unclear how that connects to
apparent tangent... what we’ve been saying. Can you
say how you see it as relevant?”
You doubt the relevance of your “This may not be relevant now. If
own thoughts... so, let me know and I will wait.”
Two members pursue a topic at “I’d like to give my reaction to
length while others observe.., what you two have said sofar and
then see what you and others
think.”
Several views are advocated at “We now have three ideas on the
once... table [say what they are]. I sug
gest we address them one at a
time. . .“