POE 2003 Conference

Link to Action Learning Question and Answer

The Perspective: Action Learning

Panel Organizer:
Victoria J. Marsick, Co-Director, J.M. Huber Institute for Learning in Organization, Teachers College, Columbia University

Panelists:
Chris Dennis, President, CBD Associates

Isabel Rimanoczy, Vice President of Marketing and Sales,Leadership in International Management

Jo Tyler, Instructor, Teachers College, Columbia University

Knowledge Broker:
Ron Thomas, Lecturer, General Management – College of Business Administration, Northeastern University

Major Issues/ Points Raised

Victoria Marsick opened the session by listing some features of “Action Learning” (AL). She noted issues of:
• Levels of learning (individual/group/organization)
• Local vs. expert knowledge
• Tacit vs. explicit learning
• Learner-driven learning
Victoria pointed out that what AL looks like varies depending on the person involved, since learning happens at different levels. AL is a “shell,” a hook for a range of other types of teaching and learning experiences. She offered this definition of AL: An approach to working with and developing people that uses work on an actual project or problem as the way to learning.

Victoria described what AL looks like in practice. Project teams typically form the centerpiece. There are two typical variations:
1.) individuals may each have his or her own project and meet with the team for AL or
2.) more commonly, a team is formed with a common challenge and functions as a “learning lab.”
Groups should be formed to maximize diverse backgrounds. Learning coaches often work with groups. Groups may work with sponsors outside of the program who “own” the challenge or act as mentors. There may be scheduled events, such as presentations, field trips, data gathering or experiential exercises over the course of the project team’s life. The focus is to allow individuals and groups to share and compare: groups can act as consultants to each other. The key, stressed Victoria, is to be learner-centered and learner-issue-driven, working on real, meaningful issues with no known solution. In a true AL project, it is acceptable and even expected that people might disagree about outcomes.

Victoria cited a recent consultation with a major pharmaceutical company which had created several project teams to study a range of issues in succession planning. She worked with the teams to develop an ongoing process of reflection and self-evaluation during the course of the study, including candid and deep feedback among team members. Because the AL intervention was based on a real project task with significant organizational implications, team members found the experience powerful and valuable.

There are various “schools” of AL.
• Tacit learning (described by Tichy, Nonaka) emphasizes learning by doing and asking questions in real time.
• The Scientific school (associated with Kurt Lewin) asserts that learning takes place through data-driven, problem solving approaches. The focus is on “questioning insight” not expert teaching.
• The Experiential approach (developed by David Kolb) starts from one’s own lived experience and one’s personal reactions. Learning takes place through action and intentional, explicit reflection on that action.
• Critical Reflection (propounded by S. Brookfield) attempts to surface “undiscussable” assumptions of the organization or wider social system and to critique premises of the system.
These “schools” can and should be combined as appropriate to the project task at hand.

Victoria closed by offering an AL “learning formula”: L=P+Q.
   • “P” is the knowledge that we already have or that comes from books and education. It is useful in answering yesterday’s questions.
   • “Q” are questions that (a) stimulate new thinking; (b) surface and challenge existing assumptions; and (c) cause us to reframe tomorrow’s problems.
   • “L” is the new knowledge generated through action and reflection.

Isabel Rimanoczy began her presentation by asking, “What happens in an AL group?” In their consultation work, she and her colleagues use a systemic approach and look for development opportunities at five levels:
1. Personal
2. Professional
3. Team
4. Organization
5. Business

At the personal level, there may be opportunities to increase self awareness and purpose and to identify personal strengths and developmental areas. At the team level, the intervention could develop high performing team skills and/or discover leadership in a team setting. At the business level, one could address corporate business challenges and solve personal business challenges. At the organizational level, there may be opportunities to shape the organizational culture and address organizational issues. At the professional level, one can work on core business competencies.

Isabel’s consulting work is based on an AL Change Cycle, a cyclical model that begins with an Action, moves to Feedback, then to Awareness, then to identifying a Need, on to creating a Plan, which results in New Action — and the cycle begins again. She emphasized that feedback in and of itself is not enough. Feedback must lead to an awareness of one’s personal implication in and contribution to the issue or problem at hand. In turn, that awareness should connect to a perception of a need to change and a motivation to change through an effective plan.

In this Change Cycle, the role of the Learning Coach is crucial. The Learning Coach can, and should, take on a range of roles as appropriate to the learning situation and challenge. The Learning Coach may be an Observer, a Reflector, a Just-in-Time Teacher, a Learning Facilitator, a Designer, and/or an Individual Coach. Effective learning interventions must be tailored to fit diverse learning styles of clients in their organizational or systemic settings.

Isabel closed her presentation by commenting on the wide range of disciplinary contributions to the knowledge and skill base for an effective Learning Coach, including: group dynamics, leadership, adult learning, learning styles, communication, conflict resolution, human behavioral psychology, learning organizations, systems theory, dialogue, appreciative inquiry, action learning, action reflection learning, knowledge about self, business basics, and change management.

Chris Dennis spoke about using AL for global transformation. For him, real change is personal, an “inside out” process, driven by the learner’s needs and motivation. Adults are motivated to change from perceived need. The effective AL consultant must attempt to customize his or her interventions according to the clients’ learning styles. At the center of his work is the conviction that learning requires action. A major challenge in working with organizations is how to resist ego-driven competition in favor of commitment to effective organizational values, and embedding these values into the culture of the organization. He noted that the impressive technological changes of the past fifty years have not been matched by comparable advances in interpersonal development within organizations.

Chris discussed his involvement in a major organizational intervention with a division of W.R. Grace Co. This division, the world’s largest producer of cocoa, had recently been acquired by Grace, and was plagued with destructive internal divisions among various functions, departments and groups scattered across multiple locations in eight countries. They needed to profoundly re-think “how to be an effective global company.” Initially, the company tried to create new organizational charts, increase executive compensation, and build global teams, but these efforts failed.

Chris described the evolution of an alternative intervention strategy, which began by examining the necessary cultural shifts and the new management skills essential to a global firm. An initial organizational diagnosis identified a range of problems to work on: unclear vision, top-down management, organizational silos, mistrust, cultural misunderstandings, power conflicts, and decisions made on insufficient information. Cross-functional teams were created with specific organizational tasks to re-align strategy and structure and re-think the reward systems. Extensive effort was put into sharing communications and experiences within and among the geographically dispersed teams over many months.

An internal culture survey identified the central importance of developing cross-functional and global teamwork, trust, leadership, effective communications, and innovation. Leadership Forums were created, that is, four one-week programs that brought together small teams of five senior managers from different organizational functions off-site to work intensively on key strategic issues.

As a result of these collaborative and self-reflective small team efforts, the division began to see itself as a “one culture company.” Team members saw the benefits of sharing leadership and building internal trust. As a consequence of increased trust and a better understanding of each other’s issues and concerns, managers became more proactive and innovative, and many took on more effective leadership initiatives.

Jo Tyler focused on the learner’s perspective in AL, especially on the role of storytelling. AL links 1) the stress that learners feel due to an actual problem or challenge they are working on through action learning and 2) the achievements they experience as part of that project, often captured in the form of shared stories. For her, effective learning is content-independent, transferable, and transformative. Stories can capture the process of AL in an organization. She distinguished between the “public story,” for example, the espoused justification for creating AL teams, and the “dimensional” story, elicited from people actually involved in the AL project or problem. Successful stories are relevant, reliable, and rich in context.

Jo asked the audience to take two minutes to reflect on this question, “What is the best learning experience you have ever had?” Then, in groups of three or four, audience members shared their experiences with each other. Jo asked, “What did you hear in the exchange? Were there common themes?” Various members of the audience contributed their personal short “learning stories,” and Jo noted that this simple exercise asked us to implement AL by careful listening and reflecting. We need to develop skills of reflecting.

The session then opened up for questions. One person asked, “Is there ever a conclusion to the AL story?” Victoria Marsick responded that most do have a beginning, middle and end. But learners often become mentors and sponsors for others, initiating new AL cycles by implementing new work practices which generate new stories, and opportunities for learning. We must value the “local knowledge” that is thereby generated.

Another question concerned the issue of “false memories” distorting the shared stories. Are there any checks or balances on the use of potentially misleading stories? Victoria and Jo replied that as stories become part of the organization’s lore or myths, they can be a double-edged sword. Jo distinguished between “true” vs. “accurate” stories: the “lie” may sometimes be more effective, by capturing a deeper organizational truth. For stories to be transformative, they need to be coupled with a “Stop-and-Reflect” experience. What new questions are generated by the shared story?

Victoria described a general process of forming AL groups; generally four to six participants is the optimal size. Typically, they require structured guidance in helping participants surface “undiscussable” assumptions. One question asked about “resistant” group members. Victoria said the Learning Coach must bring the “resistance” up front for the group. How does the group respond to the “resistant” member’s behavior? This can be valuable learning data for the group’s process. The Coach could ask the group to reflect on “what are we doing well? Not so well?”

Key Themes

1. Effective learning is learner-centered, and driven by real-world problems or challenges in which the learner is actively engaged in finding a solution.

2. Feedback is not sufficient for learning. Feedback must be coupled with a process of reflecting on the learner’s own involvement in, and possible contribution to, the problem or challenge at hand. A major challenge is designing skills and opportunities to interrupt ongoing actions, so that productive, transformative reflection can take place.

3. Action learning does not take place among isolated individuals; at heart, it is an outcome of effective group work on a shared problem or set of concerns. But to fulfill its learning potential, the group typically needs a Learning Coach who can help the group surface tacit or undiscussable assumptions as part of an Action Learning Cycle that generates new questions, plans, and actions. The most effective groups may be composed of learners with diverse backgrounds, skills, and organizational functions.

4. Stories can be a major contributor to effective learning. Organizations generate stories; but stories, just like organizational routines, need to be surfaced and reflected upon.

Further Reflections

1. It is striking how few of these approaches to organizational transformation are applied in institutions of higher learning. At Northeastern, we are engaged in major organizational initiatives to improve the quality of our services. Yet, it appears that few of these action learning insights are implemented here.

2. How can university faculty become skilled Learning Coaches? Much of the panel discussion came from examples of consultations to non-academic organizations. Is it plausible or possible or even desirable to help faculty in different disciplines acquire some of the essential skills of Learning Coaches?

3. The notion of “productive interruptions” of routine activities—that lead to “reflection-in-practice”—is something that faculty should be able to incorporate into their classroom teaching, but there is always a tension between a responsibility to “cover the material” and the opportunity to help students surface their tacit assumptions for critical reflection.  

Link to Action Learning Question and Answer

• Return to Reports from the Panel Sessions