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
Liban,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting topic once again, and one where things like chaos, complexity, personality, context and other kinds of thinking all play a part regarding where on the reflection continuum you are focusing; between reality and ideal.
I like to mix my reflection process up, sometimes using Rickards 'reflective practitioner' approach and then occasionally using Pedler's questionning process where emotion is brought in. By default, I prefer logical thinking, but alternate the learning process between emotion and goal-orientated to encourage some learning fitness ;) per-se, whether it works is another matter.
It all eventually boils down to CBT... Cognitive Behavioural Theory; and how our perception of reality is always going to be flawed, which is why we need to continuously reflect to adjust our map of reality and try our best to cater for the future, which is unknown.
Background on CBT: We have 6 human senses (VAKOG) and a process of mapping behaviour:
Visual
Auditory
Kinaesthetic
Olfactory
Gustatory
If you’ve ever studied NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming), the above are known as our modalities and the following are our sub-modalities (associated/dissociated, colour/monochrome, framed/undreamed, clear/muffled, hard/soft, etc.). These collectively dictate our ability to understand reality and each is obviously flawed by nature.
Forming a map, a perception of reality, “reality is based on our senses of it”, which consists of millions and millions of sources of unconscious data, but humans can, in essence, only cope with on average nine. To make things even more complicated... Language – verbal and non-verbal, auditory and digital is also a linguistic summary of a map, so describing your map, becomes a ‘map of a map’.
This is an interesting topic, but the gist is about being open, questioning and understanding the variables involved in everything you do i.e. learning continuously.
An example of an area where goals are paramount is coaching, whether if you've ever coached anyone you'll know the GROW model... Goals, Reality, Options, What/When/Who... I think there might be scope for a model, which is more emergent possibly!
Kind Regards,
Aman
Aman,
ReplyDeleteAn interesting take on complexity theory and its linkage to action learning. Your response reminds me of Argyris 'espeoused theory' which argues that human beings make choices based on self induced perceptions and distortions.
What do you think of complexity and emergence? I was intrigued by an article written by Stacey (2005) where it is argued that it is impossible to bring about wholesale changes in organisations and rather organisations emerge on a continuos journey of change management with different workstreams taking place at different times.