action learning: avoiding conflict or enabling action

This article was downloaded by: [University of California, Riverside Libraries]On: 10 October 2014, At: 23:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action Learning: Research and PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/calr20

Action learning: avoiding conflict orenabling actionAileen Corley a & Ann Thorne aa Liverpool John Moores University , UKPublished online: 18 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Aileen Corley & Ann Thorne (2006) Action learning: avoidingconflict or enabling action, Action Learning: Research and Practice, 3:01, 31-44, DOI:10.1080/14767330600574607

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767330600574607

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/calr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14767330600574607

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767330600574607

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Action learning: avoiding conflict

or enabling action

Aileen Corley� and Ann ThorneLiverpool John Moores University, UK

Action learning is based on the premise that action and learning are inextricably entwined and it is

this potential, to enable action, which has contributed to the growth of action learning within

education and management development programmes. However has this growth in action

learning lead to an evolution or a dilution of Revan’s classical Principles (RCP)? We illustrate,

using examples from a case study organisation, how action learning enabled action but also how

action learning supported some participants in avoiding conflict. We argue that key decision

makers in the organisation are, often unacknowledged, part of the action learning process and

that while the action learning sets enabled participants to practice questioning taken-for-granted-

assumptions, this questioning needed to be extended and supported within wider communities.

We also argue that critical theory can enhance action learning by enabling better questioning and

we refocus attention on the need for ‘organizing insight’ (Vince, 2004). Finally we reemphasise

the social aspect of critically reflective practice and in the spirit of engaging and extending the

community of reflective practice we offer our reflections; opening a space for others to question

and reflect extending further theory which illuminates the idea of action learning.

Introduction

This paper is situated within a national research and enterprise agenda which empha-

sises education industry collaborations and advocates the need for managers who are

able to think critically, reflect upon their learning and bring about major change. To

seek to achieve these desired outcomes our practice has been informed by the ideals of

action learning (Revans, 1983; Pedler, 2005) and critical reflection (Reynolds, 1998)

and we have utilised these approaches within a range of management education and

development programmes. This paper is based on a case study taken from the colla-

borative in-company programme area.

The case study describes a management development programme, now in its eighth

year, developed for a County Council (CC) in partnership with a UK university. The

aim of the programme was to develop managers and promote organisational change.

Action Learning: Research and Practice

Vol. 3, No. 1, April 2006, pp. 31–44

�Corresponding author. Liverpool John Moores University, Management School, 98 Mount

Pleasant, Liverpool L3 5UZ, UK. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1476-7333 (print); ISSN 1476-7341 (online)=06=010031-14 # 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14767330600574607

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Evaluation research indicated that in the management and leadership area the

programme was viewed as a success. However, in terms of its impact on change the

programme was viewed less positively (Thorne et al., 2002).

This paper originated in a subsequent conversation in which we as ‘researcher-

participants’ questioned whether action learning, as illustrated by our programme,

was achieving its full potential. In particular we were concerned with the degree to

which action learning had supported participants in avoiding conflict rather than

enabling them to take action within the case organisation. This paper then is a

product of our seeking to practice what we preach, reflecting on our practice in

order to enable better understanding to inform future action.

We address the following research questions:

. Has action learning, as illustrated by the case study programme, enabled partici-

pants to take action or supported them in avoiding conflict?

. Is the process of action learning undertaken in Higher Education, and as illustrated

by this case study, achieving its full potential?

We provide examples of action enabled and conflict avoided within the case

programme and illustrate some of the tensions and contradictions experienced by

participants as they strove to implement action within the organisation. We argue

that key decision makers in the organisation are, often unacknowledged, part of the

action learning process and that while the action learning sets enabled participants

to practice questioning taken-for-granted-assumptions, this questioning needed to

be extended and supported within wider communities. We also argue that critical

theory can enhance action learning by enabling better questioning and we refocus

attention on the need for ‘organizing insight’ (Vince, 2004). We acknowledge some

slippage from our initial ideals and recognise that the sets had become a little too

safe, even for us. Finally we reemphasise the social aspect of critically reflective prac-

tice and in the spirit of engaging and extending the community of reflective practice

we offer our reflections; opening a space for others to question and reflect extending

further theory which illuminates the idea of action learning.

The potential of action learning to enable action

Action learning is based on the premise that action and learning are inextricably

entwined and this relationship has been represented as a learning equation: learning

(L) ¼ PþQ (Pedler & Aspinwall, 1996). However, different authors have provided

varying interpretations regarding the components of this equation. Many argue that

effective learning depends on the appropriate mix of expert / programmed knowledge

(p) and questioning insight (q), (Koo, 1999). But what is the appropriate mix and

who decides the mix? Pedler et al. (2005) argue that the search for fresh questions

and ‘q’ (questioning insight) must take primacy over access to expert knowledge or

‘p’. However, critical educators (McLaughlin & Thorpe, 1993; Willmott, 1997;

32 A. Corley and A. Thorne

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Rigg & Trehan, 2004) highlight the need for critical theory. We revisit some of these

debates within our discussion.

Over the last decade there has been a growing interest and usage of action learning

on postgraduate and post-experience programmes. Some claim that action learning

has finally ‘come of age’ (Levy, 2000). However, Pedler et al. (2005) caution that

the increased popularity of action learning has resulted in a shift away from

‘Revans’ classical principles’ (RCP) towards:

. integration into teaching programmes

. sets of six

. own job projects

. expert facilitators

They question whether or not such shifts constitute a dilution or an evolution of RCP.

This paper responds to this question and provides examples of action enabled and

conflict avoided within a programme which incorporates several such shifts. By criti-

cally reflecting on our own practices we question whether we have contributed to an

evolution or a dilution of action learning.

As educators we have been influenced by the ideals of critical management theorists

and arguments advocating a critical approach to management education (Alvesson &

Willmott, 1992; Willmott, 1994; Reynolds, 1998). In particular Reynolds’ assertion

that:

The aim of management education . . . . should not be to fit people into institutions as

they currently exist, but to encourage them in questioning and confronting the social

and political forces which provide the context of their work, and in questioning claims

of (common sense) or (the way things should be done). (Reynolds, 1998, p. 198)

As influential members of the programme team we believed that the above statement

represented an ideal and action learning as ‘ethos and method’ (Pedler, 2005; Pedler

et al., 2005) supported the implementation of this ideal within the case programme.

Critical approaches to management education are distinctive in that they strive to

connect with the broader social structures of power, rather than the traditional

liberal humanist concerns which focus on self awareness and personal tolerance,

(Grey & Antonacopoulou, 2004). Management educators who strive to bring a

more critical edge to business and management education (McLaughlin & Thorpe,

1993; Willmott, 1997; Rigg & Trehan, 2004) advocate an emancipatory agenda offer-

ing a vision of a fairer and more just society. However, Rigg and Trehan (2004, p. 162)

caution that: ‘there is no inevitable flow between individual transformatory learning

and critical practice at an organisational or societal level’.

An increased awareness of self and organisation operating within a political arena is

acknowledged by Pedler (2005, p. 4). However he argues and cautions that:

The purpose of action learning is to shift the centre of gravity from thought to action as

the basis for learning. This is the value preference that makes action learning powerful

and distinctive; but equally, in its deliberate pragmatism and busyness, it may also some-

times make it blind to wider questions.

Avoiding conflict or enabling action 33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

These wider questions are explicitly raised by critical theorists and we would argue

need to be addressed if action learning is to achieve its full potential. An espoused

outcome of the case study programme was to help managers challenge conventions

and to think more strategically. Action learning as ethos and method appeared to

support this outcome and as programme designers and influential stakeholders we

introduced action learning sets as fundamental to the programme design. Revans

viewed the set as central to action learning and regarded sets as part of wider networks

of sets in organisations, not as stand alone entities, (Pedler, 2005). Advocates of

action learning argue that action learning sets provide a place where ‘comrades in

adversity’ rehearse and practice questioning, reflecting on action while becoming

‘tempered radicals’ (Myerson & Scully, 1995); tempered radicals rather than ‘shrill

protestors’ who: ‘stand together to promote valued social and organisational

outcomes’ (Pedler, 2005, p. 3).

However, who has the power and influence to decide if an outcome is valued?

Action learning and critical action learning share a common concern, to enable

social emancipatory action within the organisation. However, critical action learning

draws more explicit attention to the power relations which influence sets. As

programme designers we were aware of the asymmetrical and evolving power relations

between tutors, students and the employer representatives and stakeholder theory

provided some insight into the issues involved.

Identifying key stakeholders: evolving power dynamics

Stakeholder theory is based on the premise that organisations have a number of

stakeholders or interested parties who influence and are influenced by them.

For learning to take place in any partnership, it has been argued that it is essential to

identify and involve the key stakeholders (Boot & Evans, 1990; Ormerod, 1996;

Keithley & Redman, 1997). Within the case study programme three key stakeholder

groups were identified: the sponsoring organisation (represented by the CC coordina-

tor and planning team); the university (represented by the programme leader and

programme team) and the potential participants (CC managers).

At the planning stage it was identified that each stakeholder group had desired

outcomes:

. CC wanted to improve management and leadership skills in order to drive change

within the organisation.

. The university wanted to ensure the programme meet CC needs while meeting

requirements of academic rigour, standards and conventions.

. CC managers wanted to improve their current knowledge and skills in order to

enhance their career prospects within CC.

Influences on the stakeholders were acknowledged, in particular we were aware of the

influential position we occupied due to our knowledge of and relationships within the

organisation and the university. The university viewed the programme as supporting


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

the national research and enterprise agenda and in addition, they welcomed the

revenue and status attached to delivering a major change programme. CC trusted

us to design a programme that would encourage participants to action change

within the organisation. However, we were also constrained by university require-

ments and CC expectations of change at an organisational level. This is discussed

further within our examples of action enabled and conflict avoided. The university,

while accepting the ethos of action learning and action learning sets, insisted that

the final masters level be assessed via the production of an individual change

project/dissertation and not a group project. It will be useful at this point to set out

the programme design.

The case study programme

A programme comprising a certificate, diploma and masters in change management

was developed and approved by the university and the organisation. The aim of the

programme was to improve management and leadership skills in order to drive

change within CC by helping managers challenge conventions and to think strategi-

cally. The programme focused on a process radical pedagogy while introducing

some elements of a content radical pedagogy (Reynolds, 1997). Participative learning

methods compatible with a process radical pedagogy were emphasised throughout the

programme. The programme was also informed by an ethos of action learning using

managers’ real experiences as the basis for class discussion and work-based assess-

ments. In addition, action learning was utilised as a method to encourage cross-

departmental communication and teamwork. In particular action learning sets were

formed to support the production of two group assessments: one at certificate and

one at diploma stage. A further action learning set was formed at the final masters

stage to support the production of the individual dissertation.

Radical content was introduced during the induction to the programme and in

particular, ideas from critical management education (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992;

Willmott, 1994; Reynolds, 1998). We emphasised the concept of the critically reflec-

tive practitioner (Reynolds, 1998) and four characteristics of critical reflection

informed our pedagogy: a concern with questioning assumptions; a social rather

than individual focus; particular attention paid to the analysis of power relations

and a concern with emancipation.

Experience from previous partnership programmes was shared with CC including

the need to involve different stakeholder groups in the development, delivery and on-

going evaluation of the programme. The design team recognised the importance of

the topic chosen, the need for ‘problems rather than puzzles’, and that managers

would need support from mentors in the organisation. CC were advised of the

need to facilitate the selection of work-based assessment topics and the need for

responses to recommendations arising from the group work and the individual

dissertation. However, as will be illustrated within our examples not all managers

felt supported in choosing a topic and not all groups received constructive feedback

on their recommendations.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

This paper developed from us questioning our practice and reflecting on our ideals.

As influential stakeholders our views on the purpose of education and our espoused

theory of learning impacted upon the programme design and delivery. Reflecting

on our espoused theory of critically reflective practice we question our practices

and acknowledge some slippage from our ideals.

Methodology

This paper draws on research generated for an on-going evaluation project and the

case study programme has provided the ‘close up’ (Pritchard & Trowler, 2003)

data for the paper. Close up research arises from the concerns and daily practice of

practitioners and ‘appreciates the complex, culturally and historically specific charac-

ter of human practice as it is lived out . . . ’ (Pritchard & Trowler, 2003, p. xv). The

evaluation project utilises a range of research methods and is informed by an action

research approach. The authors have been involved with the CC programme since

its development and are the main facilitators of the action learning sets. As facilitators

and ‘researcher participants’ (Gans, 1968) we have recorded accounts of events,

verbatim quotes and generated data in the form of participants’ written reflections,

interviews, focus groups and programme meetings. The cases selected for presen-

tation are ‘theoretical’ (Mason, 2002) selected because they provide examples of

action enabled and conflict avoided. They also illustrate different perceptions

enabling us to develop and test our argument.

As part of our reflective practice we strive to question and enable questioning of our

own practice in order to ‘become’ and support others in ‘becoming’ critically reflective

practitioners, (Corley & Eades, 2004). Participants and organisation stakeholders were

made aware of our research interests and consent was given for the use of participants’

reflections and evaluation data as research material. In the spirit of ‘informed consent’

(Mason, 2002) we have periodically discussed the implications of this consent and have

asked participants to check the accuracy of transcripts and to confirm that their

accounts (appropriately anonymised) can be utilized for future research and potential

publication. Within this paper we refer to individuals as members of a particular

stakeholder group and omit any reference to a particular department or section.

Examples of action enabled and conflict avoided

The account presented below has been constructed by us as we analysed the evalu-

ation data from a specific perspective. We have focused attention on the perceptions

of participants and organisational stakeholders. We present our account of this

analysis and focus on claims that action learning enabled action or resulted in

action avoided in order to illuminate our research questions:

. Has action learning, as illustrated by the case study programme, enabled partici-

pants to take action or supported them in avoiding conflict?




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Enabling action

Evaluation data provides evidence that a number of actions have been undertaken at

both the organisational and the department level, (Thorne et al., 2005).

Data also indicates that different stakeholder groups claim the programme has

enabled change. This is illustrated by a past participant, a Head of Service, who states:

I have been able to see change management as a distinct skill. Helped me to manage

improvement in performance of (named service) over the last 2 or 3 years through motiv-

ating staff by setting targets, changing culture and building better teams, changing

culture was the biggest challenge.

Senior managers also claim that the programme has enhanced the performance of

participants and enabled action within CC as illustrated by the following comment

from a senior manager:

Fact that all middle managers in service have gone through some level of change manage-

ment course has been a major factor in Service improvements.

Two heads of service have been on the programme and their areas have been recog-

nised as amongst the most progressive within the Authority. This has led to the follow-

ing comment within the CC Audit Report (2004):

Progress on the training and development strategy within the Authority appears exten-

sive. The management development programme in partnership with (university) is

highly valued by managers, although there is a view that attendance should be manda-

tory, as those managers who do not attend can very often be the ones who need it most.

The perception that managers who have attended the programme are somehow

‘different’ to those who have not is reflected in comments made by participants.

Central to this difference was a perceived ‘openness’ from the manager to ideas and

methods arising from the programme; an ability to evolve the ethos of action learning

into the department. This is exemplified by a comment from a participant:

Because we have come from worst to the best performing department it’s given me a real

buzz, I leant a lot from the programme and as the manager has put into action some of the

stuff we did, such as focus groups and self evaluation, rather than having things passed

down from above — this drives the change. We don’t want to go back to that bad position.

All participants viewed a supportive line manager as central to enabling action and on

occasions this support involved discussing why change was not happening. This

growing political awareness of self and organisation operating within a political

arena is illustrated by the following comments made by participants:

Budget restrictions prevent some change happening quickly. Changes in (named) department

for example have been handled fantastically well. Few years ago were rock bottom of table

for appointments, now top of table . . . good leader good staff—he’s been on programme.

Problems with joined up thinking. Targets are set/dictated externally. Community is a

pressure, tenants forum, etc.

A topic of conversation which persistently arose during action learning set meetings

was the issues of participants’ perceptions of support, or lack of support, from line

managers and colleagues. Some participants, as illustrated above, provided examples


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

of how supportive managers did enable action. However other participants felt unsup-

ported and unable to take action, this is illustrated below.

Avoiding action

As previously discussed, emphasis was placed on the choice of topics to ensure group

projects and individual dissertations were of significance to the organisation;

‘problems’ rather than ‘puzzles’. However, as successive cohorts went through the

programme participants began to comment that some managers did not fully

engage in the process and tended to ‘rubber stamp’ the topics.

The significance of the projects was also queried by CC as exemplified by a senior

manager who commented: ‘The projects didn’t fully meet our real needs for change’.

CC expected the projects to lead to organisational change and to some extent blamed

the managers for not taking more responsibility as illustrated by a senior manager at

an evaluation meeting:

I had expected more from the managers they’re doing well in some respects but don’t

seem to take the responsibility to make the changes, even at their own level, some of

them wait for something from on high before they actually get on with things.

However some groups and individuals felt unsupported and unable to drive through

change. Feedback from some senior managers hindered learning, as one participant

explored while reflecting on the group presentation:

The whole idea of the programme was a brilliant idea, suggestions for groups was also

good, maybe no one person talks it through, no-one there to drive it forward. As individ-

uals I don’t feel we have the power to drive this gap forward, if we had the backing of

someone to drive it forward with us (mentor/support). Some of the directors said they

thought our ideas wouldn’t work so we thought, oh well not good enough, and lost

motivation.

This ‘lost motivation’ and perceived lack of ‘power’ was also evidenced when partici-

pants received no feedback on their recommendations, as one participant explained:

With regard to the last group assignment . . . I understand that members of a corporate

working group have received copies of all assignments, but I am unaware as to

whether any recommendations have been adopted by the group.

A few participants commented that their recommendations had been implemented

but they had found out via the ‘grapevine’ and had not received official feedback.

As one participant commented:

I was asked to present my findings to a section meeting back in July but this meeting was

cancelled due to other priorities. However, some of my recommendations were

implemented probably after the original presentation.

Several participants questioned if the organisation really wanted to change and

reflected on the historical and political context, this is illustrated by the following

comments from participants:

Weight of change comes from the back door in – some senior managers keen on change,

others not.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

No guidance from senior managers on what changes are required. Just get on with

it . . . Historical aspect; this is how we’ve always done it attitude. Changes driven by

legislation, not management, quite reactive.

Informal discussions with organisational stakeholders also highlight the political

context within which the programme operated, as exemplified by the following

comment:

They say they want to implement changes but no action. Every deadline slips, as many

are unrealistic. The (named committee) can constrain them, huge blame culture.

Is action learning enabling action?

The data presented above presents examples of action enabled and action

avoided. However there is a persistent perception that the projects selected by partici-

pants have not fully meet the organisation’s ‘real needs for change’ while some partici-

pants perceived a lack of support from senior managers. In particular some

participants claimed that there was no ‘real’ interest in the topic selection or the

recommendations produced.

An analysis of the initial research proposals and the final dissertations demonstrates

that a vast majority of participants reduced the scope, and consequently the expected out-

comes, of the final dissertation. While it is recognised that in many change projects the

final outcomes do differ from the original aims, several changes did relate to the

context in which the research was based. In particular, away from a focus on organis-

ational problems towards ‘own job’ issues. Participants took the opportunity to discuss

reasons for their proposed changes during set meetings. A common complaint raised

was a perceived lack of support and the difficulty some participants experienced in acces-

sing data. As one set member commented: ‘Administrative hurdles put in the way.’ Other

participants focused on obtaining the MA and this became their prime motivation, as one

participant explained: ‘MA has a good ring about it, something that can’t be taken away

from you.’ A small minority of participants became disenchanted with the authority and

obtained employment elsewhere. As one participant reflects:

My eyes were opened and I just felt I was wasting my time here, they don’t really want to

listen and I saw a job in (named organisation) and thought well, I like the people but it’ll

take time to change and I can’t wait around.

However the majority of participants claim that the action learning experience

enhanced their learning and has led to improved managerial practice. This is exempli-

fied by the following comment:

The programme provided an opportunity to interact with colleagues in similar positions

of responsibility and exchange common experiences. This relationship continues and is

useful in the daily routine as and when matters arise and there is a need to seek peer

advice . . .

The above illustration provides some insight into how action learning integrated

within a teaching programme can evolve; enabling action by ensuring the individual

is supported to question beyond the original action learning set.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Discussion: avoiding conflict or enabling action? Evolution or dilution

of RCP?

Within this section we reflect on the identified shifts from RCP (Pedler et al., 2005)

which occurred in our programme and how they appeared to largely constitute an

evolution rather than a dilution of RCP. We utilise these shifts as a structure to

address our research questions.

. Has action learning, as illustrated by the case study programme, enabled

participants to take action or supported them in avoiding conflict?



Integration into teaching programmes

If action learning is to make an impact on management development and education

then the challenges of integrating this ethos and method within teaching programmes

must be faced by management educators. We argue that the integration of action

learning into teaching programmes is a welcome evolution but as illustrated by our

data this evolution is not without its problems.

Our data illustrates that action learning has resulted in participants, and some

organisational stakeholders, developing an increased awareness of themselves and

CC as operating within a political arena. Ironically, this increased awareness on

occasions resulted in some participants avoiding conflict by reducing the scope of

their initial research. This ensured that personal outcomes were achieved but

detracted from perceived organisational outcomes. However, other participants,

who perceived they were supported by their line managers, discuss how they were

enabled to implement action.

Sets of six

The sets within CC predominately comprised six to eight managers including an

academic as an expert facilitator. Occasionally the set met without the facilitator

and while sets were told they could invite another expert, mentor or champion

from the organisation this never occurred.

We believe that the ability to question and reflect within the safety of action learning

sets provided participants with a degree of support; a safe place (perhaps too safe) where

they could rehearse critically reflective skills and avoid the dangers of becoming ‘shrill

protestors’ (Pedler et al., 2005). Some participants were able to develop wider support

beyond the set, enabling them to question assumptions without becoming margina-

lised, displaying attributes of the ‘tempered radical’: (Myerson & Scully, 1995).

However, other participants did feel marginalised and their only support was the

original set. These participants chose to focus on the achievement of the qualification

and personal development arguably at the expense of organisational outcomes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

The support of the line manager and the manager’s openness to action learning as

‘ethos’ and ‘method’ appears to be central if action learning is to achieve its potential

and enable organisational change. If sets remain as individual sets then the potential of

action learning is diluted; sets need to be networked with other sets. This requires that

key organisational decision makers visibly support the sets and explore ways in which

the learning generated can be transferred and shared.

Own job projects

As discussed above the inclusion of own job projects did lead to some dilution of

action learning. In particular, when the individual felt unsupported and became

primarily motivated by the academic qualification. Again this emphasises the need

to involve the line manager and senior management. We argue that support from

senior management is more likely to be achieved if they are involved and acknowl-

edged as part of the learning and if they perceive that ‘problems’ identified are

aligned with the corporate agenda and potentially ‘add value’ to the organisation.

Expert facilitators

Action learning is founded in the wisdom of peers and it is argued that a sufficient variety

of value systems can be found in the set. Pedler (2005) acknowledges that this is a high

ideal and questions if this can be realised, especially in action learning sets convened

within a single organisation. We suggest that the inclusion of an expert facilitator can

enhance the quality of questioning by introducing p (expert/programmed knowledge)

in order to enable better Q (questioning insight). P could take the form of organisational

or theoretical knowledge offered to the set as knowledge that is context dependent, con-

tested and situated, thereby encouraging the set to challenge and question assumptions.

The majority of mainstream management theory offers descriptive or prescriptive the-

ories which fail to meet managers real needs (Grey, 2005) while critical theory

encourages the type of questioning needed to develop questioning insight and learning.

Others (Dehler et al., 2004) argue that critical management education offers a more

appropriate skill set than does the mainstream and prepares managers for complexity,

uncertainty, equivocality, and value conflicts by raising their level of ‘complicated

understanding’. However, Pedler (2005, p. 5) cautions;

The critical view is at its best in pointing out what is wrong, and less strong on the urgent

concern with how best to go on. What right do we have to criticise without the honest

intention and heart felt commitment to join in to make things better?

The idea of joining in brings to the fore the social aspect of questioning taken-

for-granted assumptions. We have illustrated that within CC some managers felt mar-

ginalised. Critical educators have for some time acknowledged the complications

which can arise when critical reflexivity is introduced within the context of edu-

cational programmes (Brittan & Maynard, 1985; Brookfield, 1994). In particular,

that the manager who begins to question taken-for-granted assumptions can begin

to feel isolated from his or her community.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Contributing to an evolution

Action learning provides a space where the comparatively abstract ideas of critical

theory can be mobilised and applied (Rigg & Trehan, 2004). However, we would

be naı̈ve to suggest that critical theory holds all the answers, if indeed it holds any.

What we believe critical theory has to offer is an understanding that learning,

power, politics and emotion are interlinked (Vince, 2004). Critical theory can

provide a new lens to examine, understand and act upon the emotional turmoil

that learning can create.

Vince exemplifies the ways in which politics, emotion, learning and organising

interact in the context of action learning by adding an additional component to the

original formula. This is the notion of ‘organizing insight’ which adds to the equation

that action learning is also a reflection of existing organisational dynamics created in

action: L ¼ PþQþO where O ¼ ‘organizing insight’ (Vince, 2004). He argues that

organising insight provides a link between action learning and organisational learning

and organizing insight becomes possible when:

there is an examination of the politics that surround and inform organizing. In addition,

to comprehend these politics it is often necessary to question these political choices and

decisions, both consciously and unconsciously’. (Vince, 2004, p. 12)

This questioning of taken-for-granted assumptions is central to the ideals of criti-

cally reflective practice. Reynolds (1998) emphasises the social aspect of this ques-

tioning and the need to encourage participants to confront the social and political

forces which provided the context of their work. Within CC action learning sets pro-

vided a safe place to practice this questioning supported by ‘comrades in adversity’.

However for some managers the set became too safe and they were able to avoid con-

flict. However other managers succeeded in gaining support for their questioning and

these managers discuss how they felt supported to implement action within the

organisation.

From an individual perspective one could argue that, to some extent, a per-

sonal emancipatory agenda had been served. However organisations expect a

return on their investment, they do not want to pay for the development of dis-

gruntled and potentially disruptive employees; nor do they want to pay for silent

leavers.

This highlights the need for us, as influential stakeholders, to be open and reflexive

about our own values and practice. We acknowledge that we need to continually strive

to ensure that our espoused ideals are supported by our practices. We have discussed

above some of the implications for CC and argue that overall we have contributed to

the evolution rather than the dilution of RCP. However, we recognise that this is a

never ending journey and that we also need to push ourselves beyond the safety of

the original set. Therefore, informed by a desire to ‘become’ critically reflective prac-

titioners we offer our reflections. We open a space for others to question and reflect

and so reenergise us to keep practising what we preach, despite the numerous

demands on us and on those we teach.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Notes on contributors

Aileen Corley is a Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Development at Liverpool John Moores

University, Management School. Her research focuses on the development of reflective

practitioners and the links between reflective practices and knowledge sharing within and

across communities. Aileen is programme leader for the MA in Strategic Human Resources

and teaches on a range of postgraduate and post experience programmes.

Ann Thorne is Director of Learning and Development for the Faculty of Business and Law at

Liverpool John Moores University. Her research focus is on effective management learning

and the utilisation of innovative processes within management education. Ann is programme

leader for the MA in Change Management at CC and teaches on a range of postgraduate and

post experience programmes.

References

Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (Eds) (1992) Critical management studies (London, Sage).

Boot, R. & Evans, J. (1990) Partnership in education and change, Management education and devel-

opment, 21(1), 13–21.

Brittan, A. & Maynard, M. (1985) Sexism, racism and oppression (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing).

Brookfield, S. (1994) Tales from the dark side: a phenomenography of adult critical reflection,

International Journal of Lifelong Education, 13(3), 203–216.

Corley, A. & Eades, E. (2004) ‘Becoming’ critically reflective practitioners: academics’ and

students’ reflections on the issues involved, Human Resource Development International, 7(1),

137–144.

Dehler, G., Welsh, A. & Lewis, M. (2004) Critical pedagogy in the ‘new paradigm’: raising compli-

cated understanding in management learning, in C. Grey & E. Antonacopoulou (Eds) Essen-

tial reading in management learning (London, Sage).

Gans, H. J. (1968) The participant-observer as human being: observations on the personal aspects

of field work, in H. S. Becker (Eds) Institutions and the person: papers presented to Everett

C. Hughes (Chicago, Aldine).

Grey, C. (2005) A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organizations

(London, Sage).

Grey, C. & Antonacopoulou, E. (2004) Introduction, in: C. Grey & E. Antonacopoulou (Eds)

Essential readings in management learning (London, Sage).

Keithley, D. & Redman, T. (1997) University-industry partnerships in management development: a

case study of a ‘world class’ company, Journal of Management development, 16(3), 154–166.

Koo, L. (1999) Learning action learning, Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(3), 89–94.

Levy, M. (2000) Sage of reason, People Management, 24–26.

Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative researching (London, Sage).

McLaughlin, H. & Thorpe, R. (1993) Action learning—a paradigm in emergence: the problems

facing a challenge in traditional management education and development, British Journal of

Management, 4(1), 19–27.

Myerson, D. E. & Scully, M. A. (1995) Tempered radicalism and the politics of radicalism and

change, Organization Science, 6(5), 585–600.

Ormerod, R. J. (1996) Combining management consultancy and research, International Journal in

Management Science, 24(1), 1–12.

Pedler, M. (2005) Editorial: critical action learning, Action Learning: Research and Practice, 2(1),

1–6.

Pedler, M. & Aspinwall, K. (1996) Perfect PLC: the purpose and practice of organisational learning

(Maidenhead, McGraw Hill).

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. & Brook, C. (2005) What has action learning learned to become? Action

learning: Research and Practice, 2(1), 49–68.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Pritchard, C. & Trowler, P. (2003) Realising qualitative research in higher education (Aldershot,

Ashgate).

Revans, R. (1983) ABC of action learning (Middlesex, Chartwell-Bratt Ltd).

Reynolds, M. (1997) Learning styles: a critique, Management Learning, 28(2), 115–133.

Reynolds, M. (1998) Reflection and critical reflection in management learning, Management Learn-

ing, 29(2), 183–100.

Rigg, C. & Trehan, K. (2004) Reflections on working with critical action learning, Action Learning:

Research and Practice, 1(2), 149–165.

Thorne, E. A., Edwards, C. E. & Morgan, R. (2005) EFMD conference on public sector management

development (Nottingham, UK).

Thorne, E. A., Wright, G. H. & Corley, A. (2002) SRHE annual conference on students and learning—

what is changing? (Glasgow, UK).

Vince, R. (2004) Action learning and organizational learning: power, politics and emotion in

organizations, Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 63–78.

Willmott, H. (1994) Management education: provocations to a debate, Management Learning,

25(1), 105–136.

Willmott, H. (1997) Making learning critical: identity, emotion and power in processes of manage-

ment development, Systems Practice, 10(6), 749–771.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

3:21

10

Oct

ober

201

4

action learning: avoiding conflict or enabling action

Documents