This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 10 October 2014, At: 05:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Innovations in Education & TrainingInternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie19

Management Development andAcademic Staff Development ThroughAction Learning and Action ResearchOrtrun Zuber‐Skerritt a

a Griffith University , Brisbane, AustraliaPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Ortrun Zuber‐Skerritt (1990) Management Development and Academic StaffDevelopment Through Action Learning and Action Research, Innovations in Education & TrainingInternational, 27:4, 437-447, DOI: 10.1080/1355800900270411

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1355800900270411

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

ETTI 27, 4 437

Management Development and Academic StaffDevelopment Through Action Learning and ActionResearchOrtrun Zuber-Skerritt, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

SUMMARY

The purpose of this paper is to show the development of a new approach to improvingmanagerial and educational performance in government, industry and higher education.Recent literature in management education and development as well as in higher educationpoint to action learning and action research as the appropriate methods to develop managerialand professional competencies required for the present and future times of rapid change. Thispaper presents some examples of action research and of links between the university,government and industry sectors. These examples may be of significance to other institutionsand organizations wishing to introduce action research and process management.

INTRODUCTION

The aims of this paper are to explore areas ofcross-fertilization in management developmentamong the university, government and industrysectors and to suggest ways in which they cancontribute to and learn from each other. This willbe achieved by reference to selected researchliterature and illustrated by practical examples.

Since the Australian Government's White Paper(Dawkins, 1988), it is in the interest of all threesectors to establish links and to collaborate witheach other. However, this is a relatively new andpoorly researched and developed enterprise towhich the present paper attempts to make acontribution.

Traditional methods of manager and academicstaff training based on the model of transmittingknowledge and skills from expert to novice, usingthe most effective presentation techniques, havebeen shown to be unsatisfactory in recent times.What has been identified as needed is continuous'development' and 'life-long learning' rather thana one-off 'training' course, because the nature of

the work and the work situations and conditionsare changing rapidly and require differentcompetencies from those of the past.

Research in America (Peters and Waterman,1982; Boyatzis, 1982; Margerison and Kakabadse,1984) and Australia (Limerick et al., 1984;Cunnington, 1985; Cunnington and Trevor-Roberts, 1986; Limerick and Cunnington, 1987)has identified the managerial skills and compe-tencies needed by managers for the year 2000. It isthe contention of this paper that the competenciesrequired of managers as identified in the manage-ment literature are similar to those of academicsneeded in the future, for the role of the academicsis seen to be changing from one of content expertsand lecturers to that of process managers andfacilitators. This means that they have to be:

— managers of student learning as well as of theirown learning (both conceived as life-longlearning);

— managers of their fast changing curricula inresponse to societal needs and technologicalchange;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:19

10

Oct

ober

201

4

438 ETTI 27,4

— effective managers of their institutions,faculties, departments;

— managers of the various committees and boards;— managers of budgets for their research pro-

jects, teaching programmes and conferences.

The paper is structured in four main parts. First, itidentifies in the research literature the salientcompetencies expected to be required of managersin the private and public sectors for the year 2000.Second, it discusses approaches to managementeducation and development. Third, the conceptsof action learning and action research arediscussed. Fourth, examples of action research inhigher education are presented to illustrate howthis approach can lead to academic staff develop-ment and improved management of studentlearning. Finally, the paper suggests some possibili-ties of collaboration among the three sectors.

MANAGERIAL SKILLS ANDCOMPETENCIES FOR THE YEAR 2000

Recent research at Griffith University hasconcluded that much of our current managementdevelopment technology is obsolete andinadequate for today's organizations. On the basisof interviews with chief executive officers (CEOs)of 50 of the better run business and governmentorganizations in Australia, and as a result of asurvey of the key management literature since theearly 1900s, Limerick and Cunnington (1987) haveidentified four models or blueprints in the historyof management education and development in theWestern world: the traditional classical model, thehuman relations model, the systems model and'the fourth blueprint' or loosely-coupled systemsmodel.

Paradigm/Blueprint

1. The traditionalclassical model

2. The humanrelations model

3. The systems model

4. The'fourth blue-print', away from atightly coupledsystems model

Catalyzed by

the industrial revolutionand a class-basedsociety

the great depression

the increasing use andcomplexity oforganizations

the extreme rate ofchange in our time

Characteristics

formality, specialisa-tion, hierarchy

social context (esp. thegroup) influencing theindividual worker

'everything is relatedto everything else'

loosely coupled systemsof action; decentralizedorganizations; colla-borative individualism;a vision of how tointegrate strategy,structure and culture

Required managerialskills

planning, scheduling,organizing, motivating,controlling, disciplin-ing etc.

social motivation,democratic leadership,informal organization,team development,discovery of selfthrough group etc.

cognitive skills ofsystems theory andcontingency theory,operational skillsof organizationdevelopment

the ability to:- manage and relate

to people,- get things done,- see the big picture,- think clearly

personal maturity

Table 1. Paradigms of MED (after Limerick and Cunnington, 1987)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:19

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Management Development and Academic Staff Development Through Action Learning and Action Research 4 3 9

Cluster Competencies

1. The ability to manage andrelate to people

2. The ability to get thingsdone

3. The ability to see the bigpicture

4. The ability to think clearly

5. Personal maturity

Empathetic skills; closeness to people; human qualities - strength andwarmth; ability to get along with people; good communication; ableto delegate; able to think in terms of people; to be a good judge ofpeople; provide leadership; develop one's own people; ability tomould together a team; skills in managing, developing and trainingpeople; ability to get on well with subordinates; able to superviseautonomous individuals; able to mould.

Self-drive, self-motivation; people who are doers; tough-mindedapproach; bias for action; ambition; enthusiasm; good knowledge ofwhat the business is about; common business sense; smell for thedollar; overall market orientation; awareness of bricks-and-mortarside of business; entrepreneurial flair; capacity to manage change.

Political skills; ability to read the political climate; having a feel forwhat the community is looking for; getting on well with people in theindustry; public relations skills; able to read the economic climate;outward looking; able to run an entire business; able to see the totalpicture; the helicopter factor.

Imaginative; innovative; creative; analytical; well endowed withbrains; having raw intelligence; ability to think laterally; able to ask'what if questions; able to assess facts and reach correct solution;basic conceptualization; sense of reality.

Professionalism; adaptability; understanding oneself and, one'sstrengths and weaknesses; continuing learning by self-evaluation;ruthlessness with oneself; being ethical in business practices; havinga feeling of pride in the organisation; loyalty; commitment to the goalsof the organization; capacity to cope with stress; ability to work underpressure; maturity.

Table 2. Examples of cluster competencies (Cunnington and Trevor-Roberts, 1986, p. 40)

1. Drive2. Initiative and enthusiasm3. Flexibility4. Objectivity5. Decisiveness6. Imagination7. Emotional stability8. Mental alertness and analytical skill9. Breadth of knowledge and understanding

10. Good judgement11. Effective human relations and communication skills12. Willingness to take risks13. Loyalty and dedication to purpose14. Toughness (ability to stand up under pressure and to take action even though the action is

unpopular)15. Unselfishness

Table 3. List of qualities for success in top management (Cunnington and Trevor-Roberts, 1986, p. 41)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:19

10

Oct

ober

201

4

440 ETTI 27,4

Table 1 is a summary of the characteristics of thesemodels and the required managerial skills withineach model. Of particular interest to the presentpaper are the five categories of skills in the newlyemerging model which 'has been developing as aresponse to the extreme rate of change in ourtimes. Tightly coupled systems cannot change andadapt fast enough . . . loosely coupled systemshandle change and turbulence more effectively.(Limerick and Cunnington, 1987, p. 59) The fiveclusters of managerial competencies identified bythe CEOs are provided in Table 2.

It is interesting to compare these competencies inTable 2 with the qualities for success in topmanagement identified in America (Holden et al,1968) and presented in Table 3. There is a perfectoverlap except for the quality of 'unselfishness'which is missing in Australia.

MANAGEMENT EDUCATION ANDDEVELOPMENT

Cunnington and Trevor-Roberts (1986, p. 46)conclude that:

Although traditional methods of managerialtraining may be useful at the commencementof a managerial career, we believe that'process' and 'general management' compe-tencies can only be acquired as the result ofworking in or with an organization. We arethus fully committed to the concept of ActionLearning as developed by Revans . . . Webelieve that the Action Learning process. . . provides the only feasible vehicle for

learning competencies associated with generalmanagement and thus must form a part of thedevelopment of the leaders of tomorrow.

However, most programmes of managementeducation and development (MED) continue tobe in the knowledge-transmission mode rather thanthe action-learning mode. Their focus is mainly onthe content, not the process of management.

Cunnington (1985) defines management educationas normally leading to a degree from a tertiaryinstitution and management development as one-off (or a series of) seminars, usually not leading toformal academic qualifications; he points out theweaknesses of both. The problem of managementeducation is that it is at the intersection of twocultures - the managerial and the academic culture- and that the management educator is subject toconflicting expectations, as summarized in Table 4.

Problems associated with the process ofmanagement development include deficiencies ofseminar leaders and materials, a lack of formalneeds analysis and evaluation, and an emphasis onthe learning of content rather than thedevelopment of demonstrable skills andcompetencies.

Cunnington (1985, p. 76) concludes:

1. The objectives of MED should be specified interms of the development of the full range ofcompetencies (skills, attitudes and specialistknowledge) instead of specialist knowledge alone.

2. The learning process that results in thesecompetencies involves a mixture of bothacademic and practical training and ideallyshould be on-the-job training involving realorganizational problems and issues.

Cunnington also identifies a number of implicationsthat follow from these conclusions for themanagement development professional:

1. taking time to develop the support of topmanagement;

2. developing a profile of competencies to beacquired as a result of MED;

3. developing programmes which can meet thespecified needs;

4. seeking out the support of 'the right' academicinstitution, i.e. one which develops actionlearning as well as cognitive competencies;

5. drawing up a list of competencies to be acquiredon the job and the way their attainment will bemeasured.

However, this model of management develop-ment is still a compromise between the traditionalobjectives-driven input-output approach tolearning and the alternative change-oriented actionlearning model. The only programmes known tothe author which are genuinely based on the actionlearning philosophy are the MBA and PhDprogrammes offered by the InternationalManagement Centres worldwide. They practicewhat Cunnington and Trevor-Roberts (1986, p. 46)suggest as a form of 'educating general managersfor tomorrow':

1. MBA programmes in which assessment is basedon a project carried out in conjunction with anorganization;

2. a senior manager who acts as mentor or sponsorfor up-and-coming junior managers andprovides significant project assignments forthem to work on;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:19

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Management Development and Academic Staff Development Through Action Learning and Action Research 441

Academic culture

1. Importance of knowledge and understanding2. Focus on theory3. Emphasis on cognitive skills4. Should have the freedom to teach what the

academic wishes5. Research orientated towards academic

journals6. Performance evaluated almost totally in terms

of ability to get research published7. Importance of general research findings

1.2.3.4.

5.

6.

7.

Managerial culture

Importance of demonstrable skillsFocus on practiceEmphasis on action skillsShould teach only relevant knowledge

Research orientated towards managerialproblemsPerformance evaluated almost totally in termsof ability to get the job doneImportance of specific research findings

Table 4. Conflicting expectations to which the management educator is subject (Cunnington, 1986, p. 68)

3. advanced management programmes whichrequire a project from a sponsoringorganization can be carried out as part of theirteaching methodology.

ACTION LEARNING AND ACTIONRESEARCH

The father of action learning is Revans (1982). Hisconcept of action learning is based on a five-stagemodel of the scientific method: observation,theory, experiment, evaluation, and review. It isbased on assumptions similar to the models ofaction research and 'experiential learning'developed by Lewin (1952) and Kolb (1984)respectively and discussed below.

What these models of learning and developmenthave in common is the assumption that knowledgecan be gained from concrete experience or actionthrough observation of, and reflection on, thisexperience or action, formulating abstractconcepts and generalizations. These constructshave then to be tested in new situations, leading tonew concrete experience and starting a new cycleof experiential learning.

In contrast to action learning, the traditional viewof learning has assumed that knowledge must betransmitted and received in the form of informa-tion, theories and research findings before it canbe applied to practice. It is a fairly recent insightthat the learner at any level can acquire knowledgethrough following a similar process of activeresearch which specialist researchers undergo,

rather than being taught and passively absorbingthe results of their research.

According to Lewin (1952), action research is asystematic way of identifying and solving problemsthrough a spiral of action research cycles, eachconsisting of a plan, action, observation andcritical reflection. The aims are to learn anddevelop one's performance as well as to improveone's practice and to change those existingconditions and constraints which impede practicalimprovements.

As a result of a recent symposium on 'ActionResearch in Higher Education, Government andIndustry', a simple formula has been developed bythe symposium delegates (presented in Table 5) toindicate situations in which action research isappropriate.

Margerison (1989) has conceptualized the cyclicaction-learning process in MED designed both toimprove organizational performance andmanagerial development simultaneously, asshown in Figure 1.

ACTION RESEARCH IN HIGHEREDUCATION

Zuber-Skerritt (1987a) has developed a model of'Action Research in Higher Education' based onan integration of previously unrelated domains oftheory: for example, personal construct theory(Kelly, 1963), action theory (Leontiev, 1977) andcritical theory (Carr and Kemmis, 1986). It is analternative model of university education designedto improve learning, teaching and professional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:19

10

Oct

ober

201

4

442 ETTI 27,4

If yours is a situation in which:

• people reflect and improve (or develop)their own work and their own situations;

• by tightly interlinking their reflection andaction;

• and also making their experience public notonly to other participants but also to otherpersons interested in and concerned aboutthe work and the situation, i.e., their(public) theories and practices of the workand the situation,

and if yours is a situation in which there isincreasingly:

• data-gathering by participants themselves(or with the help of others) in relation totheir own questions);

• participation (in problem-posing and inanswering questions) in decision-making;

• power-sharing and the relative suspension ofhierachical ways of working towardsindustrial democracy;

• collaboration among members of the groupas a 'critical community';

• self-reflection, self-evaluation and self-management by autonomous andresponsible persons and groups;

• learning progressively (and publicly) bydoing and by making mistakes in a 'self-reflective spiral' of planning, acting,observing, reflecting, replanning, etc.;

• reflection which supports the idea of the'(self-) reflective practitioner';

then

Yours is a situation in which action research isappropriate.

Table 5. A formula of action researchdevelopment through action research projects.The following is a description of the procedureof action research carried out by someacademics at Griffith University incollaboration with academic developmentstaff. In general terms, the participants:

1. identified and analysed a problem in thecurriculum;

2. designed strategies for solving the problem;3. implemented and tested the strategies;4. evaluated the effectiveness;5. reflected as a team on the results;

6. arrived at conclusions and/or newlyidentified problems;

7. repeated this cycle again or several times,until they were satisfied with their improvedpractice; and finally they

8. reported their findings, usually first in aninternal report to a School ProgrammeCommittee, Board or Standing Committeeand then, in the light of this discussion andthe Committee's resolutions, eitherrepeated an action research cycle (ifwarranted) or wrote up a research paper,first to be presented and discussed at aconference and then revised and submittedto a journal of higher education.

This action research was initiated by theuniversity teachers themselves - as individuals,teaching teams, programme committees,convenors of a course or programme, or asmembers of the Standing Committee - not byexternal researchers. The role of the academicdevelopment staff member can at best bedescribed as that of a facilitator and participant.All members contributed in various ways andlearned from each other as the aims and tasks(described above in 1-8) were discussed. Theco-authored publications may reflect this teamspirit and 'symmetrical communication'. Theycertainly were a challenging, most satisfyingand enjoyable experience for all involved. Theproject was initiated to test the author'stheories of action research in higher educationand actually to follow the action researchprocess, but it has turned out to have had amultiplier effect in that it seems to be anincentive for several other academics in thedivision who have expressed their interest in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:19

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Management Development and Academic Staff Development Through Action Learning and Action Research 443

participating in action research projects.

A common thematic concern for several actionresearch projects was the development of learningskills at both undergraduate and postgraduatelevels in the substantive context of oneinterdisciplinary school at Griffith University.One of the major problems faced in that school inthe 1970s was a heterogeneous student populationwith varying degrees of knowledge and basic skills.The question of how to help students to developtheir learning skills was a pressing one because ofa shortage of enrolments and a need to preventhigh drop-out rates. A similar problem exists forstudents in the equity programme who havegained access to the University, but who arelacking prerequisite knowledge and skills to avarying extent.

Figure 2 presents the spiral of action researchconsisting of several cycles. This model was used inaction research projects for:

1. developing student learning skills in a first-year(foundation) programme (Moss and McMillen,1980; Zuber-Skerritt, 1986);

2. developing skills in dissertation research andwriting in a Master-by-Coursework programme(Zuber-Skerritt and Rix, 1986; Zuber-Skerritt,1987b);

3. in an Honours course on 'Problems andMethods in Research' (Knight and Zuber-Skerritt, 1986; Zuber-Skerritt and Knight,1985,1986; Zuber-Skerritt, 1987b).

Finally, the seven university teachers involved inthese action research projects were asked toparticipate in a study of personal constructs ofprofessional development (using the repertorygrid technique based on Kelly's PersonalConstruct Theory-see Zuber-Skerritt, 1990a). Ofthe six different approaches to professionaldevelopment experienced by all seven academics(and used as the common 'elements' in the grid),action research was rated as the most effective, i.e.an average rating of 1.3 on a five-point scale, and'top-down advice' as the least effective, i.e. 3.9.

COMMON INTERESTS ANDCOLLABORATION AMONG THE THREESECTORS

What are the common traits of managementdevelopment in industry and government, on the

one hand, and academic staff development inhigher education, on the other? What are thereasons for collaboration among the three sectors?

Figure 2. The spiral of action research intodeveloping student learning skills

It has been established that management develop-ment for the future has to be process-orientated,rather than merely content-orientated; and thataction learning has been suggested as theappropriate method to develop process managersfor the year 2000. It has also been stated thatacademics have to be managers (of learning,teaching, self-development, curriculum, admini-stration, committees, budgets etc.) and facilitatorsof learning processes, rather than transmitters ofcontent and subject knowledge, and that actionresearch has been suggested as a more effectiveapproach to staff development than any other ofthe traditional methods.

The reason for this shift from content to process isthe increasing importance to respond to the fast-changing environmental forces (e.g. techno-logical, political, economic and socio-demo-graphic). The boundaries of disciplines areconstantly extending as the content is rapidly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:19

10

Oct

ober

201

4

444 ETTI 27,4

growing or becoming out of date or obsolete.What managers need are not so much specificknowledge and skills, but general competenciesand methods to acquire new knowledge and skillsto solve completely new problems. Furthermore,entrepreneurial attitude and 'vision' are requiredto complete in an international context.

Since there are clearly mutual interests, commonobjectives and a similar approach to managementdevelopment in the private and public sectors andto staff development in higher education, it seemsobvious and mutually beneficial for thoseresponsible for human resource development tocollaborate and learn from one another.

Three examples from Queensland might suffice toillustrate some of the initiatives to establish linksbetween industry, government and higher educa-tion. The first is an individual initiative to organizeconferences on management development throughaction research in the three sectors; the second andthird are government initiatives to improve thequality of living and the quality of life inQueensland in the 21st century through theconcepts of Multi-Function-Polis and QualityQueensland.

Conferences on Management Development

An international symposium on 'Action Researchin Higher Education, Government and Industry'was held at the Bardon Professional DevelopmentCentre in Brisbane from 20-23 March 1989 byspecial invitation. Thirty academics fromuniversities in Australia, New Zealand, England,Austria and Thailand, and ten executives (fivefrom government departments and five fromprivate enterprise) participated in this event.

The purpose of the symposium was twofold: first,to present and discuss a variety of models of actionresearch in higher education which have beendeveloped in parallel in many parts of the world;second, to explore with representatives fromgovernment and industry, who are in charge ofpersonnel training and management development,how action research can effectively be used inmanager and organization development throughaction learning and process management, and howthe three sectors may collaborate to preparepeople more effectively (i.e. students, staff andmanagers) for fast change in technology, industryand society. Hence, there were two parts of thesymposium, the first consisting of discussions on

action research in higher education based on tenpreviously circulated papers (Zuber-Skerritt,1990b), and the second consisting of workshopdiscussions on action research in government andindustry.

After the first two days of theorizing, identifyingsome 'burning issues' and debating about thenature and salient features of action research, acommon understanding was reached and put into asimple formula (presented in Table 5) which thenserved as the basis for discussing individualconcrete action research projects during the lasttwo days of the symposium.

Informal and questionnaire feedback fromparticipants suggests that the symposium was agreat success, not only in terms of achieving theintended purpose (see above), but also inestablishing a supportive and creative atmosphereof open, collaborative and constructive debatebetween congenial 'critical friends' in the threesectors. Indeed, the integration worked so wellthat it was difficult to distinguish in the end whocame from which sector; it was decided that nodistinction would be made and there would be noseparate parts for the different sectors at futureconferences.

This symposium has been followed up by furtherevents. For example, a series of one-dayworkshops on 'Process Management' were held atGriffith University in 1989 and 1990, designed toclarify process management concepts, exploreprocess management techniques, test theproblems and limitations of process management,and practise the applications of processmanagement. At the same time the workshopsfocused on the mission, role and future of theProcess Management Group which was formed asa recognition by individuals, communities andpublic and private enterprises of the need forbetter understanding the techniques, effectivenessand potential of process management.

The First World Congress on Action Research andProcess Management was also held at GriffithUniversity (10-13 July 1990), sponsored by theAustralian Institute of Training and Development(AITD) and designed to bring together executivesfrom the three sectors and many parts of the worldto discuss a systematic method of improving theperformance of individuals as well asorganizations through action learning, actionresearch and process management.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:19

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Management Development and Academic Staff Development Through Action Learning and Action Research 445

Government ReportsRecently, both the federal and state governmentshave strongly recommended collaboration amongthe three sectors: industry, government and highereducation. The Dawkin's Report (1988) has alreadybeen mentioned. The Queensland Governmenthas taken two major initiatives with its Multi-Function-Polis Concept Development Study (May1988) and Quality Queensland document(December 1988).

The Multi-Function Polis (MFP), originally aJapanese concept, refers to a feasibility study bythe Premier's Department of a cultural, commercialand technological interchange facility inQueensland. The result of the study is a redefinedconcept of an international development centre(IDC) which is a 21st century international'university'. Section 208 of the Report (p. 6) reads:

The International Development Centre wouldbe a totally new form of 'university' forpeople, companies and even countries.Although it should not be seen as a panacea, itcould provide a new focus for the developmentof Australia's people, companies andprocesses through the provision of: sophisti-cated research and development facilities;world class information and communicationfacilities; unique integrated educationfacilities; and, a range of specialized servicefunctions. These would be designed toaccelerate human development and decreaseresearch and development time frames.

The core services of IDC include offering betterquality services and better integrated services in acombined educational and R&D facility designedto suit development processes and to accelerateand enhance human learning capacities. IDCwould have its own physical, commercial, human,technology and information resources as well asacting as a broking and synthesizing agency usingexternal resources. In Section 727 (p. 56) onhuman resources the Report advocates:

. . . the principle of moving learning, workand people closer together. There is likely tobe an emphasis on action learning, self-pacedlearning and self-directed principles in aninformation and technology environment withdirect access to the world's best knowledge . . .

The Queensland Government organised a Multi-Function-Polis conference (Bond University, 30August to 1 September, 1989) designed to enabledelegates to network with leading businessmen

and government contacts in Australia and also inan international forum.

Quality Queensland — Building on Strength, AVision and Strategy for Achievement, prepared bythe Queensland Government, provides a detailedexamination of economic change and guidelinesfor the continuing development of 'QualityQueensland', a vision for a quality place in whichto live, work and do business. Mike Ahern says inhis foreword:

The Government will progressivelyimplement those initiatives set out in thisStrategy document over the next two years. Inso doing it will fully investigate theimplementation options and prioritiesinvolved within this strategic change process.

The problem, however, is that this documentrequires a shift of paradigm on the part of allparticipants. This means a change fromhierarchical to democratic thinking, from passiveto active learning, and from corporate to processmanagement. In particular, people in power arereluctant to change for they perceive it as a threatfor them to lose that power. Another problem isthat the Strategy - like the restructuring of thedepartments since 1986 - is imposed from the topand difficult to translate into actual practice. Thishas been part of the reason for the above-mentioned process management group to meetand discuss the new approach to management.

CONCLUSION

A selected literature survey on managementeducation and development has shown thatmanagers of today and in the future need todevelop skills and competencies (see Table 1 to 3)which will enable them to solve new problems, torapidly adjust to and anticipate change, and tomanage the process of their employees' actionlearning. In higher education, too, academicsneed to develop competencies as managers andfacilitators of learning.

This paper has discussed the concepts andpossibilities of action learning, action research andprocess management for management andacademic staff development. It has also providedsome examples of action research in higher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:19

10

Oct

ober

201

4

446 ETTI 27,4

education to illustrate the application of theseconcepts in practice; and some examples ofestablishing links between industry, governmentand higher education.

Although there is some evidence that actionresearch is an effective method of staff develop-ment in higher education, the limitations of thepaper are that many of the statements on manage-ment development are propositional and have notbeen evaluated. Much more research andevaluative work need to be done in the area ofmanagement development using action learning,action research and process management. Thispaper is only a start. It has pointed to reasons whyan alternative approach to management educationand academic staff development is necessary; howsimilar the requirements are; what the newappropriate methods are; how they may beapplied; and what possibilities exist for learningand collaboration among the three sectors.

REFERENCES

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982) The Competent Manager.John Wiley and Sons, New York.Carr, W and Kemmis, S. (1986) BecomingCritical: Education, Knowledge and ActionResearch. Falmer Press, London.Cunnington, B. (1985) The process of educatingand developing managers for the year 2000.Journal of Management Development, 4, 566-79.

Cunnington, B. and Trevor-Roberts, B. (1986)Developing leaders for the organisations oftomorrow. Business Education, 7, 4, 37-47.Dawkins, J. S. (1988) Higher Education-A PolicyStatement. Australian Government PublishingService, Canberra.

Holden, P. E., Pederson, C. A. and Germane, G.E. (1968) Top Management, McGraw-Hill, NewYork.

Kelly, G. A. (1963) A Theory of Personality,Norton, New York.

Knight, N. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1986) Problemsand methods in research: a course for the beginningresearcher in the social sciences. Higher EducationResearch and Development, 5, 1, 49-59.

Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning. Experienceas the Source of Learning and Development.Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Leontiev, A. N. (1977) Tätigkeit, Bewusstsein,Persönlichkeit. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart.

Lewin, K. (1952) Field Theory in Social Science.Selected Theoretical Papers edited by D.Cartwright. Tavistock Publications, London.

Limerick, D. and Cunnington, B. (1987)Management development: the fourth blueprint.Journal of Management Development, 6, 1, 54-67.

Margerison, C. (1989) Action learning - a shortmanagerial guide. Executive Development, 2, 1.

Margerison, C. and Kakabadse, A. (1984) HowAmerican Chief Executives Succeed - Implicationsfor Developing High-Potential Employees.American Management Association, SurveyReport.

Moss, G. D. and McMillen, D. (1980) A strategyfor developing problem-solving skills in largeundergraduate classes. Studies in HigherEducation, 5, 2, 161-171.

Multi-Function-Polis Concept DevelopmentStudy, (1988). Prepared by Coopers and Lybrandfor the Premier's Department, Queensland, May.

Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H. (1982) InSearch of Excellence — Lessons from America'sBest-Run Companies. Harper and Row, NewYork.

Quality Queensland - Building on Strength, AVision and Strategy for Achievement. (1988)Prepared by the Queensland Government basedon a Report by SRI International, Menlo Park,California, Queensland Branch: Strategies Pty.Ltd., Brisbane, December.

Revans, R.W. (1982) The Origins and Growth ofAction Learning, Chartwell-Bratt Ltd, Bromley.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1986) The integration ofuniversity student learning skills in undergraduateprogrammes. In D. Bowden (ed.) StudentLearning: Research into Practice, CSHE,University of Melbourne, pp. 115-130. Alsopublished in Programmed Learning andEducational Technology, 24, 1, 62-70.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1987a) Action Research inHigher Education - The Advancement ofUniversity Learning and Teaching. PhD thesis,Deakin University, Victoria.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1987b) Helping postgraduateresearch students learn. Higher Education, 16,75-94.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:19

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Management Development and Academic Staff Development Through Action Learning and Action Research 447

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1990a) Reflections of actionresearchers. In I. Moses (ed.) Higher Education inthe Late Twentieth Century - Reflections on aChanging System. A Festschrift for Ernest Roe.Higher Education Research and DevelopmentSociety of Australasia (HERDSA), Sydney, pp.295-313.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1990b) Action Research forChange and Development, CALT, GriffithUniversity, Brisbane.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. and Knight, N. (1985) Helpingstudents overcome barriers to dissertation writing,HERDSA News, 7,3,8-10.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. and Knight, N. (1986) Problemdefinition and thesis writing: workshops for thepostgraduate student. Higher Education, 15, 1-2,89-103.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. and Rix, A. (1986) Developingskills in dissertation research and writing forpostgraduate coursework programmes. Zeitschriftfur Hochschuldidaktik, 10, 2-3, 363-380.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Dr Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt is a Senior Lecturer inthe Centre for the Advancement of Learning andTeaching at Griffith University. She is also Deanof the International Management Centre, PacificRegion. Her main research interests are in ActionResearch as a tool for improving teaching/learningpractice.

Address for correspondence: Dr Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt, Centre for the Advancement of Learningand Teaching, Griffith University, Brisbane 4111,Queensland, Australia.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

5:19

10

Oct

ober

201

4