Title Page

16th International Conference on Human Resource Development Research and Practice

UFHRD Annual Conference 2015

Towards Evidence Based HRD Practice: Bridging the Gap

Paper Title: Why & how action learning works within a Leadership

Development Programme: a case study within a UK Public

Sector Leadership & Management post-graduate

programme

Authors: Chandana Sanyal, Chris Rigby, Dr Alyson Nicholds, Dr Mary

Hartog

Organisation affiliation: Middlesex University Business School

Corresponding author: Chandana Sanyal/ c.sanyal@mdx.ac.uk

Stream: Leadership, Management and Talent Development - Stream 7

Submission type: Working paper

1

Abstract

Purpose: This paper will evaluate the process and outcomes of action learning as a learning

intervention in a UK Public Sector Leadership & Management programme, focusing on the

learning and the impact on both individual participants and the organisation in the context of

their current leadership and management challenges.

Design/methodology/approach: Using a case study approach, the data is drawn from the

personal narratives and testimonies by action learning facilitators and the experiences of

programme participants engaged in the action learning process.

Findings: Early responses appear to confirm that action learning is an effective method of

leadership and management development as suggested in the literature. The findings include

the key processes which support the learning of participants and the specific skills and

behaviours demonstrated as learning outputs.

Research limitations: The current research is restricted to the examination of the

participants in the first cohort of the programme. The validity of the research will be

enhanced through collecting further data from new participants and calibrating one data set

with another.

Practical implications: This study will provide empirical evidence of action learning as a

methodology for developing leaders for human resource development practice.

Social implications: At a societal level, the success of action learning highlights that learning

is a social process.

2

Originality/value: The study provides empirical evidence on why and how action learning

works and in doing so seeks to conclude the research by presenting a conceptual research

framework for action learning.

Keywords: leadership, action learning, leadership and management development

3

Introduction

The pace and rate of organisational change has accelerated the need for leaders and managers

to become much more effective in managing and leading this on-going change. They need to

be able to learn and act quickly to face the challenges and issues in managing change. Thus,

organisations are faced with the challenge of increasing the capabilities of their leaders with

less time and less resources. According to Leonard & Land (2010), action learning with its

clear goal to improve the ability to learn as well as enhance performance of the participants

has grown rapidly as a development tool and is now used by organisations around the globe

as an effective way of developing their leaders. It is now widely recognised not only as a

learning intervention for individual leadership but also organisational development (Boshyk

2002, Marquardt et el., 2009, O’Neil & Marsick 2007, Raelin 2008).

The growth in the inclusion of action learning in leadership development has been rapid. In

the 1980s and 1990s, there were only limited instances of application of action learning

around the globe but in the recent years a growing number of organisations have turned to

action learning as one of the most effective ways to develop their leaders (Leonard & Lang,

2010; Dilworth & Boshyk, 2010, O’Neil & Marsick, 2007). Current research has placed the

business-wide return on investment from action learning as anywhere from 5 to 25 times its

cost (Waddill, Banks & Marsh 2010). But the scope for its theoretical and empirical

development is still considerable (Ram & Trehan 2010). There is limited empirical evidence

on why and how Action Learning works (Waddill, Banks & Marsh 2010), therefore there is a

need for further research which focuses on the process and outcome of action learning.

4

The purpose of this research is to address this gap by specifically examining both the

learning and action within the action learning process to evaluate the development of

leadership understanding, skills and behaviours of participants. This paper reports on a UK

post-graduate leadership development programme commissioned by an English NHS Mental

Health Trust with the aim of improving the leadership capacity of mid-level managers

through better access to formal and informal learning. The programme commenced in

February 2014 with 16 participants (cohort 1) and the second group of 15 participants (cohort

2) started in Jan 2015. The participants are in management roles, working at a range of

different operational levels including clinical and non-clinical services. The programme

consisted of six dedicated study-days incorporating content on service improvement,

managing and leading people and change and personal and leadership development, and a

series of 4 dedicated action learning sessions facilitated by three academic/ practitioner

tutors. Assessment comprises a reflective review of professional learning and critical

reflection of their personal leadership journey in the implementation of a ‘stretch-project’

within their workplace.

The paper begins with a review of the known literature on action learning; its processes,

practices and impact on leadership development. This is followed by the methodological

approach and a proposed analytical framework for undertaking the research. The next

section presents detailed presentation of the findings, followed by discussion of their meaning

in relation to the literature identified earlier and final conclusions.

Theoretical Base

As organisations face complex challenges in an ever-changing environment, the need to focus

the development of leadership practice at a relational, social and situated perceptive

(Marquardt, 2000; Cunliffe, 2009; Kempster & Stewart, 2010) has shifted the nature of

5

leadership education to experiential learning (Stead & Elliott, 2009; Kempster, 2006). Action

learning with its clear goal of improving the ability to learn as well as creating an

environment to address specific objectives and performance issues is well positioned to take

advantage of this changing leadership development needs.

Action learning and its processes

Rooted epistemologically in ‘experiential learning theory’ (Boud et al., 1985), the process

typically invites participants with a shared context to come together in a physical space, often

(but not always necessarily) with an experienced facilitator (Marquardt, 2004)) to reflect-in-

action or on-action (Schon, 1978) and question their assumptions (Reynolds, 1999) about

real-life and work-based issues (Revans 1980, 1982, 1998) that are ill-structured and/or

unpredictable (Moon, 2013) in the presence of others whose role is to actively listen, ask

questions and offer support and challenge as appropriate to enable the search for strategies

for action.

In some ways the popularising of action learning as a means of development is at the heart of

misunderstandings relating to its philosophy and approach. For instance, according to

Weinstein (1997), the process of action learning should comprise three key elements

associated with its philosophy, procedures and end products, but the tendency to reduce the

focus of the process to no more than a ‘project’ has left critics of the process wondering

whether there is something of a methodological deficit (Cho & Egan, 2009). For Rigg &

Richards (2006) it is this requirement for action as the basis of learning that defines the

process of action learning, arguing that to constitute action learning the process should result

in profound personal development resulting from reflection upon action; working with

problems that are sponsored and aimed at organisational as well as personal development.

The differences in the interpretation of what action learning is prompted Cho & Egan (2009)

to conduct a systematic review of the process. They identified a wide range of interpretations

6

in terms of the nature of action learning, the process being adopted and in the outcomes

produced. This inconsistency in the interpretation of the purpose by action learning (i.e. as a

concept) contributed to misunderstandings about how and why action learning might be

delivered differently in each case (i.e. the process). This makes it difficult to assess what had

been implemented in terms of the action learning process and it underpinning philosophy.

Action learning – impact and outcomes

Leonard & Lang (2010) state that action learning is increasingly being used within leadership

development programmes to build leadership skills and improve leadership behaviours.

Revans (1980, 1982, 1998) noted that learning is more effective when put into action than

when passively listening to lectures or watching a presentation. Furthermore, the process of

critical reflection in leadership development has been highlighted by Densten & Gray (2001,

p120) as a way of encouraging multiple perspectives to address complex leadership

challenges. They suggest that it ‘provides leaders with a variety of insights into how to frame

problems differently, to look at situations from multiple perspectives or to better understand

followers.’

There is limited research on specific or measurable outcomes from action learning for

leadership development. Hicks and Peterson (1999) highlight elements which are considered

to be ‘success factors’ or ‘active integrations’ for leadership development such as insight,

motivation, skills development, real-world practice and accountability which are developed

through action learning. Leonard & Lang (2010) have identified a set of leadership

competencies on cognitive, relationship, execution and self-management skills that can be

developed by action learning. Marquardt et al (2009) also agrees that leadership

competencies can be practiced and demonstrated as action learning group members work on a

problem together. Marquardt (2000) identified seven key roles which he says are essential

for leading in the 21st century – systems thinking, change agent, innovator, servant and

7

steward, polychronic co-ordinator, teacher-mentor and a visionary. He argues that action

learning has emerged as one of the most effective and powerful tool is developing these

competencies to carry out these roles. He suggests that the facilitation processes within action

learning helps to seek out new possibilities, encouraging the members to think in a systematic

way, develop critical reflection and inquiry. This enables members to see and understand the

concomitant change that is happening inside themselves (McNutly & Canty 1995). This

change in the individual is ‘learning’ and the change that is made as a result to the system is

‘action’ (Revans, 1980). However, several authors, including Revans (1971, 1998) highlights

that one of the challenges of action learning is striking the balance between action and

learning (Kuhn & Marsick, 2005; Pedler, 2002; Tushman & O’ Reilly, 2007; Cho & Egan,

2009).

Some authors claim that in addition to developing individual leadership skills, action learning

is also effective in developing collaborations and sharing skills in today’s knowledge

economy (Drucker, 1999; Pearce et al, 2003; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Pearce & Conger, 2003).

According to Riggs & Richards (2006) action learning has the potential for organisational

development as it offers insights into power, politics and emotions in organisational

dynamics. Specific leadership skills, which can have a positive impact on organisational

development such as when to be directive and when to encourage collaboration; how to

empower others has a direct impact on the organisation (Dilworth & Willis 2003; Marquardt

et al., 2009).

However, although authors have identified skills and capabilities which may be enhanced

through action learning, methodological quality of these studies are lacking in a suitable

conceptual framework, clarity of methods used and definition of terminologies applied to

measure success. This made it difficult to assess specifically, the degree to which any

learning (i.e. individual or organisational) that might have taken place and the specific

8

outcomes achieved were attributable to the action learning process in general or the set in

particular. Based on their review of the literature on action learning Cho and Marshall Egan

(2009) concluded that whilst some action learning appeared to result in ‘learning-oriented

action learning’ other studies focused on ‘action-oriented action learning’; rarely did it result

in ‘balanced’ action learning.

It is in rectifying this inattention to classifying the processes and outcomes of action learning

that this study seeks to analyse the narratives of practitioners and facilitators involved in

delivering the process and outcome of action learning with a view to identifying and

understanding some of the key features of the intervention in the form of a conceptual

framework.

Research context and methods

This research aims to establish why and how action learning works as a method for leadership

and management development. This empirical study specifically examines action learning as

a learning intervention within a leadership development programme to evaluate the learning

and development of leadership skills and behaviours of participants. The research will be

conducted in 2 phases: analyses of the findings from cohort 1 will be completed by March

2015; the evaluation of Cohort 2 in underway and expected to be completed in early 2016.

This research paper examines empirical evidence on the process and the outcomes of action

learning of participants in cohort1 of the programme.

The research questions for this working paper are as follows:

1. What processes support the learning of leadership skills and behaviours in action

learning?

2. What leadership skills and behaviours are demonstrated as learning outputs, both at

individual and organisational level?

9

Data Sources

The overarching methodological approach is a case study, as a pragmatic method of collating

different data sources (Yin 2008). The authors will draw on both the participants’ and

facilitators’ narratives, accounts of learning as well as evaluation questions and focus group

responses. This involves systematic collection of data and rigorous analysis to arrive at

agreed interpretation of the data (Yin 2008). The authors drew on anonymised data from the

personal narratives, testimony, experiences and accounts of action learning facilitators

(reflective diary entries, digital voice recordings ) and participants engaged in the action

learning process (i.e. using reflective accounts from assessed work, focus group and

questionnaires). This has allowed an in-depth investigation into action learning processes and

outcomes, capturing the experiences as it unfolds in its natural setting. The authors apply a

wider evaluation lens (Jarvis et el., 2012; Hunnum et el (eds) in Leviton, 2006) rather than

traditional qualitative approach to understand the dynamics of the process i.e. not just to ask

what is happening, but why and how action learning works. The authors structured their

research findings to the related antecedents, the action learning process, proximal and distal

outcomes (Poole et al, 2000 in Cho & Egan 2009).

Analytical framework

The analytical framework reflects an attempt to surface known gaps in the literature

associated with what processes support the learning of leadership skills and behaviours and

what leadership skills and behaviours are demonstrated as learning outputs, both individually

and organisationally. The following table operationalizes the planned research questions

and shows the types of evidence identified to address this gap (Mason, 2000).

10

Table: Analytical framework

RESEARCH

QUESTIONS

ANALYTICAL

FRAMEWORK

EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

DURING ANALYSIS (it will

sound/read like …)

SOURCE OF EVIDENCE

1. What processes support the learning of leadership skills and behaviours in AL?

1.1 How does the work-based issue/problem support learning?

1.2 How does the process of reflection support learning?

1.3 How does the facilitator support learning?

1.4 How does the environment support learning?

- A work-based issue is addressed

- Skills are reported as having been demonstrated?

- reflection is indicated in addressing the issue?

- feelings/emotions addressed during the practice/action

- space is set-up to create a safe space for learning

- facilitator applies certain skills/techniques

Facilitator reflective gathering

Facilitator notes (during & after)

Questionnaire

Focus group

Students’ assessed work

2.What leadership skills and behaviours are demonstrated as learning outputs, both individually and organisationally?

2.1 What leadership/ management challenges are raised/ addressed?

2.2 How do participants engage as ‘comrades’/AL members?(Behaviours)

- Understanding of management and leadership challenges is evident

- Leadership and management skills and behaviours are applied (reported on) during AL

- Leadership and management skills & behaviour are demonstrated (claimed) in the stretch project

- Impact on team and/or organisation is reported (claimed)

Facilitator notes (during & after)

Questionnaire

Focus group

Students’ assessed work

11

Findings

The research analytical framework outlined in the table above facilitated the analysis of data

sources. Guided by this framework, evidence was extracted from the varied sources and

further analysis yielded a number of key themes and codes. The findings are presented in two

sections: firstly, processes of learning in an attempt to demonstrate why action learning works

and secondly, impact of learning to demonstrate how action learning works.

RQ1 Processes to support learning during Action Learning

This section attempts to demonstrate why action learning works – what practices contribute to

supporting action learning participants when seeking to improve their ability to learn so that

they may develop alternative options for action and make more appropriate choices to put

into practice.

In an attempt to create a degree of consistency in terms of their practice and in terms of

experience for set members the action learning facilitators met prior to each action learning

set. In doing so they developed a checklist of behaviours or protocols. Rather than reproduce

their list, the data was examined in an attempt to distil what participants (programme

delegates and facilitators) believed to be happening. Themes emerging from the data include

an explicit structure, airtime, openness, inquiry (non-judgement/respect), advocacy and

reflection.

Explicit Structure

The analysis the narratives of action learning facilitators clearly demonstrate their role within

the process of action learning in this case study. The three facilitators involved in this

programme met in advance of each session to agree context, structure and priorities for the

session. An explanation of action learning and how it will be applied is regarded as vital and

12

a priority for the first session. They use a ‘checking-in’ at the beginning of each session,

followed by ‘airtime’ and a ‘check-out’ process at the end to invite participants to give

themselves the space to think and learn. As one facilitator describes:

‘The check-in opens the door to the emotional domain, signalling that feelings are

welcome, that they can be shared and are relevant to the learning process.’

The facilitators stress the need to arrange the physical space by arranging the layout of the

room to create a safe for open dialogue amongst the participants. The facilitators observe that,

for example

‘chairs should be arranged so that participants can turn to the facilitator when

needed but not be the focus of the session’.

‘I tend to be the focal part early in the session but as a group progresses I attempt to

become semi-transparent, monitoring the atmosphere and time rather than

orchestrating. My role is about creating and controlling a process rather than

shaping the content.’

Airtime

‘Airtime’ is a phrase used by this group of action learning facilitators and shared with the

participants. It describes that period of time when a set member has an opportunity to speak

about their situation and an issue or challenge that they are grappling with. During this time

they enjoy the undivided attention of the other set members who listen actively in order to

reflect, inquire and possibly advocate ways of considering the challenge presented. The

facilitator ensures that airtime is allocated equally and that contributions take the form of

questions rather than primarily comment or suggestions.

13

Responses from both the action learning facilitators highlight the importance of the ‘learning

space’ as a safe environment to think and reflect. The participants also confirmed that it

provides a valued opportunity to share problems and get other perspectives. The comment

below confirm this:

‘It is an open and safe place for addressing what is happening in the individuals’

work setting’.

Openness

The atmosphere or mood created in the action learning set was regarded as key setting within

which learning could be fostered and better appreciated. Examples from participants

included:

‘I was resistant to action learning, however, I realised it gave me the space and time

to reflect, which it not always possible at work’.

‘The space for reflection was valuable and rare; it provided space to develop wider

organisational knowledge’.

Inquiry – with respect and non-judgement

Another element regarded as crucial is the requirement for participants to ‘hold’ their

thoughts and impression; instead place emphasis on inquiring about the problem by reframing

the issue examine assumptions i.e. get a full picture of the problem and it context before

attempting to solve it. The facilitators encourages this, as illustrated here:

‘I see each member as a whole person, do not judge but help member to determine for

themselves what they have done well, what they have learned and how they can improve.’

14

‘I ask questions to frame problems differently, to help members to look at situations from

multiple perspectives.’

A key to this process is not just to listen but to practice active listening. Active listening of

this nature is an intense activity, however when developed as a skill, as in this context, it can

become a powerful tool for managers and leaders to use as part of their repertoire of

behaviours. Further benefit that can emerge is a more informed questioning which offer

opportunity for inquiry and explanations, not just to seek the correct answer. Thus learning

takes place through collective social process within the set, offering insight into the practice

of others and opportunity for problem solving with others. This is confirmed by participants,

one of whom observed:

‘I found AL extremely helpful…gaining others peoples perspectives…people I would

not come into contact in daily work life although …from a range of depts (within the

organisation.’

Advocacy

Another key process which emerged is that each member was encouraged to make their

thinking and reasons explicit as they considered their plan of action. This is evident in the

narratives of the facilitators as a process of action learning. One facilitator commented

“the context was a key focus of the facilitation process; I supported them to answer

the question - this is what I think and this is why”.

The evidence of advocacy i.e activism, support and encouragement by participants within the

action learning sets although difficult to measure is certainly observed by the facilitators in

the use of new language, their growing confidence and changed understanding of their issues

15

and challenges. Comments from participants to support this is addresses in the section on

‘individual learning’.

Reflection

For a few members who were new to action learning appreciation of reflection and the

deliberate, facilitated process was gradual. However, there was broad consensus that it was a

very useful reflective space of learning both at individual level and a platform for sharing and

learning about the wider organisational issues. The comments from the participants clearly

demonstrate this:

‘I have been able to use reflective thinking to examine my own feelings ad use the

learning to enable me to make good decisions’

‘I am able to look at working situations through different lenses and make sense

through reflection’.

‘I have been able to critically reflect …which has given me more resilience and

energy to engage in the change’.

The action learning facilitators also make clear reference to the process of reflecting and their

aim ‘to encourage participants to make connections, analyse seemingly contradictory data

and to consider new possibilities.’

RQ2 Impact of Learning

This section attempts to demonstrate how action learning works by capturing evidence of the

outcomes of the action learning processes and claims to changed leadership behaviour.

Emergent themes illustrated below include identity, performance, individual learning,

organisational learning, outcomes focussed less on practical action and more on new insight

(learning-focussed outcomes); outcomes focussed more on practical action than altered

16

insights (action focussed outcomes), and finally outcomes which appeared to be balanced in

terms of new insight or perspective and new practice (balanced outcomes).

Identity

One clear proximal outcome for the action learning members is self-assessment of their self-

identity as managers and leaders in their current roles. In their assessed reports several

managers were able to reflect and review their leadership styles as demonstrated by the

following comments:

‘I have adopted servant leadership to democratically work with team members to

achieve goals.’

‘I had a simplistic view of seeing managers and leaders as being 2 separate

identities; replacing these 2 with a single concept of ‘leadership’ has allowed me to

adjust my personal perspective….’

These comments highlight a shift in leadership and management perspectives particularly in

relation to skills of managing and dealing with change. An increase in self-awareness and

understanding of specific skills and capabilities in managing and leading was also clearly

articulated. Examples included:

‘I have more effective communication skills, in both formal and informal arenas to

increase understanding amongst staff’

‘I have learnt that change management requires a discrete set of skills and

processes.’

Individual learning

Given that each manager writes an assignment reflecting their learning from a leadership

stretch project in their work place, examples of individual learning are many. A particularly

17

useful example of an individual learning outcome below illustrates how new terminology

(idealised influence) introduced via the learning framework has been adopted to articulate

their learning:

‘as an idealized influence I acted as a role model from whom my subordinates learnt

to trust, began to imitate and eventually adopted my ideals.’

Similarly, another outcome, as quoted below by two managers indicates a shift in

sense making capability:

‘I have come to learn with regards to change, that there must be an appreciation and

understanding of the variations in which all individuals deal with this at different

times.’

‘For the project group members who were unable and not willing to do their tasks I

used the telling style, providing direct instruction and close monitoring; …for those

unable but willing I found selling very effective, explaining decisions and providing

opportunity for my project members to seek clarification.’

Organisational learning

This section illustrates evidence of how strongly some of the participants see their individual

learning as part of the ‘greater good’, the organisation’s vision or strategy. For example:

‘I am now in a position to demonstrate how to design the roster to other team leaders,

to share knowledge with them.’

‘… was able to establish that my team at the beginning was stuck …. I believe I have

helped team members to understand their individual roles better and the purpose of

our team within the organisation’.

Balanced and unbalanced action learning

18

These last three themes are shaped by concerns expressed by several authors about the

challenge to participants in action learning to strike a balance between action and learning.

Evidence of both learning and action is followed by evidence of balance.

Learning-focused action learning

‘I identified a deficit in my leadership…I am more comfortable in the manager role as

opposed to the leader role and this often leads to me applying management or tame

solutions when in fact leadership or wicked solutions are required.’

‘I have learnt to take time to understand individuals/colleagues, identify their

strength and weaknesses and build trusting relationship whilst maintaining good

standards at work.’

Action-focused action learning

‘I was able to transfer my learnt skills to implement change and conduct flexible

policies which are essential in contemporary business environment.’

‘I persuaded the clinicians to provide best care for the service users and middle

managers to demonstrate the potential for serious clinical incidents to agree new staff

roster over seven days…’

Balanced action learning

‘I have understood the difference between managing a team & leading a team - I

(used to) adopt a top-down approach which alienated the key stakeholders…..but now

use a more inclusive approach to leading change.’

19

‘I have now come to realise that seeing ‘change’ as a holistic process can make the

entire change process more manageable and must involve changing the culture of the

organisation also.’

These findings provide strong empirical evidence through personal narratives, insights and

written report on why and how action learning works in the context of leadership and

management development.

Discussion

This section discusses the results presented in the previous section in the light of key

concepts explored in the theoretical base earlier and suggests several significant messages in

the context of the participants’ current leadership and management challenges.

Regarding the first research question, why action learning works, there are clear indications

of two key elements which contribute significantly to the process: first, the deliberate efforts

by the facilitators to make the structure simple, explicit and transparent for learning (Riggs,

2010) and second, the contribution of all those present in the action learning sets to engage in

active listening, asking questions, offering support as well as challenge to reflect and explore

strategies for action. (Revans,1980, 1982; Reynolds, 1999; Schon,1978)

The responses of the action learning participants demonstrate that they have understood and

actively engaged in these processes be it for learning or action or both. Analysis suggests this

may have stemmed from a conscious effort on the part of facilitators to openly share their

process as well as communicate the underlying rationale of the action learning to the

participants, particularly for those who were initially resistance to the process. Also, the size

of the action learning sets (no more than five) and efforts to create an intimacy or cosiness in

the layout of the room are also evidenced as a crucial element. Therefore, once engaged in

the process set members appreciated the ‘space for reflection’. This aspect was echoed in the

20

learning reflections within assignments. The facilitators’ focus on the participants’ learning

through inquiry, reflection, advocacy plus their engagement as ‘equals’ in focusing on the

process rather than the problem itself appears to have accelerated participants’ learning.

(Marquardt & Waddill, 2004).

Evidence of increased understanding of leadership skills and improved leadership behaviour

is also evident. Critical reflection and inquiry certainly appears to have increased

participants’ self-awareness and systemic thinking (Leonard & Lang, 2010). That participants

are able to identify the changes happening within themselves can be regarded as a proximal

outcome (McNutley & Canty, 1995). According to Revans (1980) this self-identification

represents learning as do the transformed approaches to change (for example the adaptation

of servant leadership style or contingency leadership). Therefore, there is sufficient evidence

to show that there is a definite shift in leadership and management perspectives, particularly

in relation to skills of managing and dealing with change. These capabilities and

competencies add to the contributions of Leonard & Lang, 2010 and Marquardt et al, 2009 on

development of leadership capabilities through action learning.

The indication of the impact of the action learning at organisational level is mainly evidenced

in the participants’ reports on their ‘stretch project’. The design of the leadership programme

has enabled participants to apply their learning within the action learning sets to enhance,

improve and develop their own capabilities as leaders within their chosen projects. There is

evidence of both learning as well as action through the sharing of experiences and networking

within the action learning sets which appears to have also yielded deeper organisational

knowledge and the translation of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, a key indicator of

and precursor to organisational impact. The outcomes of action learning within this

programme have fostered both learning and action although the balance between learning and

action varies across the cohort (Raelin, 2008; Cho & Egan, 2009).

21

Conclusions

It is important to acknowledge limitations in this research undertaken so far before going on

to draw some final conclusions. First, the research findings presented here represents the

responses of the 16 participants and the 3 facilitators in Cohort 1 of the programme; data

from Cohort 2 has not been included. A similar iteration will enable the authors to strengthen

the reliability and validity of the findings presented. Second, through further analysis of the

empirical evidence the authors seek to present a conceptual research framework for action

learning as a contribution to the literature. Third, the authors acknowledge that the evidence

of learning outputs are mainly claimed in self report and whilst they may well be related to

participation in the action learning process overall, as ever the strength of the links is difficult

to ascertain. What is difficult to contest however is the facilitators’ first hand witnessing of

managers adopting and adapting new language and their growing confidence when

articulating their changed understanding of leadership approaches and behaviours.

Overall, the study at this stage indicates the effectiveness of action learning as a method of

leadership and management development. Both the facilitators and the participants’ responses

demonstrate the importance of the learning space required by individuals to engage in their

own process of inquiry and reflection in order to identify the behavioural changes needed to

take the action required for their development and performance improvement. The initial lack

of familiarity with the process by some participants may represent a risk to openness and

engagement to action learning but by creating and presenting a structure for learning,

facilitators were able to reduce some of this anxiety and therefore facilitate learning. There

also appears to be a value in presenting a simple structure (check in - shared airtime -

checkout) and communicating this to the participants. The wider action learning process

22

similarly consists of iterations of inquiry, reflection, advocacy, sense making, learning,

planning and action. The openness, respect and trust in the process enable participants to

become more confident as they cycle through these iterations.

Ultimately, the purpose of this intervention is personal professional development and in turn

organisational development with the focus on the ‘now’, ‘the real’ and ‘going forward’, The

research demonstrates that the action learning process provides actionable solutions to real

problems thus enabling real-world practice in leadership and management behaviours and

skills (Hicks and Paterson, 1999; Leonard & Lang, 2010; Marquardt, 2004).

References

Boshyk, Y. (2002) Action learning worldwide: experiences of leadership and organisational

development. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan

Boud, D., Keogh, R. & Walker, D. (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into learning,

Kogan Page, London

Cho, Y., & Egan, T. M. (2009). Action learning research: A systematic review and

conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 8(4), 431-462.

Cunliffe, A. L. (2009) The philosopher leader: On relationalism, ethics and reflexivity – A

critical perspective to teach leadership, Management Learning, 40(1), 87-101

Densten, I. L., & Gray, J. H. (2001). Leadership development and reflection: what is the

connection? International Journal of Educational Management, 15(3), 119-124

Dilworth, R., & Willis, V. (2003) Action Learning: Images and pathways, Malabar, FL:

Crieger

23

Dilworth, D. R., & Boshyk, D. Y. (2010). Action learning and its applications. Palgrave

Macmillan.

Drucker, P. (1999). Managing challenges for the 21st century. New York.

Hicks, M. D., & Peterson, D.E (1999) The Development pipeline: How people really learn.

Knowledge Management Review, 9, 30-33

Jarvis, C., Gulati, A., McCririck, V., & Simpson, P. (2013). Leadership Matters Tensions in

Evaluating Leadership Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(1), 27-

45.

Kempster,S. J. (2006) Leadership learning through lived experience: A process of

Apprecticeship? Journal of management and organisation, 12 (1), 4-22

Kempster,S., & Stewart, J. (2010) Becoming a leader: A co-produced autoenthnographic

explorationof situated learning of leadership practice, Management Learning, 41,205-219

Kuhn, J.S. & Marsick, V.J. (2005) Action learning for strategic innovation in mature

organoisations, Action Learning: Research & Practice, 2, 27-48

Leonard, H. S., & Lang, F. (2010) Leadership Development via Action Learning. Advances

in Developing Human Resources, 12:225

Leviton, L. C. (2006). The handbook of leadership development evaluation (Vol. 32). K.

Hannum, J. W. Martineau, & C. Reinelt (Eds.). John Wiley & Sons

Marquardt, M. J. (2000). Action learning and leadership. The learning organization, 7(5),

233-241.

Marquardt, M. J. (2004) Optimising the power of action learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-

Black

24

Marquardt, M. & Wdddill, D (2004) The power of learning in action learning: a conceptual

analysis of how five schools of adult learning theories are incorporated within the practice of

action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1:2. 185-202

Marquardt, M., Leonard, H. S., Freedman, A.M., Hill, C.C. (2009) Action learning from the

future. American Psychological Association.

Marsick, V.J., & O’Neil, J.A. (1999) The many faces of action learning. Management

Learning. 30, 159-176.

McNulty, N. G., & Robson Canty, G. (1995). Proof of the pudding. Journal of Management

Development, 14(1), 53-66.

Moon, J. (2013) A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory & Practice.

Routledge

O’Neil, J. & Marsick, V. J. (2007) Understanding Action Learning. New York, NY: AMA-

COM

Pearce, C. L., & Sims Jr, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the

effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive,

transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group dynamics: Theory,

research, and practice, 6(2), 172.

Pearce, C. L., Sims Jr, H. P., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K. A., & Trevino, L.

(2003). Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a theoretical

typology of leadership. Journal of Management development, 22(4), 273-307.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A.( Eds) (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and

whys of leadership. Sage Publications.

25

Pedler, M. ( 2002) Accessing Local Knowledge, Human Resource Development

International, 5, 523-540

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

Action Learning: Research and Practice, 2, 49-68

Ram, M & Trehan K (2010) Critical action learning, policy learning and small firms: An

inquiry, Management Learning, 41(4) 415-428

Raelin J.A (2004) Don’t bother putting leadership into people. Academy of Management

Executive, 18 (3), 131-135

Raelin J.A. (2008) Work-based learning, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Revans, R.W. (1980) Action Learning: New techniques of management (1st ed) London: :

Blond & Briggs, Ltd.

Revans, R.W. (1982) The origin and growth of action learning . Brickley, UK: Chartwell-

Bratt

Reynolds, M (1999) Critical reflection and management education: rehabilitating less hierarchical approaches, Journal of Management Education, Vol 23, No 5 pp 537-553

Revans, R.W. (1998) ABC of Action Learning: Empowering manages to act and learn from

action. London, UK: Tavistock

Rigg, C., & Richards, S. (Eds.). (2006). Action learning, leadership and organizational

development in public services. Routledge.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching

and learning in the professions. San Francisco.

Stead,V., & Elliott,C., (2009) Women’s leadership, London, UK: Palgrave

26

Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. ( 2007) Research and relevance: Implications of Pasteur’s

Quadrant for doctoral programes and faculty development, Academy of Management Journal,

50, 769-774

Waddill, D., Banks, S., and Marsh, C. (2010) The future of Action Learning. Advances in

Developing Human Resources12:260

Weinstein, K. (1997) Action Learning: An afterthought, Journal of Workplace Learning

Volume 9 · Number 3 · 1997 · pp. 92–93 © MCB University Press · ISSN 1366-5626

Yeo, R.K. (2006) Learning institution to learning organisation. Journal of European

Industrial Training, 30, 396-419

Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research

methods). Sage Publications, London.

27