What is a Learning Organization

PLAYBOOKS, FANS, HEAD-BUTTS AND RIVALRIES: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF A UNIVERSITY FOOTBALL PROGRAM THROUGH A LEARNING ORGANIZATION PARADIGM Tait J. Martin Florida State University Presented to the Argumentation and Forensics Division and the Organizational Communication Division at the annual convention of the National Communication Association Miami, Florida, November 2003 Abstract Football programs continue to be a drawing force on American university campuses for students, faculty, alumni and townspeople. In addition to strictly being an extra-curricular activity for some, universities often rely on the programs as a major source of campus funding and institutional image building. This study investigates a midsized, south central university football program through the lens of organizational learning. In his book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (1990), Peter Senge states that learning organizations are entities “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together.” Specifically, the research uses focus group and in-depth interview data to outline and compare the organizational perceptions of four stakeholder groups in a university football program. Each of Senge‟s five disciplines is critically examined through the perspectives of various organization stakeholders and further empirical research suggestions are given. Football programs have a definite impact on American higher education campuses. Studies have shown that successful programs provide a cultural connection to the institution for students, employees, and alumni (Wann & Branscombe, 1993) as well as economic impacts to the campus and surrounding community (McCartha, 2002). Since these programs play such an important role in the campus system, higher education scholars/administrators should seek to better understand the program as a complex part of the organization. A logical lens to analyze football in the university setting is to consider seeing the program as a learning organization. This paper will examine the perceptions of four specific stakeholder groups in a university football program: players, coaches, athletic administrators, and alumni boosters using organizational learning theory. In addition, a historical understanding of “learning organizations” is given to frame the investigation. What is a Learning Organization? This question has been the basis of many scholarly discussions for over twenty years (Argyris, 1977; Argyris, 1982; Argyris, 1986; Argyris & Schon, 1988; Burke, 1992; Calvert, Mobley, & Marshall, 1994; Champoux, 1997; Cohen, 1991; Dery, 1982; Dymock, 1999; Isaacs, 1993; Keys, Fulmer, & Stumpf, 1996; Kim, 1993; Kim, 1995; Knudsen, Li, & Aamondt, 1981; Kramlinger, 1992; McGill & Slocum, 1993; Meen & Keough, 1992; Robbins, 1998; Sinkula, 1994; Solomon, 1994; St. Clair, 1993; Ulrich, VonGlinow, & Jick, 1993). Researchers continually shape and restructure the meaning of organizational learning to fit their own specific investigational needs. The definitions of organizational learning range from deep theoretical context to general pragmatic statements. Chris Argyris (1977), commonly known as the father of organizational learning, sees organizational learning as the process of "detection and correction of errors." Argyris goes on to state that “the individuals' learning activities, in turn, are facilitated or inhibited by an ecological system of factors that may be called an organizational learning system" (Argyris, 1977, p. 117). Huber (1991) furthers Argyris‟ argument by defining four constructs that make up organizational learning: 1) knowledge acquisition, 2) information distribution, 3) information interpretation, and 4) organizational memory. He clarifies that learning need not be conscious or intentional. Huber interestingly makes the case that learning does not always increase a group member's effectiveness, or even potential Football Learning Organization 2 effectiveness. Huber‟s case for organizational learning contrasts Argyris in that he rarely looks at the individual when studying overall change in the group. Weick‟s (1995) case for organizational learning is very different from the two scholars presented thus far. He questions that "perhaps organizations are not built to learn. Instead, they are patterns of meansends relations deliberately designed to make the same routine response to different stimuli, a pattern which is antithetical to learning in the traditional sense" (p. 119). Weick states that if an organization is to learn, it will have to adopt methods that are not routine in the organization. McGill and his colleagues (1992) support Weick‟s stance by stating that an organization must "respond to new information by altering the very „programming‟ by which information is processed and evaluated" (p. 6). Peter Senge‟s definition of a learning organization captures many of the elements introduced by the previous scholars. In his book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (Senge, 1990), Senge states that learning organizations are entities “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together”(p. 3). His definition is the foundation for the learning organization paradigm used to explain the perceptions of the stakeholders within a university football program. The Learning Organization: A Theoretical Background As stated earlier, learning organizations have been the subject of management and communication studies for over 20 years. Although the basic theme remains consistent, researchers have all carved out specific niches in organizational learning theory. These niches can be loosely divided into the following categories: personal interaction (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Argyris, 1990; Argyris, 1991); organizational observation (Schein, 1985; Schein, 1993); and systems thinking (Senge, 1990; Senge, 1992; Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994; Senge, 1996). Each of the three categories of organizational learning is explained in the following paragraphs. Argyris and Schon introduced the modern concept of the learning organization in their book Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective (Argyris & Schon, 1978). They explained that learning within organizations happens in three forms: 1) Single-loop learning – individuals within the organization detect problems and develop specific correction methods; 2) Double-loop learning – individuals detect problems within the organization but seeks to solve the problems by focusing on learning the cause and reshaping the organization so the problem will not happen later; and 3) Deutero learning – the entire organization learns together to prevent problems and foster organizational growth. According to Argyris and Schon (1978), Deutero learning is the most complex form of organizational learning. Throughout his subsequent research, Argyris held the position that organizations found it difficult to reach both doubleloop and deutero learning without the help of active facilitator interaction within the organization (Argyris, 1990; Argyris, 1993a; Argyris, 1993b; Argyris, 1994). Schein takes a more “hands-off” approach in studying organizational learning. He believes that to instill organizational learning, one must first observe the group to understand their culture and organizational norms (Schein, 1985; Schein, 1988; Schein, 1993). Schein‟s approach to organizational learning is in contrast to that of Argyris. Schein comes to the organizational consulting table with the notion that all organizations are built on a foundation of learning and members are willing to learn techniques needed to foster organizational growth (Schein, 1996). He focuses on gathering organizational data as the primary tool to understand why the group engages in specific actions. Once data are gathered, Schein suggests that the consultant prepare a holistic picture of the organization so members can see the root of organizational problems (Schein, 1993). This methodological approach centers on the belief that in order to tackle internal problems, the organization must have a researched-based need for change. This elaborate research-based diagnosis contrasts with Argyris‟ approach of initial active participation in the organization‟s operation (Argyris, 1990). Schein believes that the relationship between the organizational learning consultant and the group is strengthened by the time spent collecting organizational data (Schein, 1996). The third category of organizational learning discussed in this paper is systems thinking. Senge revolutionized this avenue of organizational learning in 1990 with his book, The Fifth Discipline. His perspective of organizational learning was formed from a hybrid model from Argyris and Schein‟s approaches. Senge based his research on the whole organizational system rather than simply focusing on one specific element (Senge, 1990a). For instance, when one looks at a university football program, one must see it as part of a larger institutional system rather than a separate entity. Football Learning Organization 3 Senge broadened the learning organization theory by explaining that an organization had to incorporate five disciplines into its operation to attain collective learning. Senge‟s five disciplines are 1) personal mastery, 2) developing mental models, 3) building a shared vision, 4) team learning and 5) systems thinking. His approach to developing a learning organization encompasses all group elements ranging from the individual to the organizational system as a whole. Senge’s Five Disciplines of a Learning Organization Personal Mastery Senge sets the foundation for the learning organization by stating that the initial need in the group is personal mastery. This notion basically states that if individuals are open to learn, group learning can take place within the organization (Senge, 1990a). Adversely, if people are content in their knowledge base and do not challenge the system, the organization will remain stagnant and eventually die. This discipline is unique in that it challenges individuals to take risks, learn from failure, and use different problem-solving techniques (Senge et al., 1994). Personal mastery allows individuals to incorporate their own personal values and beliefs with those of the whole organization. Additionally, this is the time when learning styles are individually discovered and collectively appreciated. In the case of a university football program, an example of personal mastery would the coaching staff discussing and developing new plays. It is not the responsibility of one member of the coaching staff to develop all plays for the team; rather it is a collaboration of the strengths of each coach that creates successful overall team strategy. Mental Models Mental models are the frameworks that individuals and groups use to understand organizational experiences. Senge suggests that mental models are used to make decisions on how an organization is run. He believes that in order to learn as a group, mental models must be uncovered and understood by all in the organization (Senge, 1990b). In addition to understanding, the models should be examined for their usefulness within the system. According to Senge, organizational assumptions of management and structure are directly related to the mental models of the individuals within the group (Senge, 1990a). Senge suggests a two-part process to increase understanding of mental models in the organization. First, group members discuss all models they have about how they believe the organization should be run. The discussion happens between everyone in the group. According to Senge, this step uncovers organizational and individual assumptions that serve as a point for growth and change. Second, both the individuals and the group are challenged to ask themselves how the models were shaped. This exercise allows members of the organization to reevaluate their own views, as well as the views of others in the group. According to Senge, this act of questioning the models that each member holds to be true allows the organization to reinvent models for future growth (Isaacs & Senge, 1992). In the case of a university football program, the athletic director may communicate university athletic regulations to the coaching staff and players. An example of this would be academic expectations of team members. The coaching staff could expect that those players dropping below a certain grade point average would have to attend a mandatory study hall. The mental models approach assumes that the program will morph to be inclusive of overall regulations (models) of the larger institution. Building a Shared Vision Senge states that this discipline is crucial for building a learning organization (Senge, 1990a). He believes that once the group attains a common, shared focus, growth and learning can become reality. Shared vision is the product of total organizational collaboration. According to Senge, this discipline cannot be met until every member of the organization can identify with the visionary goal. He couples this discipline to personal mastery stating that until individuals within the group are comfortable with personal goals, organizational vision will not become reality (Senge, 1992). The notion of a shared vision is common in several paradigms of organizational learning (Argyris, 1994; Fulmer, Gibbs, & Keys, 1998; Marsick & Watkins, 1994; Watkins & Golembiewski, 1995). The shared vision concept of learning organizations all revert back to the idea that when everyone in the group has a hand in setting the agenda for the organization, everyone will strive to carry that agenda to completion. In the case of a university football program, the shared vision would be to have a winning season. For example, an alumnus might feel that his financial support will allow the team to be better able to have a winning season while a player might feel that an extra practice a week would reach the goal. While the goal for the overall organization is the same, it is often met through different means. Football Learning Organization 4 Team Learning Senge‟s fourth discipline is an extension of the shared vision discipline. Team learning requires that all members of the organization put the welfare of the group, rather than their personal agendas, as their top priority. This task requires individuals to put aside their own personal goals for the betterment of the whole organization (Senge, 1990). Team learning also requires that group members be aware of the group process. Senge states that knowledge of how groups work is fundamental in the team learning discipline. Individuals are challenged to keep watch over the maturation process of the group and be aware of the development and learning as an organization (Senge et al., 1994). Team learning thrives on group dialogue. Members of the organization are encouraged to freely express concerns and triumphs. This discipline allows members to bask in creativity and have support while going through the organizational learning change process (Senge, 1990b). Senge uses team learning as a logical transition into his final discipline of systems thinking. In the case of a university football program, viewing game videos would fit into this category. The team visually sees their successes and failures from past games and learns the workings of opponent teams. In addition, the coaching staff, along with the players, has a dialogue about how to best reach the goal of having a winning season. Each stakeholder brings his perspective on reaching the overall team goal. Systems Thinking Senge is best known for his use of systems thinking as an organizational learning tool (Galagan, 1991). Systems thinking is basically the ability to see how every part of the organization has an effect on the organization as a whole. This holistic view is necessary for organizational learning. According to Senge, learning organizations must look beyond immediate effects and “quick-fixes.” The learning organization must be able to focus on reasons why situations are happening in the system and look for logical explanations from various internal and external sources (Senge, 1996). Systems thinking challenges all other disciplines because it focuses on the interconnectedness of the individual to the group and the organization to the environment. Stakeholders in a university football program must realize that they are interdependent. It may seem unusual that the foundation of Senge‟s argument on organizational change is based on a theory from the “hard sciences.” Systems thinking takes its roots from academic arenas like engineering, biology and physics. Senge adapted systems theory to organizational learning to illustrate that every action, both inside and outside the organization, has an effect on the organization as a whole in addition to individuals in the group (Senge, 1996). The major plus of systems thinking is that it allows the learning organization a certain level of predictability while facilitating organizational change (Senge et al., 1994). This predictability comes from remembering past experiences, communicating mental models, and facilitating team learning. Individuals within learning organizations are able to discuss and foresee consequences or successes based on actions taken within the system. It also gives individuals and organizational leaders the opportunity to focus on the entire organization as a whole unit rather than attend to individual components (McCaughan & Palmer, 1994). This ability to view the organization as a system fosters the learning organization the occasion to communicate every individuals‟ importance in the system (Bouwen & Fry, 1991; Gordon, 1992). The focus on importance enhances Senge‟s previous four disciplines by illustrating that mental models, personal mastery, shared vision and team learning do have an effect on the entire system. The football coach could assume that his team will not be successful if they do not practice. The player realizes that if he is not successful academically, then he will not be able to play. Senge would state that every element in the football program potentially could have an effect on the overall organization. In contrast, the systems paradigm would not be an appropriate route if members of an organization were not willing to see the “big picture.” Strict, obsessive control of detail does not have a place in systems thinking. Organizations must also be comfortable with learning from failure (Luthans, Rubach, & Marsnik, 1995). The systems approach encourages organizations to take risks and reevaluate deeply held positions. Organizations that cannot come to a consensus to learn will not survive the systems approach either (Mitroff & Linestone, 1993). While some may see a university football program as an autocratic entity guided by a head coach, those who understand the organizational make-up of the program realize that it is constantly changing to meet the needs of its stakeholders and the university at large. Systems thinking has become commonplace in facilitating organizational learning in businesses (Argyris, 1990; Denton & Wisdon, 1991; Redding, 1997; Senge, 1992), political organizations (Bolman & Deal, 1997; Coopey, 1995), and education (Dixon, Football Learning Organization 5 1997; Doherty, 1998; Kofman & Senge, 1993; McKenna, 1999; Senge et al., 2000), but there is much opportunity for systems thinking and organizational learning exploration in the university athletic program setting. University Football Program Stakeholders As Senge (1990) states, learning organizations are a product of collective discussion and idea collaboration. He believes there should be some continuity between the perceptions of organization stakeholders in meeting a common program goal. If there is disagreement in the perceptions of organizational stakeholders, Senge suggests that these differences be used to cultivate discussion and change within the group. This paper analyzes a midsized, south central United States university football program by comparing the perceptions of four stakeholder groups. The first group of stakeholders analyzed was players. Seven team members (four offensive players and three defensive players) participated in this study. Five players were on the team for 3 years or longer; two were first-year players. Three players were seniors, two were juniors, and two were sophomores. All of the players were students in the author‟s small group communication class. The second group of stakeholders researched was the coaching staff. Five members of the staff were interviewed for this study. The head coach, assistant head coach, defensive coordinator, offensive coordinator, and assistant offensive coordinator participated. The tenure of employment ranged between 3 to 12 years. Both the player group and the coaching group will be referred to as “inside” stakeholders. Each of these has direct, daily contact with the football program. The third group of stakeholders examined was athletic and university administrators. Five administrators were interviewed. They were the athletic director, assistant athletic director, sports information director, university vice president of external affairs, and the university vice president of student affairs. The range of employment with the university was between 7 and 21 years. Finally, the last group of stakeholders analyzed was university alumni participating in the football boosters program. The booster‟s association is set up to receive financial donations that go directly to support the university football program. Seven members of the booster organization participated in the research. Each member lived within 50 miles of the university. Their ages ranged from 25 to 72 years. All of the members categorized themselves as “very active members” in the support organization. The administrator group and the alumni booster group will be referred to as “outside” stakeholders. While they are still part of the overall football program, they have less contact than the first two stakeholder groups. Method Focus group and in-depth interview methodologies were used in this study. Specifically, data were collected from the football players and alumni boosters through focus groups. The meetings took place in June of 2000. The meeting with the players lasted approximately 55 minutes; the meeting with the boosters lasted approximately 45 minutes. The author recorded the audio of each meeting. Transcription of the group dialogue took place immediately after the meetings. Individual in-depth interviews were used to collect data from the remaining participants. The interviews also took place in June of 2000. The author conducted the interviews and recorded the dialogue if the participants felt comfortable with a recording device. Transcripts of the 30-minute interviews were written immediately after the meetings. Each methodology used the same battery of questions. This allowed for continuity in the data collection with each stakeholder group. In addition, anonymity was guaranteed to all participants in the study. The data presented in the results area of this paper are direct quotes, but not attributed to any one person. This allowed each respondent the freedom to answer questions as candidly as they felt comfortable. Results The results of the interviews and focus groups are presented under each of Senge‟s (1990) five discipline areas. Please refer to the literature review for an explanation of each discipline. Many of the answers were similar to each other. In the case of similarity, one quote that encompasses the theme of the participants will be used. Personal Mastery The dialogue began in the Personal Mastery stage when each stakeholder group was asked, “Explain one thing that you had to learn to become a full member of the football program.” Players  “The playbook was the key. I fully felt like I was a member of the team when I learned where I fit in the defense.”  “I transferred from another university…I had to relearn the traditions of the team here at (the university). It is a lot different than the last program I played in.” Football Learning Organization 6  “I had to learn the coaches. Any football player knows that in order to be a success, you have to get into the head of who you are working for. To be honest, I still am having trouble with this one.”  “I didn‟t really see myself as learning anything. I have played ball all of my life and I know what to expect.” Coaches  “I had to learn administration, the staff, and my place. I knew that in order to be a productive member of the program, I had to learn where I fit into the organization before I thought about anything else.”  “The personalities of my players were the most important. I had to figure out who had the drive and who needed a fire under their ass. This is the key to good coaching.”  “To be able to balance the wants of the coaching staff to the experience of the players. This is the toughest part of getting new players in every year.”  “The ability to seek and recognize talent…I know what is needed to win ballgames and I feel like I am just now able to cull that out in others.” Athletic Administrators  “I learned to be hands-off. The worst thing an (administrator) can do is to micromanage a coaching staff. Let them go free and they will do incredible things.”  “Make sure the program is on the same page as the administrators. I think it is important to make sure that the players and coaches understand the expectations of the people in the front office.”  “Have faith…if we did our job as the athletic office, we should have faith in the coaching staff we hired.” Alumni Boosters  “We know that to have a voice in the program, you have to fork up some money. This support allows us fans to be heard.”  “I learned that there are more ways to support the team other than money. If you come to meetings and stay active with the boosters, you get to know the players and staff. I only give a couple hundred dollars a year and my voice in the team is one of the loudest.”  “They depend on us for a winning season as much as we depend on them. Money only goes so far for the kids on the field…I think that if you asked them, they would say that having a strong fan base in the stands is just as important as cash.”  “I learned that the more they win, the looser my wallet gets.” Mental Models Data for the Mental Models discipline was collected by asking, “How is success gained in the football program at (the university)?” Players  “We dissect the opponent to find their strengths and weaknesses.”  “The team becomes one. When we are in the zone, we can predict what our teammates will do next. It‟s kind of weird that we understand each other so well.”  “We follow our leaders…the coach and QB. They know the stuff that will make us win.”  “A majority of the players have lived and breathed football since high school. We know what it takes to win, so we just go out there and make it happen.” Coaches  “It depends on the definition of success. I want to have a winning season, but I also want to produce good kids from the program.”  “We get into the minds of the rival. When I send kids on the field, they damn near know everything about the other team. I expect that my players take the field both athletically and psychologically.”  “Success is gained when we learn from our mistakes. I‟ve been coaching too long to harp on failure. If we mess up, we fix it and try to win next week. I want my players to know that each game should be a learning experience.” Athletic Administrators  “Follow the rules…football programs are more than touchdowns and head butts. The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) doesn‟t play around. We have to make sure to keep them happy by doing what they expect.”  “Balance is the key. I want to see players that do well in the classroom as well as on the field.”  “Success happens when all of those involved – the team, coaches, fans, faculty – get together to support the team. This happens in both winning and losing seasons.”  “When we don‟t have to ask the university for more money.” Alumni Boosters  “Success happens when we win. The university looks good and we all end up happy.” Building a Shared Vision The Shared Vision discipline was uncovered by asking stakeholders, “In your opinion, how does the football program cultivate a shared vision?” Football Learning Organization 7 Players  “We are continually encouraged to do our best…the boosters, coaches, faculty continually tell us how much we mean to the university.”  “Messages are everywhere. Our locker room is full of sayings. The coaches continually motivate us to do well.”  “I wouldn‟t necessarily call our team vision “shared”. We have little say in the overall vision of the program…we are expected to win. There is no deviating from that plan.” Coaches  “It is my job to motivate the team. All of the coaches do this. We want our boys to win…this is the vision that we pound into them.”  “We have one vision…to produce respectable men.”  “We have one vision…to make the university and (our team) look good.”  “We live the vision of the team…demand the best and give our all.” Athletic Administrators  “It is our job to show how football, and all other athletic teams for that matter, is important to the overall university.”  “The vision of the athletic department is to develop athletes who are strong students first and outstanding competitors second. We do this by continually demanding academic success from our players.”  “We leave much of the vision of the program to the coaching staff…They are the ones who have daily contact, so they should be the ones to set the vision.” Alumni Boosters  “We share the same vision by meeting with the coaches and the team. I get to feel part of the group by staying active and giving input.”  “I help to build the team‟s vision by contributing to them. My donations help the program get the best players possible.”  “We don‟t really have any say in the vision because the vision of the program never changes. It has and will always be to win.” Team Learning Data for the Team Learning discipline was collected by asking, “Give one example of how you deal with change in the football program.” Players  “We have to just be prepared for anything. One week we may have to throw out every play that we learned so far and totally restructure our strategy.”  “There is not much change happening…I don‟t really feel that change is something we should have to worry about.”  “We just change whatever needs to be changed. As players, we do what the coaches tell us…no questions asked.” Coaches  “Coaches must be comfortable with change. If we don‟t switch things up every now and then, we become predictable and defeatable.”  “I stress that change is necessary…I only want players who are willing to change when I tell them to.”  “Change usually comes from the „higher-ups‟. We deal with it and go on.” Athletic Administrators  “Change seems to be slow at this level of the program. We have regulations and we follow them. When new ones develop, we implement them.” Alumni Boosters  “Fans tend to be very leery of change. I want to be comfortable with my team...change doesn‟t allow this.”  “If we (the boosters) don‟t like the changes, we usually let them know through our donations.”  “They keep us in the loop when changes happen on the team. The coaches are usually open with us about why they changed things…this is one reason why I remain so active in the boosters.” Systems Thinking Systems Thinking data was collected by asking, “Explain how the football program fits into the larger university community.” Players  “We represent the university. The team understands this responsibility and we take it very seriously.”  “Members of the program are essentially ambassadors for the university. If we win, it‟s great advertisement for the school…if we lose, it could hurt our reputation.”  “I don‟t often take the university into consideration when I‟m on the field. I want to win…that is my only obligation at game time. I think it‟s bullshit when people blame us for a crappy university reputation.” Coaches  “I am the face of the team. To some, I am the face of the university. I take this very seriously. People often see me and my team as their gauge on how the university is doing. It‟s ashamed that folks equate football as the institution.” Football Learning Organization 8  “I like to think that the football program is just another example of a great department on campus.”  “The program is something extra. It should be seen as this. It is our job as coaches to encourage players to do well in the classroom…football should come second.” Athletic Administrators  “Football is just another one of the athletic programs that represent our school.”  “The football program is the premier athletic program. It serves as the biggest draw of alumni and people in the community. The university would not have the exposure that it has if it were not for the football program.” Alumni Boosters  “Football is the university.”  “When the football season is going well, then everything else seems to go well at the university. Ask any freshman walking the halls and they‟ll say that football is an important part of the college.” Discussion A critical look at each stakeholder groups‟ answers provides insight into the perceptions of the overall football program. From an organizational communication point of view, the quotes given by the stakeholders uncover strengths and opportunities that should be realized to enhance both the football program and the university. Personal Mastery Each of the stakeholder groups stated that they did, in fact, have to learn how to become a member of the football program. Both the players and coaches stated that they had to discover how to deal with each other and the organization as a whole. This commitment to learning how to interact did seem to have a positive effect on the overall communication of the internal groups. The internal stakeholders should be cautious of statements like, “I didn‟t really see myself as learning anything. I have played ball all of my life and I know what to expect.” This player‟s quote should give the internal groups warning that there may be players who have their own set agendas from previous athletic experiences. The external stakeholders saw their connection to the group in a much different manner than the internal stakeholders. While they do see their duty as enforcing university and association policy, the administration seemed to have a general consensus that the coaches should have direct control over the team. The boosters communicated an even more hands-off approach by just being content with having a voice. It should be noted that a majority of the boosters believed their donations to the program “bought” them an open channel of communication with the team. It may be to the best interest of this program to initiate conversations with their supporters outside of the context of money. Mental Models The prevailing theme in the Mental Models discipline was that none of the stakeholder groups defined program success the same way. While many saw success as having a winning season, each group explained a different path to reaching this goal. The players seemed to focus on a methodical, tactical way of winning. Statements like, “We dissect the opponent to find their strengths and weaknesses” and “When we are in the zone, we can predict what our teammates will do next” seem to resonate a collective spirit that should be nurtured by the coaching staff. The coaches seemed to understand their players‟ mindsets by encouraging learning from mistakes and psychologically analyzing their opponents. Again, as with the Personal Mastery discipline, the external stakeholders had a different view of attaining program success. According to the administration, adherence to rules and academic achievement seem to be equal to winning football games. Conversely, the alumni boosters seemed to have an air of “win at all costs.” The stance held by the boosters alerts an opportunity to educate them on organizational factors such as the challenges of being a student athlete and administrative tasks within the football program. Building a Shared Vision There was much discontinuity on attaining a program vision. Although a majority of the players stated that they are constantly encouraged by the coaching staff and boosters, the disconnect came from the statement, “I wouldn‟t necessarily call our team vision „shared‟.” The statement did draw agreement from many in the player focus group. Players agreed that they had little input into the workings of the team. The coaching staff should possibly consider strategy sessions with the players in order to increase a connection with the overall vision of the program. The largest disconnect from the coaches followed the statement, “We have one vision…” Two of the coaches felt that the vision was to produce overall student athletes while the remaining coaches saw their job as building university image. The unparalleled nature of the statements could pose a future problem with the coaching staff. The administrators saw the vision of the football program as simply a cog in the overarching athletic machine. This holistic view seemed to be the reason why most administrators stated that the vision of the team should be in the hands of the coaching staff. This Football Learning Organization 9 sentiment was also shared by many of the alumni boosters. Team Learning Overall, the players, coaches, and administrators seemed to be comfortable with change. The outlook of these stakeholders was to basically do anything necessary to maintain a winning season and productive program. The alumni boosters were not so open to change. While they did appreciate being kept up to date on program changes, the majority felt that any change was a threat to the possibility of team victory. Many of the boosters were in agreement that if they did not like the changes to the program, they would consider ending their donations. Systems Thinking All of the groups that have direct, daily contact with the university had similar views of the program‟s place in the larger institution. While there were comments like, “I think it‟s bullshit when people blame us for a crappy university reputation,” the overall view was that football existed as one element in a larger university system. These three stakeholder groups believed that their success or failure as a program would have a marginal effect on the university as a whole. The alumni boosters had a very different stance. The statement, “Football is the university” basically sums up the consensus of the group. They felt this aspect of university life was the only one worthy of maintaining a relationship. Follow-up questions in the focus group found that none of the alumni boosters who participated in the study kept in touch with past professors or departmental staff. Limitations and Future Research The information presented in the discussion section does shed light on interesting aspects of the way stakeholders see a university football program. The largest limitation in this study was the use of qualitative methodologies. While the focus groups and interviews did spark insight into the program, none of the data gathered can be generalized to the university population. In addition, the four stakeholder groups do not come near all of the groups who make up a football program. Future research should collect data from a random sample of the groups studied here as well as students, community citizens, and university faculty. This larger population should allow for a more expansive illustration of the perceptions within football program. Additionally, one midsized, southern university was used in this study. Future research should replicate the questioning at higher education institutions from different geographical areas and NCAA divisions. Finally, the learning organization framework should be used to examine other higher education sports teams. This would allow the researcher to see if the basic stakeholder themes are consistent in different athletic settings. Learning organization theory allows the higher education/communication scholar an opportunity to see the different messages that create and maintain organizational perception. One should use these data to facilitate better understanding between stakeholders and the general university community. References Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(September/October), 115-125. Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning and action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C. (1986). Skilled incompetence. Harvard Business Review, 64(5), 74-79. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1988). Organizational learning. In D. S. Pugh (Ed.) Organizational theory selected readings (pp. 352-370). New York: Penguin. Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 99-109. Argyris, C. (1993a). Education for leading-learning. Organizational Dynamics, 21(3), 5-17. Argyris, C. (1993b). Knowledge for action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C. (1994). Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review, 72(July/August), 77-86. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Bielefeld, W. (1994). What affects nonprofit survival? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 5(1), 19-36. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bouwen, R., & Fry, R. (1991). Organizational innovation and learning. International Studies of Management and Organization, 21(4), 37-67. Burke, W. W. (1992). Organizational development (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Calvert, G., Mobley, S., & Marshall, L. (1994). Grasping the learning organization. Training and Development, 48(6), 38-43. Champoux, J. (1997). Leadership and the self-renewing Football Learning Organization 10 organization. T. Connors (Ed.), The nonprofit handbook,(pp. 99-112). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Cohen, M. (1991). Individual learning and organizational routine: Some emerging connections. Organization Science, 2(1), 135139. Coopey, J. (1995). The learning organization, power, politics and ideology. Management Learning, 26(2), 193-213. Denton, D. K., & Wisdon, B. (1991). The learning organization involves the entire workforce. Quality Progress, 24(12), 69-72. Dery, D. (1982). Erring and learning: An organizational analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7(3), 217-223. Dixon, N. (1997). The hallways of learning. Organizational Management, 25(4), 23-35. Doherty, E. M. (1998). Creation of a learning laboratory in the classroom: Expected and unexpected lessons. Journal of Management Education, 22(5), 604-617. Dymock, D. (1999). Blind date: A case study of mentoring as workplace learning. Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counseling Today, 11(8), 312-317. Fulmer, R. M., Gibbs, P., & Keys, J. B. (1998). The second generation of learning organizations: New tools for sustaining competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 2(27), 6-20. Galagan, P. A. (1991). The learning organization made plain. Training and Development, 45(October), 42-50. Gordon, J. (1992). Performance technology: Blueprint for the learning organization. Training, 29(5), 27-36. Isaacs, W. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 24-39. Isaacs, W., & Senge, P. (1992). Overcoming limits to learning. European Journal of Operational Research, 59, 28-37. Kets de Vries, M., & Miller, D. (1985). The neurotic organization. London: Jossey-Bass. Keys, J. B., Fulmer, R. M., & Stumpf, S. A. (1996). Microworlds and simuworlds: Practice fields for the learning organization. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 36-59. Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and learning organizations. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 37-50. Kim, D. H. (1995). Toward learning organizations: Integrating total quality control and systems thinking. Cambridge: Pegasus Communications. Knudsen, K., Li, E., & Aamondt, J. (1981). Diagnosing and changing organizational learning through the use of experimental simulation and process analysis. Journal of Experimental Learning and Simulation, 3(4), 129-140. Kofman, F., & Senge, P. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of the learning organization. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 425. Kramlinger, T. (1992). Training's role in a learning organization. Training, 29(7), 46-51. Luthans, F., Rubach, M. J., & Marsnik, P. (1995). Going beyond total quality: The characteristics, techniques, and measures of learning organizations. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(1), 24-44. Marsick, V., & Watkins, K. (1994). The learning organization: An integrative version of HRD. The Human Resources Development Quarterly, 5(4), 353-360. McCartha, D.C. (2002). It pays to win. Business and Economic Review, 49(1), 3-12. McCaughan, N., & Palmer, B. (1994). Systems thinking for harassed managers. London: Kamac. McGill, M., & Slocum, J. R. (1993). Unlearning the organization. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 1-23. McKenna, S. (1999). Maps of complexity and organizational learning. Journal of Management Development, 18(9), 772-793. Meen, D. E., & Keough, M. (1992). Creating the learning organization. The McKinsey Quarterly, (1), 58-86. Mitroff, I. I., & Linestone, H. A. (1993). The unbounded mind: Breaking the chains of traditional business thinking. New York: Oxford University Press. Redding, J. (1997). Hardwiring the learning organization. Training and Development, 51(8), 6167. Robbins, S. P. (1998). Organizational behavior (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. (1988). Process consultation. Volume I: Its role in organizational development (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schein, E. (1993a). How can organizations learn faster: The challenge of entering the green room. Sloan Management Review, 34(2), 85-92. Schein, E. (1993b). On dialogue, culture and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 40-51. Schein, E. (1996). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning. Sloan Management Football Learning Organization 11 Review, 38(1), 9-19. Senge, P. (1990)a. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday. Senge, P. (1992). Building learning organizations. Journal of Quality and Participation, 15, 30-38. Senge, P. (1996). Systems thinking. Executive Excellence, 13(1), 15-26. Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fireldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday. Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market information processing and organizational learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(January), 35-45. Solomon, C. (1994). HR facilitates the learning organization concept. Personnel Journal, 73(11), 56-65. St. Clair, G. (1993). Benchmarking, total quality management, and the learning organization: New management paradigms for the information environment. Special Libraries, 84(Summer), 120121. Ulrich, D., VonGlinow, M., & Jick, T. (1993). Building and diffusing learning capability. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 52-66. Wann, D.L. & Branscombe, N.R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 117. Watkins, K. E., & Golembiewski, R. T. (1995). Rethinking organization development for the learning organization. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(1), 86-101. Weick, K., (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.