Latest news with #PeterSenge
IOL News
29-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
The learning board: continuous education as a governance imperative
The pace of change in technology, climate governance, geopolitical tensions, stakeholder expectations, and regulatory shifts demands more than static knowledge. It calls for a governance mindset that embraces learning as a strategic necessity. Image: AI Lab Nqobani Mzizi In today's dynamic environment, a board's effectiveness is measured not just by what its members know, but by how deliberately they continue to learn. Directors may be appointed for their experience, but without renewal, that experience quickly becomes outdated. Yet in many organisations, director education is reduced to a box-ticking exercise, limited to induction packs, technical updates or ad hoc compliance briefings. This is governance at its most passive. In truth, boards should embody the traits of a learning organisation: adaptive, inquisitive, self-aware and committed to continuous renewal. An informed board acknowledges that its fiduciary duties exist in a world of fast-moving risks and opportunities. The pace of change in technology, climate governance, geopolitical tensions, stakeholder expectations, and regulatory shifts demands more than static knowledge. It calls for a governance mindset that embraces learning as a strategic necessity. The proof is stark: a 2023 PwC South Africa Director Survey revealed that 68% of South African directors admit their boards are outmatched by technological disruption, yet a mere 31% invest in formal upskilling. Directors cannot rely solely on legacy knowledge or past achievements. The role has evolved, and so must those who occupy it. In 2022, boards spent less than 5% of their time discussing climate risks. The KZN floods that year cost R50 billion. The gap between governance and reality is unsustainable. Boards that fail to learn, fail to lead. The concept of a learning organisation, popularised by Peter Senge, rests on disciplines such as systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models and team learning. These principles are equally applicable to governance. Boards that model intellectual agility are better positioned to anticipate risk, adapt to change and shape resilient organisations. They do not wait for a crisis to revisit assumptions. They engage proactively, ask difficult questions and challenge entrenched thinking. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Yet becoming a board committed to continuous renewal does not happen by accident. It requires deliberate investment. Formal director development programmes are one part of the equation, but not the whole. Ongoing capacity building must be embedded into board culture and processes. It includes reflections after key decisions, cross-committee peer learning, exposure to external perspectives and periodic assessments of knowledge gaps. It also includes openness to uncomfortable truths, recognising when the board lacks diversity of thought or when market and strategy assumptions are no longer fit for purpose. One of the clearest signals of a board's commitment to growth is how it allocates time. Agendas dominated by compliance reviews and operational reports leave little space for strategic thinking or capacity building. A forward-looking board agenda should reserve time for horizon scanning, scenario planning and trend deep dives, from generative AI and cybersecurity to climate disclosures, social unrest and institutional reputation. The question is not whether these issues are important, but whether the board is equipped to govern them well. Governance frameworks codify this imperative. King IV in South Africa explicitly underscores the need for ongoing director development as integral to ethical and effective leadership. Principle 1 highlights the responsibility of the board to lead with competence and awareness, while Principle 7 calls on governing bodies to ensure that their composition, skills, experience and capacity align with the organisation's needs. Continuous learning is, therefore, not an optional extra, but a governance requirement rooted in accountability and future fitness. Importantly, this learning orientation must go beyond individual directors. It must shape the board as a collective. The best boards are not echo chambers of technical expertise, but dynamic forums of inquiry. They welcome diverse viewpoints, interrogate blind spots and evolve with the organisation they serve. Adaptive boards are also better stewards of succession, identifying gaps and mentoring future leaders with clarity and foresight. They understand that board continuity is not just about filling seats but about transferring wisdom. Some companies have introduced directors' retreats, not as ceremonial off-sites, but as serious opportunities for immersive engagement with new ideas. Others rotate committee chairs to foster cross-learning and reduce siloed thinking. A growing number of boards are also creating advisory panels with academics, technologists or emerging market experts who present independent insights and challenge institutional orthodoxy. Boards that operate as communities of growth also tend to approach self-evaluation differently. Rather than relying on template-based questionnaires, they view assessments as opportunities to identify development areas, improve dynamics and deepen collective performance. The value lies not only in the review itself, but in the courage to act on its findings. In an age of complexity and disruption, the evolving board is not a luxury. It is a governance necessity. It strengthens oversight not only through technical competence, but through curiosity, humility and responsiveness. It builds institutional capacity not merely to react, but to adapt and regenerate in the face of change. To lead well in this environment is to remain teachable. An adaptive board recognises that effective governance is not about knowing everything, but about cultivating a posture of inquiry, one that seeks out what matters most before the next disruption makes it urgent. Board effectiveness demands self-examination. Boards must ask: Are we building knowledge renewal into our board agenda, or treating it as an after thought? Do our development efforts build strategic agility, or simply refresh technical compliance? Are we actively drawing on diverse, independent perspectives to challenge blindspots? If our approach to knowledge renewal were visible to stakeholders, would it inspire confidence or concern? Ultimately, a board's legacy will rest not on its past expertise, but on the learning culture it fostered and how well it prepared the organisation for the future. Nqobani Mzizi is a Professional Accountant (SA), (IoDSA) and an Academic. Image: Supplied * Nqobani Mzizi is a Professional Accountant (SA), (IoDSA) and an Academic. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media. BUSINESS REPORT
Forbes
24-03-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Problem-Dissolving: Double-Loop Learning Drives Organizational Vision
Thomas Lim is the Dean, Centre for Systems Leadership at SIM Academy. He is a Systems Thinking Practitioner & Author of getty The learning organization has been a unifying concept in the field of organizational development, first introduced by Peter Senge in 1990. Its relevance has not diminished but instead is becoming more significant given the nature of business complexity. To deal with fundamental issues, simply problem-solving is insufficient; we need to work toward "problem-dissolving" so that the underlying issues are permanently resolved. Many companies fall into the trap of single-loop learning, where they fix immediate issues without questioning the underlying assumptions that led to those problems. While this method improves efficiency, it often fails to drive true transformation. Double-loop learning, on the other hand, challenges fundamental beliefs and creates the conditions for lasting organizational change. One of the most effective ways to apply double-loop learning is through the creative tension model, a framework that highlights the gap between the current reality and the desired vision. Instead of reacting to problems in isolation, organizations can use creative tension as a force to drive meaningful, systemic change. This concept is particularly relevant in digital transformation initiatives, where technology alone is not enough—leaders must align people, processes and mindsets to achieve sustainable success. To understand the difference between single-loop and double-loop learning, consider how organizations typically react to challenges. Single-loop learning is akin to adjusting a thermostat: It focuses on fixing errors within the existing system without questioning the system itself. For example, if an organization struggles with low productivity, it may introduce performance incentives or efficiency tools to address the issue. However, it does not question whether the way work is structured is fundamentally flawed. Double-loop learning, in contrast, goes deeper. It challenges the core assumptions behind decision-making and strategy. Instead of merely adjusting incentives, double-loop learning might lead leaders to reflect: Why are employees disengaged in the first place? Are our current management practices stifling creativity and innovation? Do we need to rethink our organizational structure to empower teams more effectively? To illustrate the power of double-loop learning, consider the case of a client company in the business of precision engineering. They embarked on a digital transformation journey to become a "smart factory." The company invested heavily in IoT sensors, AI-driven predictive maintenance and real-time production analytics. However, despite these technological advancements, the transformation was stagnant due to a lack of adoption from factory workers and middle management. The company's vision was clear: a fully digital, highly automated factory where AI and IoT would optimize production processes, minimize downtime and improve efficiency. However, the current reality was vastly different. Employees were resistant to automation, fearing job displacement. Middle managers were skeptical about integrating AI insights into decision-making, and data silos prevented seamless collaboration. At first, the company responded with single-loop learning strategies, such as providing additional training on AI tools to workers, introducing incentives for embracing automation and mandating the use of new analytics dashboards in production meetings. While these actions helped to some extent, they did not address the underlying mental models that were fueling resistance. Four months into the effort, the leadership team began to realize that their approach was fundamentally limited. They needed to go beyond surface-level problem-solving and rethink how they framed the transformation. Using double-loop learning, they began asking deeper questions that surfaced prevailing mental models to reexamine the assumptions about workforce dynamics that needed to be addressed for digital adoption to succeed. This led to a major shift in strategy. Aligning with the concept of creative tension meant that they could move from a reactive orientation to a more generative one. For this precision engineering company, this meant communicating a people-centered vision, empowering employers through structured upskilling and breaking down existing silos. In real terms, they emphasized how automation would reduce tedious, repetitive tasks, allowing workers to take on higher-value roles. Furthermore, a ground-up, peer-led mentorship program was launched, allowing experienced workers to coach their colleagues on using new technologies. Finally, the leadership established cross-functional teams that included factory workers, engineers and middle managers. At the heart of this transformation was creative tension: the gap between current reality and the envisioned smart factory. Rather than seeing this gap as a source of frustration, leaders used it to drive engagement and action. One could see that with single-loop learning, the gap between vision and reality led to resistance, frustration and disengagement. After double-loop learning, the same gap became a shared challenge that employees and leadership worked together to solve. By leveraging creative tension effectively, the company was able to turn resistance into motivation. Instead of enforcing change, they co-created it. Organizational transformation requires more than just solving problems—it demands rethinking the fundamental assumptions behind how work is done. Leaders looking to apply double-loop learning in their organizations must reframe their mental models to go beyond fixing symptoms and redefine the leadership's role in leading change, inspiring action connected to vision and fostering a learning organization culture. By integrating double-loop learning into management practice, businesses don't have to be stuck reacting to change; they can actively position themselves to shape it. Forbes Coaches Council is an invitation-only community for leading business and career coaches. Do I qualify?
