week11Activities Checklist - 17.SU.HUM.1135.pdf201772.docx

week11/Activities Checklist - 17.SU.HUM.1135.pdf
2017-7-26 Activities Checklist
https://elearn.sinclair.edu/d2l/le/content/82260/viewContent/27
74032/View 1/1
Printer-friendly version
To meet the learning objectives for this topic, you will complete
these activities. Print this page and use
it as a checklist.
Reaview the Introduction and Objectives page.
Read the lesson, Christian Environmentalism and its Critics.
Participate in the Critical Thinking Discussion 14.
Take online Test 14.
javascript:window.print()
week11/Christian Environmentalism and its Critics -
17.SU.HUM.1135.pdf
2017-7-26
Christian Environmentalism and its Critics - 17.SU.HUM.1135.
501 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
74033/View 1/6

Christianity: Cause or Cure of the Environmental Crisis?
This debate began in 1967 when Lynn White Jr, in his article "T
he Historical Roots of Our Ecolgical
Crisis," blamed the modern environmental crisis on the Christia
n notion that humankind has dominion
over all of nature. White based his idea on Christianity's worldv
iew rooted in Genesis 1:28, "Be fruitful
and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominio
n over the fish of the sea and over
the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon
the earth." Essentially, White has taken
Christian cosmology and argued that it is inherently anthropoce
ntric. The combination of
anthropocentricism and dominion resulted in environmental deg
radation without conscience.
Earlier, the word debate was used and it was used intentionally.
Once White's article was published it
set off a huge debate with many sides. First, of course, the Chri
stians attempted to refute his claims
while also attempting to prove that they did in fact care about th
e environment; we will see how they
did as we progress. On the other side, White's article essentially
gave birth and direction to both
environmental ethics and ecology. Having now witnessed the ge
nesis of this discussion, we will proceed
by hearing first from several Christians who have attempted to p
roduce a Christian environmental ethic.
Finally, we will hear from a neutral philosopher who argues that
although there are some huge
obstacles, there is some room or possible room for an Evangelic
al environmentalism.

First, we will look at an article written by Raymond E. Grizzle a
nd Christopher B. Barrett (hereafter to be
referenced as Grizzly Bar). In their article, "The One Body of C
hristian Environmentalism," Grizzly Bar
attempts to produce some common ground between the six majo
r Christian environmental sub-groups.
They hope to produce a holistic approach which they call cosmo
centricism "and use it as the basis for
a preliminary description of the notion of pluralistic stewardshi
p." At the same time, they acknowledge
that at this point in time there is no single Christian environmen
talism. They say, "Saint Paul (1 Cor. 12)
motivates our work; we see the various parts of contemptorary
Christian envrionmentalism as many
parts of one body. Each offers some fundamental truths, but we
suggest that each also has
shortcomings." Grizzly Bar's first step is to produce a conceptua
l model represented as a three-circle
Venn Diagram. For those that don't know what this is, it is a typ
e of graph with three overlapping
circles, each representing a particular group and showing how o
r if they overlap. In the very center all
three circles share a small area, while each two circles respectiv
ely share an area also.
In Grizzly Bar's Venn Diagram, the three circles represent 1) en
vironmental protection, 2) basic human
needs provision, and 3) economic welfare. These three main gro
ups/concerns are juxtaposed by what
Grizzly Bar claims are the six main aspects of Christian environ
mentalism that represent what they call
pluralistic stewardship.
Ultimately, they hope to show not only that these multiple
principles can guide human action, but also can be used to
determine which movements stand a chance at achieving

sustainability. Their overall complaint with "contemporary
mainstream environmentalism is that is is too disconnected
from other societal issues, just as much as contemporary
social activism is too detached from environmental matters."
However, they do not really explain this claim. Further, they
claim that environmentalism is "blatantly antihuman" generally
speaking, and that this leads to the neglect of human needs.
They even go as far as to claim that some environmentalism
deems humans and human activity as inferior to Nature (and
as you should know by now, they're right). Eventually they
conclude their brief conceptual model with the idea that
subjugating humankind to nature is akin to hating the sin and
the sinner.
Let us move on and look at the six different parts of the One Bo
dy of Christian environmentalism. The
six different parts are: Subjectionism, Social Justice, Creation C
are, Environmental Justice, Eco-
feminism, and Eco-justice. While "each enjoys important scriptu
ral support and has made positive
2017-7-26
74033/View 2/6
contributions," according to Grizzly Bar, they are all rooted in h
uman efforts and are therefore fallible
and "prone to disturbing excess."
Subjectionism: The traditional and longstanding view of Christi

anity that pays little if any attention to
nonhuman nature is referred to as subjectionism. Its argument a
gainst environmentalism is based on
three major complaints: 1) they don't believe the scientific evid
ence; 2) they believe that
environmentalism is "New Age" and therefore inherently anti-C
hristian; and 3) they are concerned about
the "substantial economic costs of environmental protection poli
cies."
Social Injustice:Unlike the Subjectionists, although still inheren
tly anthropocentric, they focus on the
"universal satisfaction of basic human needs such as food, shelt
er, and clothing." They tend to focus on
social action aimed at redeeming humanity's sinfulness. Further,
they often ally with eco-justice and
environemental justice advocates, although they will stil argue o
ver whether humanity or Earth comes
first. This alliance is fed by the growing recognition that there e
xists a vicious cycle of poverty and
environmental destruction in contemporary society.
Creation Care: This movement is a direct response to White's ar
ticle and their focus is to remind
Christianity that Christians are responsible, in a sense of stewar
dship, to all of Creation, not just to
human needs and wants. This approach is probably the most alig
ned with mainstream environmentalism
in high-income countries even though, or perhaps because, it ten
ds to focus on the nonhuman issues.
What is odd here is that Grizzly Bar equates creation care with t
he idea that all creation is good, but
argues that common sense alone can provide evidence to the con
trary. They claim further that "many of
the insights that ecology has provided into how nature functions
reveals a creation that is far from

some of the romanticized notions that seem to be widespread am
ong environmentalists." Apparently
one of them was feeling a bit cynical that day, claiming that ver
y few if any environmentalists have
"satisfactorily confronted the bad or harsh side of nature." (As i
f storms, etc are justification for
polluting as retaliation!)
Environmental Justice: This is a relatively new movement with r
oots in both creation care and social
justice. According to Bryant (1995), the focus is "ameliorating
potentially life-threatening conditions or
on improving the overall quality of life for the indigent or peopl
e of color." Essentially what we find is a
near-universal reality of locating dumps and other waste sites ne
ar lower socio-economic communities.
Eco-feminism: The ladies and their sympathizers argue that
we need to move away from a hierarchical view of nature and
culture, which leads to various dualisms and ultimately to male
domination and the devaluation of women and nature.
Ultimately, as you have seen elsewhere in this class, there is a
correlation between women's subjugation and environmental
degradation. Grizzly Bar expresses their concern as, "in their
rush to do away with hierarchical thinking and dualisms of all
kinds, eco-feminists seem to champion an almost blanket
notion that all components of creation are equal." And as we
have already heard from Grizzly Bar, not all of creation is
equally good because there are storms, nasty viruses and other
natural tragedies.
Eco-justice: This is one of the first, and also one of the fastest
growing of Christian environmental movements. Its proponents
argue for both environmental protection and social justice, "or
ecological health and wholeness together with social and
economic justice." They tend to acknowledge the similarities

between the vulnerability of the human poor and of nonhuman c
reation to the excesses of
contemporary, consumerist society. They emphasize the oneness
of creation and the notion of loving
one another. The four pillars of the eco-justice movement are: s
ustainability, participation, sufficiency,
and community - ultimately, natural and social systems must be
able to work together indefinitely.
Although Grizzly Bar acknowledges that eco-justice proponents
have produced the most comprehensive
of environmental philosophies, he argues that Jesus did direct u
s to have a preferential but not
exclusive care for the impoverished. To be truly holistic, we ha
ve to take into consideration all of
humanity's wants and needs, not just those of the poor. Further,
their major complaint with eco-justice is
that it somehow lacks the spirituality that Grizzly Bar thinks plu
ralistic stewardship has. It lacks the
"role of evangelization."
2017-7-26
74033/View 3/6
In conclusion, Grizzly Bar argues that although all of these diff
erent environmental movements have
merit, the last is better because it is pluralistic, arguing that no
one can "rightly be elevated above
others." Further, "our cosmocentricism places ultimate value on
the integrated whole of creation,

wherein we occupy a priviledged place of authority because we
are the most important of God's
creatures. Yet cosmocentricism treats humans as fallible creatur
es having complex relations with the
other components of creation that also possess intrinsic value."
Because of our fallible nature, we tend
to be self-centered and narrow-minded, "hence the need for a pl
uralistic approach, which gives the
voice to all and offers a check on both the pantheistic excesses
of contemporary environmentalsim,
including some Christian variants thereof, and the unsustainable
exploitation encouraged by the
traditional, strong anthropocentricism of the sort attacked by W
hite."
Willis Jenkins, in his article "After Lynn White: Religious Ethic
s and Environmental Problems," argues
that White's thesis, although productive, really was more effecti
ve for motivating the religous than it
was for solving any environmental problem. He adds that White'
s thesis indicates that it is primarily
religion that can and will help solve our environmental crisis. E
ssentially, Jenkins argues that if a
religious cosmology is at the root of the problem, then the best
way to solve the problem is to redirect,
or refocus said cosmology so that it is a part of the solution. "F
or, if Christian axioms lie at the root of
catastrophic cultural practices, then they must be vindicated, ref
ormed, or replaced with better ones."
This makes religion essential to solving the problem while at th
e same time giving birth to various
Christian and interfaith movements concerned about the environ
ment. He then goes on to discuss some
different grassroots environmental movements within Christiani
ty.

He claims these movements are even more important than the of
ficial responses from authorities within
the various churches. He includes: the groups that "replant trees
and sell the carbon offsets in Uganda;
teach organic agriculture in Japan; combine mission outreach wi
th rainforest education in Brazil; witness
against mountaintop removal mining in West Virginia; and reco
ver biblically humane animal husbandry
in South Dakota." Ultimately he concludes that "instead of starti
ng with ecological ontology, and his
strategy moves toward it by a trajectory of social justice that fo
cuses on the needs of bodily survival.
From reflection on rendering justice to human bodies, then, the
emergent ontological theories support
"active opposition to all forms of violence against humans," aga
inst nature (all nonhuman nature), and
obviously then against the environment in which we live.
Finally, let's look at a third party opinion. J. Aaron Simmons is
a philosopher who argues that an
evangelical environmentalism is possible, while at the same tim
e discussing its primary internal
obstacles. In his article, "Evangelical Environmentalism: Oxym
oron or Opportunity," Simmons hopes to
both prove that there is an evangelical environmentalism, and al
so to give it some direction. But first,
we will need to look at the four main charges leveled against ev
angelicals concerning the environment.
1. The dominion over Nature issue.
2. Christianity has condoned the earth's exploitation by technolo
gy and progress.
3. Christianity has promoted a dualism that places the spiritual
and otherworldly above the physical

world.
4. Eschatology: the belief in an end of times (usually soon!), wi
th God making everything right in the
end.
Simmons and others including philosopher Steven Bouma-Predi
ger argue that "authentic Christian faith
requires ecological obedience. To care for the earth is integral t
o Christian faith," but some, or even
many, within the faith don't understand. Therefore, it is not real
ly Christianity that is the problem, but
the "problematic appropriations advocated by certain Christians
that are the real challenge to
overcome."
Simmons argues and believes that not only is it beneficial, but a
lso that others are beginning to
recognize the need and potential effectiveness, of uniting the rel
igious with the secular on issues
concerning the environment. However, this will probably be a lo
ng coming together. After all, even
2017-7-26
74033/View 4/6
within the evangelical community, much like the actual practice
of their faiths, their environmentalism is
also varied. Of course, they share some common ground; he cite
s four major common threads...

1. A firm distinction between Creator and creation.
2. The intrinsic value of the Earth, and everything in it, because
of its created status.
3. The unique position of humanity and the 'doctrine' of steward
ship.
4. A recognition of human limitations and an embrace of God's
sovereign grace.
The first one is obvious, but I think problematic. Their argumen
t is that there are two different realities:
God/the eternal and Earth. However, it seems to me that there is
a third reality in their cosmology: the
devil and his realm (but that is only a point of interest for some,
and for another class).
Number two is rooted in the claim that God looked upon his cre
ation and called it good. Thus, all of
creation must have intrinsic value. But as we know from above,
some Christians don't agree with this.
With number three we seem to be stuck with the idea that if nat
ure has no intrinsic value, then we are
inevitably diminishing our own value. Further, Simmons seems t
o think that secular humanism cannot
possibly produce or redeem this value aspect for humanity. How
ever, one could argue that regardless of
whether or not we were created, how we treat other humans and
the environment, meaning all
nonhuman reality, has a direct implication to our worth or value
as living beings. The better job we do
at caring for both human and nonhuman reality, the more intrins
ic value we accrue as a conscious
player in the game we call life.
Finally, the fourth one is really about stewardship. However, th

e goal, according to Simmons, is not to
save the natural world, but rather to glorify God. "By caring for
the earth as God's creation, evangelicals
are able to affirm God's sovereignty over both it and their effort
s." This seems confusing. How does it
follow that by taking care of the earth we are establishing God's
sovereignty over us and the world? I'll
leave that for you to ponder. Simmons concludes this point with
the idea that to many of "the
proponents of evangelical environmentalism, Christians are not
called to concern themselves with all
the details of the eschaton, but they are called to live in the wor
ld as citizens of kingdom of God."
Simmons is implying that they don't realize this.
Simmons offers us this rough timeline of the evangelical enviro
nmental movement...
1970 - publication of Francis Schaeffer's Pollution and the Deat
h of Man: The Christian View of
Ecology.
1971 - National Association of Evangelicals Resolution on Envi
ronment and Ecology.
1979 - Au Sable Institute in Michigan is established with a focu
s on environmental education.
1992 - The Earth is the Lord's: Christians and the Environment i
s published.
1992 - Meeting of the Theological Commission of the World Ev
angelical Fellowship at Au Sable,
basically a response to the frustration about the World Council
of Churches on "Justice, Peace and
the Integrity of Creation" in 1990.
1992 - The Evangelcial Environmental Network is established.
1993 - Formation of the National Religious Partnership for the
Environment which is a coalition of
four main groups: the U.S. Catholic Conference, the National C

ouReviencil of Churches, the
Evangelical Environment Network, and the Coalition on Jewish
Life and the Environment.
1993 - A special issue of the Review of Evangelical Theology w
as devoted entirely to the
proceedings of the Au Sable forum.
1994 - Evangelcial Environmental Network's An Evangelical De
clration on the Care of Creation.
"The Declaration was formally issued in 1994 to assert and emp
hasize that this Earth belongs to
God and that we are responsible to him for it."
2000 - Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship. Thi
s group is suspicious of the human
causes, but still claims to care about the environment in general.
2000 - Evangelical scientists at The Hague addressed the realiti
es of climate change.
2002 - Oxford conference on Climate Change sponsored by The
John Ray Initiative of Great
Britain and the Au Sable Institute concludes: 1) Human-induced
climate change is a moral, ethical
and religious issue. 2) The earth's climate is changing, with adv
erse effects on people,
communities and ecosystems. 3) Action is needed now, both to a
rrest climate change and to
adapt to its effects. 4) Christian denominations, churches and or
ganizations neeed to take action
to increase awareness; set an example; increase demand for tech
nologies and products that are
green; and urge immediate and responsible actions by national g
overnments.
2002 - What Would Jesus Drive Campaign.
2017-7-26

74033/View 5/6
2004 - Sandy Cove Conference and Covenant cosponsored by C
hristianity Today, the National
Association of Evangelicals and the Evangelical Environmental
Network, demonstrated support for
Creation Care at the highest levels of evangelical leadership.
2004 - For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civi
c Responsibility. It articulates an
evangelical framework for public engagement, including human
rights and creation care.
2005 - More than 100 evangelical leaders met in DC to discuss a
possible statement on global
warming.
2006 - The Evangelical Climate Initiative issues the statement-
Climate Change: An Evangelical
Call to Action.
2006 - Bill Moyers, the same individual who criticized evangeli
cals for being complicit in the
environmetal crises due to their eschatological vision, used his
PBS show to discuss evangelical
environmentalism and consider the question: "Is God Green?"
2006 - J. Matthew Sleeth publishes Serve God and Save the Plan
et.
Certainly, all of these occasions and statements cast a positive l
ight on the notion of evangelical
environmentalism. However, as Simmons points out, there are al
so internal obstacles. Simmons cites
Calvin DeWitt's work where he claims that there are "ten main
stumbling blocks to evangelical involvement in creation's
care..."

1. This world is not my home.
2. Caring for creation gets us too close to the New Age
movement.
3. Respecting creation gets us too close to pantheism.
4. We need to avoid anything that looks like political
correctness.
5. There are too many worldly people out there doing
environmental things.
6. Caring for creation will lead to world government.
7. Before you know it we will have to support abortion.
8. I don't want to be an extremist or alarmist.
9. Dominion means what it says - oppressive domination.
10. People are more important than the environment.
Simmons continues to argue that these ten concerns can be
broken down into three main categories:
1. Worrying about becoming liberal. (4, 5, 6, 7, and 8)
2. Worrying about theological heresies (2, 3, and 10)
3. The eschatological concerns make environmentalism irreleva
nt. (After all, when Jesus comes back
he will fix all the stuff that we ruined, or, we will be up in heav
en, so who cares.) (represented by
1 and 9)
Finally, there is a sentiment among some who believe that they
should not tackle environmental issues
because doing so might distract from their other political concer
ns: like abortion and gay marriage! A
letter signed by various evangelical leaders including, but not li
mited to, Charles Colson, James
Dobson, E. Calvin Beisner, John Hagee, D. James Kennedy, Ric
hard Land, and Charles Jarvis states:

"We respectifully request...that the NAE not adopt any official
position on the issue of global climate
change. Global warming is not a consensus issue, and our love f
or the Creator and respect for His
creation does not require us to take a position. We are evangelic
als and we care about God's creation.
However, we believe there should be room for Bible-believing e
vangelicals to disagree about the cause,
severity, and solutions to the global issue." Then later...
"Evangelicals are to be first and foremost messengers of the goo
d news of the gospel to a lost and
dying world. We are to promote those things that please God an
d oppose those things in the world that
clearly violate His righteous standard of conduct. We respectful
ly ask that the NAE to carefully consider
all policy issues in which it might engage in the light of promoti
ng unity among the Christian community
and glory to God."
(Apparently, not working to address global warming is not view
ed as something that clearly violates
God's righteous standard of conduct; regardless of your motives.
)
2017-7-26
74033/View 6/6
A few more links that may help you formulate your forum post:

"Rethinking Dominion Theology" - this article discusses the ori
ginal meaning of Genesis 1:28
using analysis of the original Hebrew text.
Jewish Analysis - a thoughtful analysis, of the same text.
"Is Christianity Anti-Environmental?" - question asked by an or
ganization that seeks scientific
evidence for the existence of God.
What Would Jesus Drive - campaign; the answer: a donkey!
http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?922
http://www.neohasid.org/stoptheflood/dominion/
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/environment.html#kx
KQZkWIdMfB
http://www.av1611.org/wwjd.html
week11/Introduction and Objectives - 17.SU.HUM.1135.pdf
2017-7-26
Introduction and Objectives - 17.SU.HUM.1135.501 ENVIRON
MENTAL ETHICS
74031/View 1/1
Introduction
In this lesson we will be discussing and analyzing the Christian
answer to
Environmental issues.
Objectives

After completing the learning activities, you will be able to:
Explain the concept of stewardship.
Discuss whether it can be reconciled with a literal interpretation
of the Bible.
week11/question.docx
Review the following Wikipedia entry on Vieques, Puerto
Rico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vieques,_Puerto_Rico).
Review the following Wikipedia entry on the United States
Navy in Vieques, Puerto
Rico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_in_Vie
ques,_Puerto_Rico).
What are the environmental issues for Vieques, Puerto Rico?
Relate Vieques’ environmental circumstances to at least two
chapters in your textbook and explain why the chapters are
applicable. You MUST cite from at least two chapters in your
textbook.
· The format of this paper:
· Introduction (3 complete sentences –minimum)
Body (10 complete sentences –minimum)
Conclusion (5 complete sentences –minimum)
·
· Instructions:
· 1. When you write your posts, clearly identify each section of
the post. Above the sections/paragraphs write

INTRODUCTION, BODY or CONCLUSION (all capital
letters).
· 2. Your sections/paragraphs must have the minimum number
of complete sentences indicated above.
· 3. If you’re required to use or include a website, include it and
provide a complete cite (any citing style).
· 4. Write in complete sentences.
· 5. Use correct grammar and spelling.
· 6. In your INTRODUCTION, introduce your topic or theme.
DO NOT REPEAT THE ASSIGNMENT'S INSTRUCTIONS.
· 7. In your BODY, write about your topic or theme. Present
your analysis in this section. DO NOT REPEAT THE
ASSIGNMENT'S INSTRUCTIONS.
· 8. In your CONCLUSION, share your conclusions, reactions,
and final comments on the theme or topic. DO NOT REPEAT
THE ASSIGNMENT'S INSTRUCTIONS.
· 10. In the INTRODUCTION, do NOT repeat the assignment's
instructions. Introduce your theme or topic.
The Five Learning Disciplines
From Individual to Organizational Learning
Jim Taggart
To practice a discipline is to be a lifelong learner. You ‘never
arrive.’

The more you learn, the more acutely aware you become of your
ignorance.
Peter Senge
In his seminal book on the learning organization concept, The
Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice
of the Learning Organization (1990), Peter Senge lays the
foundation from which organizations
have the opportunity to grow and prosper. He states upfront that
he assumes no credit for inventing
the five disciplines; they are the product of the work done by
hundreds of people over many years.
He has devoted, however, many years to studying these
disciplines.
Senge is the Director of the Center for Organizational Learning
at MIT’s Sloan School for
Management and the founder of the Society for Organizational
Learning. He has introduced his
work to thousands of managers in dozens of organizations
throughout North America and Europe.
He continues to be seen as one of the world’s leading thinkers
on organizational learning.1
This article examines Senge’s work, drawing principally from
his book The Fifth Discipline, as
well as from The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (1994). Before
delving into the five disciplines and
what they mean for learning and leadership in organizations,
we’ll begin with a look at the seven
learning disabilities. Understanding what these disabilities

represent, and the impact they have on
how organizations function, is critical to developing a more
complete picture of the organizational
learning process.
The 7 Learning Disabilities
Most organizations, not surprisingly, have difficulty learning.
To address this problem requires first
identifying the seven learning disabilities:
1. I am my position. Because we are expected to be loyal to our
jobs, we tend to confuse them with
our own identities. As Senge explains: ‘When people in
organizations focus only on their position,
they have little sense of responsibility for the results produced
when all positions interact.’
2. The Enemy is Out There. We have a tendency to blame others
when something goes wrong,
whether it is another unit in the organization or a competitor.
3. The Illusion of Taking Charge. We hear all too often that we
must be ‘pro-active,’ taking action
to make something happen. However, pro-activeness can really
be reactiveness in disguise. Senge
1 As a continuous learner, Senge continues to explore new
areas. His new book delves into sustainability and has
received very positive reviews. The Necessary Revolution: How
Individuals and Organizations Are Working
Together to Create a Sustainable World. New York: Doubleday,
2008

2
sees ‘true pro-activeness’ as coming from our ability to see how
we contribute to our own
problems. In essence, it is the outcome of how we think, not
how we react emotionally.
4. The Fixation on Events. The ongoing discussions and
conversations in organizations focus
typically on events, those ‘urgent’ day-to-day issues that grab
our attention. But the real threats to
our survival are not events but rather the slow, gradual
processes that creep up on us. We need to
move away from short-term thinking to long-term thinking.
5. The Boiled Frog. This parable states that if you place a frog
in boiling water it will hop out
immediately. If you place it in cool water and gradually turn up
the heat, the frog will remain in the
pot, growing groggier until it cooks to death. What we learn
from this parable is that if we wish to
see the slow, gradual processes, we must slow down and pay
attention to the subtle as well as the
dramatic.
6. The Delusion of Learning from Experience. We learn best
from direct experience. In
organizations, however, we usually don’t experience directly
the consequences of our decisions. A
major underlying reason for this is the functional silos that
exist. These silos impede the flow of
communication among people. The organization’s ability to
analyze complex problems is
subsequently greatly weakened.

7. The Myth of the Management Team. This reflects the desire
for management to appear as a
cohesive group that is pulling in the same direction. The reality
is that in most management ‘teams’
the need to uphold their image means that dissent is frowned
upon and that joint decisions are
‘watered-down compromises.’ As Harvard’s Chris Argyris has
discovered through his research
(and referred to frequently by Senge), most organizations
reward those who promote senior
management’s views. Those who pose probing questions or who
‘rock the boat’ are penalized.
This brief look at the seven learning disabilities helps set the
context for an exploration of the five
disciplines. One key point needing emphasis is that these
disciplines are all interrelated. They do
not stand independently. And this is the beauty of understanding
the five disciplines: because they
are interrelated, they help us make sense of the complexities
and turbulence inside and outside our
organizations.
Our starting point is what Senge calls the cornerstone of the
five disciplines: systems thinking. It
underlies the other four disciplines: personal mastery, mental
models, shared vision, and team
learning.
The only prediction that will hold true is that no predictions
will hold true.
Charles Handy
Systems Thinking

Systems thinking deals with seeing ‘wholes,’ or what some
would say ‘the big picture.’ It’s a
discipline that enables us to see interrelationships and patterns
of change, as opposed to snapshots
of situations. It helps us to determine cause and effect, an
important point because it is never
influenced in just one direction.
3
An important element of systems thinking is that of feedback
and the role it plays in cause and
effect. There are two types of feedback processes: reinforcing
and balancing. An example of
reinforcing feedback is a manager who does not fully appreciate
the impact her expectations have
on an employee’s performance. If she believes that the
employee has potential, she will give him
extra attention. In contrast, if she believes that an employee will
be a poor performer, he will
receive less attention.
This type of behavior by a manager produces a self-fulfilling
prophecy. In the first example, the
employee will grow and develop, while in the second he will
languish. In the latter example, a
downward spiral can actually begin, one in which the
interaction between the manager and the
employee deteriorates, the consequence of mutual diminishing
expectations.
The second type of feedback is balancing. These processes

abound in organizations and are
difficult to address. For example, we are all familiar with the
heroes who work long hours. They
often complain about having to work on weekends. And it is
often these people who advance in the
organization because working long hours is considered a virtue
and an informal requirement to
advancement.
Some organizations have attempted to eliminate this practice
using formal communication.
However, what they have found is that despite the official line
from the CEO and other senior
managers, the informal rule is that working long hours is still
valued. Staff see management doing
it, so it must be right.
When managers attempt to implement a change, they often find
themselves caught in a balancing
process. They are surprised to discover resistance by staff.
Managers must therefore model what it
is they’re advocating. In the case of discouraging staff from
working long hours, managers must
practice what they are preaching. As Senge states: ‘Whenever
there is resistance to change, you can
count on there being one or more hidden balancing processes.’
These norms, in fact, are imbedded in the power relationships in
the organization. The challenge
facing managers is to be able to identify the source of the
resistance and to focus on these norms
and power relationships. Pushing harder against the resistance is
futile because it only strengthens it
further.
In a true learning organization, managers come to understand

the need to see the ‘whole’ and the
interrelationships that make an organization what it is. They are
then functioning as systems
thinkers. Senge sees systems thinking as an art, in which the
individual is able to see through
complex issues to the underlying forces. Mastering systems
thinking means ‘...seeing patterns
where others only see events and forces to react to. Seeing the
forest as well as the trees is a
fundamental problem that plagues all firms.’
Senge speaks of what he calls The Primacy of the Whole. This
refers to the concept that
relationships are more fundamental than things, and that
‘wholes’ are of a higher order than ‘parts.’
Managers are conditioned to see their organizations as ‘...
things rather than as patterns of
interaction.’ They look for solutions that will ‘fix’ problems,
instead of searching out the
underlying causes. The consequence is the ‘... endless spiral of
superficial quick fixes, worsening
difficulties in the long run and an ever-deepening sense of
powerlessness.’
4
While organizations learn through their people, this does not
guarantee that organizational learning
will result. This takes us to Senge’s second discipline.
The ability to perceive or think differently is
more important than the knowledge gained.

David Bohm
Personal Mastery
Personal mastery is the term used by Senge and his followers to
describe the discipline of personal
growth and learning. People who possess high degrees of
personal mastery are continually
increasing their abilities to create the results they seek. Their
never-ending quests for self-
improvement and self-discovery underlie the spirit of the
learning organization.
When we speak of personal mastery, it’s important to be clear
that we are not just referring to skills
and competencies. Personal mastery includes spiritual growth
and approaching life as a creative
work. It means that we continually clarify what is important to
us and continually learn how to see
the real world more clearly.
People who possess a high degree of personal mastery share
some basic traits. First, they have a
strong sense of purpose that supports their personal visions and
goals. Second, they are individuals
who work with change, not against it. Third, they feel connected
to others and to life itself. And
perhaps most importantly, they live in a continual learning
mode.
Systems thinking brings out the more subtle aspects of personal
mastery, for example, combining
reason and intuition, seeing the interconnectedness of events in
the world, compassion, and
commitment to the whole. To embark on a journey of personal

growth means that one has made a
conscious choice. It is impossible to force an individual to
engage in personal growth. As Senge
says, ‘It is guaranteed to backfire.’
There is a key lesson here for managers: you can’t push against
a string. People must want to do
change. Managers help create the environment, which includes
modelling the desired behaviors.
Senge explains that managers must work daily at creating a
climate that promotes personal mastery.
They must, above all, establish an environment in which people
feel safe to create their personal
visions, where they can challenge the status quo, and where
inquiry and commitment to the truth
are the norm.
If managers live this on a daily basis, personal mastery will be
strengthened in two major ways.
First, it will reinforce the notion that personal growth is indeed
truly valued in the organization.
And second, it will provide a sort of ‘on-the-job-training,’ an
essential part of personal mastery.
The manager who is serious about her own quest for personal
growth will send a powerful message
to her followers.
Personal mastery is seen as one of the two individual
disciplines. The other one is mental models.
However, it’s important to remember that the five disciplines
are interrelated. In the case of mental
5

models, they are also intertwined with systems thinking because
they deal with how we view the
world.
People don’t grow old. When they stop growing, they become
old.
Anonymous
Mental Models
Each of us carries our own sets of assumptions, views, and
prejudices that affect how we interact
with others. And while we often attempt to deny certain views
or prejudices we hold, it’s difficult
to maintain this stance when our actions are not consistent with
our words. Chris Argyris explains:
“Although people do not always behave congruently with their
espoused theories (what they say),
they do behave congruently with their theories-in-use (their
mental models).” Our mental models
strongly affect what we do because they affect what we see. As
Albert Einstein put it: “Our theories
determine what we measure.”
From a management perspective, mental models are extremely
important because of the associated
consequences, whether good or bad. In fact, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to develop systems
thinking if one’s mental models are ingrained in past
experiences and beliefs. For example, how
can a manager deal effectively with an interpersonal problem in
his unit if he has certain opinions
about an individual? How can a manager bring her followers on

board with a major change in the
organization if she is unwilling to understand the underlying
causes for the change and the many
interdependencies involved?
To be an effective systems thinker requires the discipline of
mental models. These two disciplines
fit together naturally. Systems thinking concentrates on how to
modify assumptions in order to
show the true causes of problems. Mental models, in contrast,
look at revealing our hidden
assumptions.
For managers, it becomes essential that they take the time to
reflect on their existing mental models
until their assumptions and beliefs are brought out into the
open. Until then, their mental models
will not change and it is pointless to attempt to engage in
systems thinking.
To be a successful manager in the 21st century...calls for a
new mental model of manager, one suited to a world of chaos.
Toby J. Tetenbaum
Shared Vision
When we talk about shared vision, we don’t mean an idea.
Instead, we’re referring to a force that is
in peoples’ hearts. Senge states: “When people truly share a
vision they are connected, bound
together by a common aspiration. Personal visions derive their
power from an individual’s deep
caring for the vision.” Shared vision is an essential component
of a learning organization because it

provides the focus and energy for learning. The underlying
force is the desire by people to create
and accomplish something. And the ‘bedrock,’ as Senge calls it,
for developing shared visions is
personal mastery.
6
Shared vision emerge from personal visions, and this is how
energy is formed and commitment
created. Managers must therefore walk a fine line when they
express their own visions. To master
the discipline of building shared vision requires that managers
understand that visions are not
announced from the top or that they come from strategic
planning processes.
The traditional approach to creating a vision for the
organization has largely failed in most
organizations because employees have been unable to connect
with the vision developed by
management. In other words, the vision that is communicated to
employees has not built on
peoples’ personal visions. They are not enrolled in the vision.
The consequence has typically been
apathy and a lack of energy on the part of people.
Of course visions can, and indeed should, be conceived by
senior managers. But senior
management must realize that their vision cannot be considered
‘shared’ until others in the
organization feel part of it. Their personal visions must connect
with the larger vision.

Building shared vision requires daily effort by managers. It
must be a central part of their work.
And they must remember that the visions they develop are still
their personal visions. As Senge
asserts: ‘Just because they occupy a position of leadership does
not mean that their personal visions
are automatically the organization’s vision.’
Creating shared vision goes hand-in-hand with systems
thinking. The latter enables people to
understand what and how the organization has created. Vision
portrays what people want to create.
Because most managers don’t experience that they are
contributing to their current reality, they
have great difficulty in seeing how they can contribute to
changing it. They see their problems as
being caused by the system or by external factors.
This attitude, as Senge explains, “...can be elusive to pin down
because in many organizations the
belief ‘We cannot create our own future’ is so threatening that it
can never be acknowledged.” To
be a ‘good’ manager (or leader) means that you are in charge of
your own future. A manager (or
non-manager for that matter) who openly questions the
organization’s ability to accomplish what it
is attempting is quickly labeled as being not on board or as
rocking the boat. The underlying cause
for this occurrence is that organizations tend to be dominated by
linear thinkers instead of systems
thinkers.
This leads us to the final discipline: team learning. As we’ll
see, team learning is all about
‘alignment’ and getting people working in synch with one

another. And this is where creating
shared vision can be a powerful force.
The medium of leadership is the energy of other people.
Dick Richards
Team Learning
Team learning builds on the discipline of personal mastery. It is
a process that encompasses
aligning and developing the capacity of a team to achieve the
goals that its members truly want.
While individual learning at one level is important, it is
irrelevant at another level. Individuals may
7
learn but the organization as a whole does not. There is no
organizational learning. Teams become,
therefore, the essential ingredient for learning, a ‘microcosm’
for learning as Senge calls it.
There are three key components of team learning.
1. Teams must probe and explore complex issues, drawing on
the talents, knowledge, and
experiences of one another.
2. They must work in concert, coordinating their efforts and
communicating openly and closely.
Trust is essential since members must be able to rely on one
another.
3. Teams must interact with each other so that they can share

what they learn. Senge invented the
expression Nested Teams as a way to express this interaction.
Just as there must be interdependency
within a team, so too must there be interdependency among
teams in an organization.
Team learning must therefore be seen as being a collective
discipline. To say that ‘I’ as an
individual am mastering team learning is irrelevant. Team
learning involves mastering the two
primary ways that teams communicate: dialogue and discussion.
By dialogue, Senge means ‘deep
listening’ and the free exploration of ideas. (Stephen Covey
uses the expression emphatic listening).
Discussion, on the other hand, refers to searching for the best
view to support decisions once all
views have all been presented.
For a team to grow and develop, and to be effective, it’s
necessary that conflict be present. This
notion may no doubt surprise some people, but unless a team’s
members disagree at times, the team
will not learn. To think creatively, there must be the free flow
of conflicting ideas.
Of course, the team must know how to use disagreements
productively. Conflict becomes then a
part of the continuing dialogue among the team’s members. As
Senge explains: “...the difference
between great teams and mediocre teams lies in how they face
conflict and deal with the
defensiveness that invariably surrounds conflict.”
The issue of when and how to use conflict productively is one
that escapes most organizations. The
consequence is the regular use of defensive routines. To admit

that one doesn’t know the answer to
a question or problem is to reveal one’s supposed incompetence.
This has particular applications to
managers because they’re expected to know everything that is
going on in the organization. This
becomes part of managers’ mental models. Senge states: “Those
that reach senior positions are
masters at appearing to know what is going on, and those intent
on reaching such positions learn
early on to develop an air of confident knowledge.”
When managers internalize this mental model, they create two
problems. First, to maintain the
belief that they have the answers they must shut themselves off
from inquiry from their
subordinates. They refuse to consider alternative views,
especially if they appear provocative.
The second problem they create for themselves is that they
sustain their ignorance. To keep up the
facade they become very skilled at being defensive. After all,
they wish to be seen as being
effective decision makers.
8
Through his work, Chris Argyris has found that such defensive
behavior becomes an ingrained part
of an organization’s culture. As he states: “...We are the carriers
of defensive routines, and
organizations are the hosts. Once organizations have been
infected, they too become carriers.”

Organizational learning is obviously severely impeded in such a
culture. This is underscored
especially when teams engage in defensive routines, which
block their energy and prevent them
from working towards their shared visions.
The more that defensive routines take root in a team, and more
broadly the organization, the more
they hide the underlying problems. And in turn, the less
effectively these problems are addressed,
the worse the problems become. As Argyris puts it:
“...defensive routines are ‘self-sealing’ − they
obscure their own existence.”
All is not lost, however. A team that is committed to the truth
will find ways to expose and address
its defensiveness. The same applies to a manager who has the
courage to self-disclose and examine
his mental models to determine where defensiveness may be
hidden. This in turn creates energy
and the willingness to explore new ideas. Openness and
dialogue then become the norm in the
organization.
If dialogue articulates a unique vision of team learning,
reflection and inquiry skills may prove essential to realizing
that vision.
Peter Senge
A Final Note
Senge notes that the five disciplines may also be called the
leadership disciplines. As he asserts:
“Those who excel in these areas will be the natural leaders of
learning organizations....It is

impossible to reduce natural leadership to a set of skills or
competencies. Ultimately, people follow
people who believe in something and have the abilities to
achieve results in the service of those
beliefs....Who are the natural leaders of learning organizations?
They are the learners.”
When Senge wrote The Fifth Discipline his intention was to
portray what a learning organization
could look like and how it could be created. He did not set out
to convince people they should build
a learning organization. By presenting this concept to people, he
is offering them a choice. He
states, however, “The choice, as is always the case, is yours.”
The journey in between what you once were and who you
are now becoming is where the dance of life really takes place.
Barbara DeAngelis
The 7 Learning DisabilitiesSystems ThinkingPersonal
MasteryMental ModelsShared VisionDick RichardsTeam
LearningA Final Note
ARAB OPEN UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF BUSINESS STUDIES
T205B – SYSTEMS’ THINKING THEORY & PRACTICE
2016/2017 Summer
T205 B - TMA- Summer - 2016– 2017
_____________________________________
Please read these instructions carefully, and contact your tutor

if you require any further clarifications. You should submit
your completed assignment to your tutor to arrive no later than
the cut-off Date (August 2017)
Please use standard A4 size paper for submitting the hard copy
of your TMA. Your name, personal identifier, course and
assignment numbers must appear at the top of each sheet. A soft
copy of your TMA must be uploaded to the university moodle
within the indicated cut-off date. The hard & soft copies must
be identical. Please leave wide margins and space at the end of
each sheet for tutor comments. It is better to use double spacing
so that you can easily handwrite corrections to your drafts and
tutors have space to include their feedback on the script. Start
each question in the assignment on a new page. Any extended
text should ideally be word-processed, but, diagrams and
accompanying notes may be hand drawn and hand written and
on an A4 paper.
Completing and sending your assignments
When you have completed your TMA, you must fill in the
assignment form (PT3), taking care to fill all information
correctly including your personal identifier, course code,
section & tutor, and assignment numbers. Each TMA and its
PT3 form should be uploaded on the AOU branch moodle within
the cut-off date. Late submissions require approval from the
branch course coordinator and will be subject to grade
deductions. All assignments are treated in strict confidence.
If you feel that you are unable to meet the cut-off date of the
TMA because of unusual circumstances, please contact your
tutor as soon as possible to discuss a possible extension to the
cut-off date.
Plagiarism
There is special attention given to the issue of plagiarism (that
is, copying any source without putting quotation marks round
the words or citing the reference) because it is something which

students are worried about. Some students find it difficult to
distinguish plagiarism from using evidence or arguments that
they have read in the book of others. If you want to use ideas
from the course texts, feel free to do so, but make sure that you
rework the wording. However, if you simply copy materials
then this may suggest to the tutor that you have not fully
achieved these objectives. The best way to use materials and
ideas is by using them in your own work and in your own
words.
In addition, some students find it difficult to distinguish
plagiarism from using evidence or arguments that they have
read in the work of others. Insecurity about finding their own
words may tempt students to 'lift' chunks word for word from
other people's texts. Be careful not to do this to excess, and
always credit the work of others by giving a reference or putting
the words in quotation marks. Plagiarism will lead to a loss of
marks and extensive plagiarism could mean that you fail a
TMA.
Introduction
This TMA has one question with three parts. You should answer
them all. The questions in this assignment are all about
different aspects of the process of exploring a complex
situation: drawing different kinds of maps of it, recognizing
how complex it is, identifying the different perspectives it can
be viewed from, and stepping back to reflect on this whole
process of exploration to see the strengths and weaknesses of
the approach you have adopted, and how you might do it better.
Question 01 (100 % marks)
(a) Read through the attached article “The Five learning
Disabilities” by Jim Taggart. As you read through the article
create one spray diagram to summarize the case content
respecting the conventions, and techniques. It is advised that
students submit hand drawn diagrams as opposed to computer

generated ones. Photocopies of diagrams should not be
accepted. Reflect on your diagram in no more than 200 words.
(15% marks).
(b) Based on what you learned in T205B concept file 04 section
II “Control”, and based on the content of the article, and taking
“Creating a learning organization” as your goal draw one closed
loop control model diagram to show the various inputs, and the
transformation process, that can lead to reaching this goal. You
need to show all the components of the control model diagram,
the inputs’, processes, control (actuator, comparator, sensor),
that can lead to goal achievement . Reflect on your diagram
(15% marks)
(c) Using an essay format (one essay, with different subsections
each has relevant subheading) of no more than 2000 words, and
based on what you learned in T205B concept file 04 section I
“Organizations are They Rational”, readings 01 and 07, section
III “Structure”, section IV development, section V culture and
climate, and section VI “Decision Making” and based on the
ideas put forth by Taggart in the attached article:
1- Discuss the learning disabilities identified by Senge and
assess how an organization’s climate, and the existence of the
unwritten rules of behavior, how they can lead to the creation of
such learning disabilities.(Word Count 500; 20 Marks)
2- Discuss how a split between espoused theory and theory in
use can affect organizational learning. (Word count 400; 15
Marks)
3- Discuss the five disciplines discussed by Taggart for
overcoming the learning disabilities, (Word count 400; 20
Marks)
4- Assess the role of systems thinking and describe the
principles of systems thinking, analyse their effectiveness for
management, for problem solving and for decision making I
relation to material form concept file 04 and 05 as applicable.

(Word count 400; 15 Marks)
General Mark’s deductions of 20% as follows
· PT3 Form (failure to use the PT3 completely filled) (deduct up
to 5% marks)
· TMA Presentation and Structure, and word count
(untidy, work way below or above the word count, no display of
word count) (deduct up to 5% marks)
· Referencing and in-text citation (poor referencing and in-text
citation, without plagiarism, (deduct up to 10% marks).
Guidance
Guidance to Question 01
For this question you need to read the assigned article carefully
and to reflect back on concept file 04 for the theoretical
assessment.
(a) At this stage of the course you are expected to have
developed good understanding of the purpose of drawing spray
diagrams as part of applying the SUDA process for solving a
messy situation. A spray diagram is the first type of diagrams
drawn in the sensing phase of the SUDA process of mess
analysis, in order to summarize the main ideas of a case, or the
main components/elements of a situation. Please pay attention
to the conventions and make sure that the central topic and
other subtopics are relevant, and do make sense to the reader.
Go back to T552 (Diagramming) the appendix to refresh your
memory about the conventions.
(b) This is your first attempt at drawing control model diagram.
The task should not be challenging though. Refer to Concept
file 04 section II “Control”. You need to draw a control model
diagram to show how the selected inputs can reach the stated
goal. You also need to illustrate clear, relevant, and non-
overlapping inputs, clear and accurate transformation process
and an output which is consistent with the goal. You also need
to specify which organizational entity is in charge of assuming
the role of each of the elements/components of the control
model (i.e. actuator, sensor, and comparator). The parties in

charge of performing each task within the control mechanism
should be clearly identified. It is very important that your
diagram is specific rather than generic.
(c) Here you need to practice your analytical skills to assess
what is required. Remember to start with a good introduction in
which you define the assessed topic before moving on to
explaining your plan for working on the TMA. In the body you
should move on to assess the learning disabilities, and the five
disciplines for overcoming them with a focus on systems
thinking and in relation to relevant concept covered in concept
file 04. You also need to evaluate its benefits and obstacles by
relying on both theoretical principles and practical examples,
and on the ideas presented in the assigned article.
End of T205B TMA Questions
3
1

week11Activities Checklist - 17.SU.HUM.1135.pdf201772.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to week11Activities Checklist - 17.SU.HUM.1135.pdf201772.docx

Similar to week11Activities Checklist - 17.SU.HUM.1135.pdf201772.docx (12)

More from philipnelson29183

More from philipnelson29183 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)