Action Learning: Images and Pathways

Citation

Mumford, A. (2003), "Action Learning: Images and Pathways", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 269-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/ict.2003.35.6.269.1

We have almost reached the stage where a potential reader might be sceptical about yet another book on action learning. When I started in this field 20 years ago, there was Reg Revans first book (1971) Developing Effective Managers and the book More than Management Development: Action Learning at GEC, published in 1977, but books and articles have proliferated as action learning has become more popular. In this review, I concentrate not on those aspects of content which it has in common with other books, but select items which make it potentially interesting for those who already have one or more of the general works on action learning.

The first feature is that it is by two American authors. Like Marquardt’s Action Learning in Action (Davies‐Black, 1999), and the compilation by Yorks et al. (AHRD, 1999). It has specifically American cases, but is not solely dedicated to them. Like those books, it is also appropriately focused on the original ideas of Reg Revans (unlike a fourth American book by Dotlich and Noel).

The authors are located in educational institutions, and part of the value of their book lies in the fact that they write from that perspective. That is to say that they are fully aware of the mindset with which they are dealing in large parts of the management education world – and possibly still in the management training world, as well. It is slightly surprising to find them saying that people still have to be convinced that “Learners need ownership in the learning agenda”, as compared with teacher‐directed learning or facilitator, controlled group learning. It is, of course, the starting point for a great deal of the value of action learning. While not connected as strongly as it might have been to this point, for this reviewer, a major benefit of the book is its frequent insistence on the significance of reflection as a required feature of action learning. It is unfortunately the case that too many action‐learning facilitators still do not give sufficient attention to reflection, to the use of learning reviews and learning logs as explicit and required features of effective action learning. This aspect is indeed interesting to relate to Dilworth’s involvement and admiration of the GE workout process, which he claims as an action‐learning event. Unlike other American training phenomena, the GE workout, although immensely popular in the USA, never really took on in the UK, so it is interesting to both read the detail of what happens and to read Dilworth’s case for describing it as action learning. It is his good action learning practice for this reviewer, as a facilitator, to leave to readers a decision on whether Dilworth’s case is convincing or not. Dilworth’s uncertainty over whether there is sufficient reflection within the GE workout process is perhaps related to the fact that the authors say at one stage that learning to learn “seems to naturally occur in an action‐learning experience”. As already indicated, action learning provides the circumstance but needs the disciplines routines and priorities necessary to convert potential into actuality.

Other good features of this book include the fact that it looks at action learning in a wider variety of domains, outside business, than some other books. It also provides some good descriptions of the challenges involved and the reasons for failure. The latter strikes me as a particularly helpful chapter. Again, many of us, as advocates of action learning, have perhaps insufficiently presented cases showing where it does not work and why.

The Revans’ equation L=P+Q was one of the earliest of his contributions seized on by management development advisers. The idea that there was an essence called Programme Knowledge, which was different from Questioning Insight, but which together formed real learning, was a conceptual breakthrough. These authors include my own variant on this equation Q1+P1+Q2+P2=L and present fairly the reasons for it. In my view, Q determines the P you need and therefore must come first. These authors argue that though Revans wrote his equation as shown above, he really meant it the other way round, because in other places he has said that you start with Q. The point actually has great significance for anyone thinking of initiating action learning, because, as these authors demonstrate, in many ways, the adherence of any organisation or unit to the idea that you start with challenging questions is one which is an absolute requirement. Without it, the action learning programme, or at least beliefs in its efficacy, will collapse. There is the further point particularly in educational institutions that there will be a natural tendency to start with P, i.e. to say that people need certain kinds of knowledge before they can tackle the problems. The Revans programme in Brussels, correctly quoted as one of the initiators of the popularity of action learning, contained one major fault – the introduction of much too much P at the beginning of the programme.