The concept of PLCs is a derivative of the learning organization theory that has been originally conceived for the business world as a model that would assist commercial companies to increase their output through continuous professionalization of their respective staff. The theory of learning organiza‐
tion was coined by Senge back in 1990 and has been complemented with additional interpretations, data, and information by many other scholars until nowadays. Even though they sound similar and are often used inter‐
changeably, scholars suggest that there is a difference between PLCs and learning organizations. Actually, Sackney and Mitchell (2001) explain that the difference is in the means and ends of the concept:
The two terms, although similar, are not synonymous. At the risk of sounding somewhat simplistic, we believe that the key difference lies in the definition of ends and means. In learning organizations, the ends of importance are or‐
ganizational growth, productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. The means are the people and the learning that they do in support of organizational goals.
[…] By contrast, in a learning community, the ends of importance are growth and development of the people. The means are the ways in which community members work and learn together (p. 1).
The framework of learning organizations, conceived by Senge (2006), rests on five core disciplines: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking. Senge (2006) also advised that an organization is a genuine learning organization only if “the five disciplines develop as an ensemble” (p. 11). Below is a brief description of each disci‐
pline of a learning organization and how they affect teachers’ learning and schools work.
Personal mastery is the first discipline of a learning organization. As a stand‐
alone phrase, it implies and urges for commitment to individual develop‐
ment and lifelong learning. People possessing such a trait are not contended with the skills, capacities, and knowledge they possess and they are “con‐
tinually expanding their ability to create the results they truly seek in life”
(Senge, 2006, p. 131). This discipline encourages teachers to seek and find ways for transcending their expectations and standards.
Education systems aspiring to be and to remain on top urge their teachers to get rid of outdated information, to review their classroom practices, and to enrichen their content knowledge. They are encouraged to be life‐long learners and it is widely known that learning is a social activity. Lieberman (2007) says that “Learning more can come from peers, research or knowl‐
edge that is generated together, but the starting point is one’s own prac‐
tice.” (p. 200). It is worth recalling that access to limitless learning sources, online tutorials offered by experts, and forums of professionals and practi‐
tioners have made personal mastery journey easier and more tangible than ever before.
The rapid social, economic, and technological developments, which will probably become even more dynamic in the future, are turning personal mastery into a necessity for professional survival in the highly complex and competitive world. Given that individual learning does not automati‐
cally translate into organizational learning, school leaderships are advised to identify teachers that are committed to personal mastery and to promote them as agents of learning and change.
Mental models are the assumptions a person may have or create about the surrounding world. They are often roadblocks that hinder teacher’s person‐
al learning and readiness for change, which usually affect the end users, respectively the students. Senge (2006) considers mental models as very powerful factors that shape one’s perceptions toward variety of compo‐
nents that are crucial for an organization. Due to mental models one per‐
son may have different perceptions about the same matter under different circumstances and various persons may come up with a similar perception about an issue under certain circumstances (Maund, 2003).
Mental models are a product of various experiences a person has had. They may also be “flawed or reflect a knowledge that no longer exists” (Chap‐
man & Ferfolja, 2001, p. 399). Fullan (2011) provides vivid examples how mental models hamper teachers’ work and have a negative impact on stu‐
dents. In order for teachers to challenge and alter their mental models, they should continually interact, exchange experiences, knowledge, and data (Hord, 1997). However, research into the impact of mental models on the educational process is sparse. Consequently, it is hard to believe that teach‐
ers are aware of the negative influence of the mental models that exist in their heads. For instance, Thompson, Gregg, and Niska (2004) conducted a mixed‐method research with principals and teachers of six schools. Their goal was to understand if the participants see their schools as learning or‐
ganizations. However, none of the principals spoke of mental models, which is a core discipline of a learning organization. Thus, lack of research on this discipline of a learning organization is a signal that principals and teachers
should be assisted to understand the power of mental models and their influence on the education process.
Shared vision is a force that synergizes and mobilizes organization’s mem‐
bers toward achievement of the set goal because “When people truly share a vision, they are connected, bound together by a common aspiration”
(Senge, 2006, p. 192). Differently from the two previous disciplines, shared vision seems to be clearer as a concept. For instance, all the participants of the aforementioned study conducted by Thompson et al. (2004) were aware of the importance of shared vision.
However, Senge (2006) cautions that there is a big difference between com‐
mitment to and compliance with a shared vision. He explains that shared vision is usually conceived and promoted by the leader and others are ex‐
pected to comply with rather than to be committed to it. Such a practice is quite common in the business world and bureaucratic organizations, but that should not be the case in schools. Schools are expected to be organiza‐
tions of equals, with flat structures, and shared responsibility. Thus, it is im‐
portant for principals to be aware that if school’s shared vision is shared and not imposed, it will change relationships within the organization, teachers will see the school as ‘our school’ and will be more committed to achieve‐
ment of aimed results. Being the central school figures, principals are en‐
couraged to involve the entire faculty in building school’s vision together, which would contribute to a strong cohesion, a sustained learning environ‐
ment, collective responsibilities, and easier achievement of foreseen goals.
It would strengthen relationships between the teachers, as well as with the principal, students, and their parents, which are key components for col‐
laboration between all the participants.
Team learning is the fourth discipline of a learning organization that facili‐
tates development of entire collective through reflection, dialogue, con‐
structive critique, and exchange of data, information, and knowledge. It enables one member to learn from the group and the group to learn from one member. In a way, team learning is a group mastery. The starting point of a successful team learning process is, “Collectively, we can bring more insightful, more intelligent than we can possibly be individually” (Senge, 2006, p. 221).
Team learning usually produces practical solution to classroom challenges, but it is also a long and complex process that depends to a great extent on the three aforementioned disciplines. In schools, it is empowered by en‐
couraging commitment to personal mastery, by urging teachers to change negative mental models, and by involving them in building shared vision. It also depends on a set of prerequisites, such as mutual respect and trust,
which lead to sharing of information, data, and experiences safely. Collin‐
son (2014) investigated the factors that motivated and restrained the dis‐
semination of teachers’ learning in three schools. The participants identi‐
fied 43 factors that motivate and 35 factors that restrain dissemination of organisational learning. Some of the main motivators were: relationships with colleagues, personal attitudes, level of competences, principal’s en‐
couragement, suitable environment, and time for meetings inside and out‐
side school. The main restrains included lack of time, peers’ attitudes, lack of trust and reliability, technical issues, and lack of PLC culture.
Given that members of these teams are usually committed to learning, the factors that affect their joint ventures require principal’s involvement in re‐
moving the possible obstacles. Thus, team learning is usually coordinated by the principal who is supposedly familiar with the personal traits and needs of the teachers as well as the culture of the school and beyond. For instance, Yuan and Zhang (2016) showed that principal’s presence during the team learning process is decisive for paving the way to an open dialogue between participants.
Systems thinking is the fifth discipline that encapsulates the whole theory of the learning organization. It is a construct enabling one to see the parts working together and interconnectedly (Senge, 2006). It also has two main meanings: “rising above the separate components to see the whole system, and thinking about each separate component as a part of the whole system”
(Shaked & Schechter, 2014, p. 794). Operating as part of a larger system and being a system on their own, schools are organizations whose work de‐
pends on interrelationships between instruction, curriculum, assessment, students’ attitudes, class size, and other similar parts of the school. School’s work is also influenced by relations between teachers, their attitude toward teaching and learning, their satisfaction with the job, incomes, and other incentives. Decisions of the past, present, and future as well as a conglom‐
erate of other external factors affect school’s operation and success, too.
Shaked and Schechter, (2014) posit that principals that work according system thinking framework do not try to fix the system by breaking it into parts, but rather by seeing the whole picture as one piece and by observing the hidden relations between the parts. If a school is not functioning well, then the principal, should step back, stand upfront as a conductor, and ob‐
serve if something has been missed out and how constituents of the school are functioning separately and in concert with others (Barnard, 2013). In conclusion, Thompson et al. (2004) argues that “A school must understand and practice the five disciplines of a learning organization to be a true pro‐
fessional learning community” (p. 5).