The future of action learning

Action learning is an approach to individual and organisational development whereby people working in small sets tackle important organisational problems and learn from their attempts to change it (Pedler, 2008, pp. 3). Lately an increasing number of organisations have included action learning in their organisational development programmes. But it is important to challenge this dichotomy between action learning which emphasises the sociological rather than the psychological aspects of learning and that of organisational learning which seeks to maintain the status quo and improve delivery to shareholders (Leavy, 1998).

So given the current infatuation with this type of learning, is there a risk that the growth of action learning within education and management learning creates dilutions, deviations and departures (Pedler et al, 2005) which has the potential to undermine Revan’s classical principles (Revan, 1980).

Since the 1980’s, the concept of action learning has had a huge impact in business schools and particularly in post graduate programmes. Indeed one could argue that academics and management education institutions have led the way in developing management theories based on traditional liberal humanist approach which focus on self awareness and personal tolerance. They have influenced thousands of graduates who are just as likely to promote this type of learning (Kharuna, 2007). The graduates of these liberal institutions have in turn attempted to put their mark on Revan’s original idea and came up with some radical interpretations of what Revan envisaged. Wilmot’s (1997) critical action learning, Learmonth et al (2004) auto action learning, Pedler’s (2005) online and remote action learning, Bourner et al (1997) self-managed action learning and Boshyk’s (1999) business-driven action learning are important adaptations of Revan’s classical principles.

One must acknowledge that Revans always maintained there is no single form or version of action learning. Pedler (2008) argues that action learning has a philosophical connotation about it as ‘it is concerned with profound knowledge of oneself and the world and cannot be communicated as a formula or technique (pp. 3-4)’. Furthermore Marquadt (1999) postulates that within the action learning process, individuals create both knowledge and solutions for the organisations whilst forming social networks that can continue generating knowledge.

Revan articulated that action learning is based on the premise that action and learning are interlinked as defined by his seminal equation; Learning (L) = P (programmed knowledge) + Q (questioning insight). Revan however subordinated the P to the Q to emphasise the importance of critical reflection. This is further supported by Reynold’s (1999) call for the questioning of ‘common sense and the way these should be done in organisation (pp. 198)’.

These latter day adaptations of the original concept of action learning are all holistic and enthusiastic visions that tend to overcome the messy and imperfect organisational problems. So long as the process is not prescribed and forced upon individuals, there will always be opportunities to learn through influence and by the actions and intentions of others. After all, learning is context specific and what comes out of the various methods of action learning is a cluster of context specific approaches that emphasise learning through action or during the action itself.

References

Pedler, M (2008). Action learning for managers, Gower Publishing, England

Leavy, B. (1998),’The Concept of learning in the strategy field’, Management Learning, Vol.29, No. 4, pp. 337-66

 Revans, R.W (1980) Action learning: new techniques for managers (London, Blond and Briggs)

Pedler, M., J.G Burgoyne and C. Brook (2005), what has action learning learned to become? Action learning research and practice 2, no. 1, pp. 49-68

Kharuna R. (2007), From Higher aims to hired hands: the social transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession, Princeton university press, Princeton.

Wilmott, H. (1997) Critical Management learning, in J. Burgoyne and M. Reynolds (eds) Management learning: integrating perspectives in theory and practice (London, Sage), 161-176

Learmonth, A and Pedler, M (2004) Auto action learning: a tool policy change? Building capacity across the development regional system to improve health in the North East of England, Health Policy, 68(2), 169-181

Bourner, T., Beaty, L. And Frost,P (1997) Participating in action learning ,in : Pedler(ed) Action learning in practice (London, Gower), 279-290

Boshyk, Y (199) Business- driven action learning: global best practices (London, Palgrave, McMillan)

Marquadt, M.J. (1999) Action learning in action: transforming problems and people for world class organisational learning, Palo Alto, CA, Davies-Black

Reynolds, M. (1999) Grasping the nettle: possibilities and pitfalls of a critical management pedagogy, British journal of management, 10(2), 171-184