Title - Exploring the theory and practice of Action Learning Sets through 3 Case studies
Author - Lynne Booth
Organisation - Senior Lecturer, Sheffield Hallam University
Sheffield Hallam University
City Campus
Stoddart Building
Howard Street
Sheffield
S11WB
Stream 8 - Scholarly Practitioner Research/Teaching and Learning
Submission type - working paper
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to learn from the integration of facilitator and participant perspectives of action learning with reference to academic theory. The methodology employed is an autoethnographical (SymonCassell 2012) account, that is writing ethnographically on the self where "the self and the field become one" (Coffrey, 2002 cited in SymonCassell 2012 p 315) using 3 case studies. Each is explored using critical incidents (Farrell 2008), those instances that appeared more illuminating than others, to identify aspects of learning that may improve research and practice. The findings are that the practice of action learning (Revans 1982)through learning sets is improved by a better understanding of academic theories of learning. A number of issues need to be considered in relation to research limitations. Other researchers/case studies might illuminate different aspects of learning from their practice, a more structured attempt to illicit views from participants may identify other areas to explore and research into other academic areas may also have linkages to this concept.This paper questions the context of the learning set, the nature of the participants and the skill of the facilitator. Its value is in acknowledging the role that theory and practice have in shaping each other.
Keywords: case study; action learning; emotional intelligence; reflective practice; facilitation: organisation development.
Introduction
This paper stems originally from my experience as a student on the MSc Organisation Development and Consultancy (ODC) course and the learning and development of self through the Action Learning Sets (ALS's) as a key element of the course. ALS's are identified as sessions in which the "managers would be encouraged to learn with and from each other using the group review to find solutions to their immediate problems" (Revans 1982 p 64) which stems from his work in the 1940's in relation to the Coal mining industry. This concept is also explored by many other authors (Mumford 2006, Pedler 1996, Marquardt 2009). My role as a facilitator of ALS's in 3 separate case studies explores the difference that context, participants, and facilitator makes to the perceived value of these periods of reflection and the differing tensions encountered. In each case study I will describe the context and design of the sets and use critical incidents to discuss the issues that arose and the tensions between theory and practice. Where appropriate I will include verbatim comments from participants.Findings and conclusion identify further issues for research.All references to names, colours etc are fictitious.
Case study 1
The Masters in Organisation Development and Consultancy (ODC) is one of 3 courses in organisational change delivered by Sheffield Hallam University, the other 2 being courses in Mentoring and Coaching and Charity Resource Management. These 3 courses operate with mixed course ALS's delivered in 3 hour duration in each of 8 study blocks delivered over 18 months. I was a student in the ODC course and found the ALS to be supportive, challenging and developmental. In particular it allowed me to discover through sensitive but challenging questioning, experiences in my past that were holding me back. Once surfaced and dealt with I was able to reframe situations that were causing me concerns in my present. On graduating and taking up a part-time academic role, I began to facilitate one of the sets on the programme hoping that I could enable that same growth and learning in others.
At this time the ALS was attached to a module and to 2 assessment instruments. The first of which was a learning contract. Students had to complete the contract by answering 5 key questions. The set guidance sets these out as follows:-
- Where have I been? (What is my background, previous experience? How have I learned in the past?) Clarifies Learning Needs
- Where am I now? (What skills and qualities do I possess? What kind of person am I?) Clarifies Learning Needs
- Where do I want to get to? (What kind of person do I want to be? What kind of understanding/skills do I need to gain?) Defines goals
- How do I get there? (What learning programme do I need? What process can I go through in order to learn?) Indicates Plan of Action
- How will I know if I have arrived? (How do I evaluate my learning? What measures do I need in order to assess myself? What evidence do I need to provide to others?) Gives Basis for Appraisal
This was shared amongst the other set participants at each of 4 blocks and a mix of supportive and challenging questions were raised with the idea of prompting new insights and learning. Revans(1998 p4) identifies this as L= P+Q, Learning equals programmed knowledge plus questioning insights. Marquardt (2009) adds "R" for reflection. Although Revans and others insist that attendance must be voluntary, and of course we could not force anyone to attend any element of our course, there was an implicit compulsory attendance requirement. In order to pass the learning contract all members of the set had to agree that you had shown learningwithin these 5 questions through the work of the set. The second assessment was to choose an area of interest identified through the learning contract and to work through that with the help of the remaining 4 sets. This worked well with almost full attendance at all sets. It should also be noted that the courses had strong numbers of 15-20 per course with almost all students taking the full MSc programme. Issues arose when the context of the learning sets changed. The environment for Masters level study within a recession created a reduction in student numbers to between 10-12 per course and the course leaders were encouraged to allow multiple entry points to the courses and students taking Certificate only attendance to attract numbers. The courses were redesignedand the ALS's were maintained with 8-10 participants (to allow for students dropping out before the end) but without an assessment element. This shift was to allow further specialism by each course in terms of content and assessment as the course leaders considered this may have greater market appeal and to save money in terms of facilitators. My own feelings were that this was a backward step however I was not in a position of authority in terms of the course design and management or having any knowledge of action learning evaluation. PedlerTrehan (2010) in their editorial note a number of ways in which value can be assessed. One that resonates with my experience is from John Burgoyne that "confidence and the ability to learn, but focused on the usefulness of action learning in improving our capabilities in dealing with the wicked problems spread around complex systems and networks" so that it is seen as having a broad value rather than a narrow specific task focus.In addition, our assessment practice for all modules was to ask students to be reflective in their assignments in equal measure to their inclusion of academic content and the learning sets supported their developing capability in this area.
The difficulty now became one of a changed environment whereby the participants considered attendance to be voluntary. Attendance and value identified is mixed in relation to our new format. In some ways the battle to keep ALS's has become a personal one. In order to achieve some sense of evaluation I asked the participants of one set for some feedback that I could use to encourage other students to "give it a go" Here are their voices.
Some comments from previous students
"Sharing our learning agenda allowed us to develop a high degree of trust very quickly"
"This allowed me to work on real personal issues, sometimes work but sometimes home ones too"
"These were very challenging and I put stuff out there to the group that I wouldn't normally share"
"Because I was in a group I shared things, which is extraordinary for me. There is something about this group that frees you up"
"Some incredible business issues were shared, discussed and learnt from"
"Developing thought processes in the set maximises value of other learning in the blocks and in the assignments"
"I see it as an integral part of the content. Seeing an action learning set in action is incredibly useful, the way others frame questions and think things through. Often in other arenas we just bombard people with our solutions because we all jump in. The learning set method is very positive"
"I was sceptical at first but gradually crept up in my 'value for money' and became one of my top 3 aspects of the course. It helped my listening, questioning and my impact. Some of us made some huge life changes"
"I shared things I wouldn't share with my partner. Needs a lot of steering at first and important to share deep stories"
"It's important to commit to each other and commit to challenge and be challenged. The level of trust means it’s a safe place to explore whatever vulnerabilities we have"
"You don't always have to bring an issue yourself to learn from others. However being in the spotlight is quite powerful"
"Sometimes the learning set is like dropping a pebble in a pond. You only feel the ripples later. Learning builds each time"
I feel this links strongly to Burgoyne's view previously mentioned. As can be seen these are only positive comments from students on block 6 of the programme and part of my ALS. These were students who had not only given it a go but "stuck with it". I cannot include the views of students who have a more negative view as no-one continued to participate who did not value the process. Maybe this supports the view that they need to be optional. One reflection I can make is that the assignments of students who chose not to attend were less reflective and less critical in terms of theory and practice. A critical incident in terms of this case study is a recent one again at block 6. Following the usual check in where I ask if anyone has any issue they would like to work on, Pat a participant who had shared issues in previous sessions, said firmly but quietly "I don't feel I want to share any issues with this group anymore." I was taken aback by this and momentarily stunned into silence. I allowed her comment to "have its moment" (Blanchard 1998) and when the silence ended I asked her what led her to say this. She answered "Each time I share my thoughts and feelings and others in the group say they haven't anything to share as they are 'issued out' by dealing with them in their course study blocks. This makes me feel needy as they are only here to help me and not be helped themselves. It creates a power relationship that makes me uncomfortable and I don't want to feel that way anymore" Again I let her comment have its moment. I then asked her if she could name the group she was referring to. With hindsight this was probably not the best approach and maybe not needed however she responded and named the participants of one course. I asked how they felt about this. Jo admitted that she had indeed used those words and had not realised that this might have a power dynamic in the group, James said that as far as "I am concerned I'm not going to make issues up for the sake of it" This latter response was maybe prompted by a feeling of defensiveness that I had encouraged by asking Pat to "name" them. We had a discussion about this and Jo said she had something we could work on and the rest of the set progressed with both Jo and James contributing an issue and identifying key learning from doing so. In this instance it both highlighted the value of ALS's but also raised the issue of the role of the facilitator.
The role of the set advisor is to assist participants in their learning, in particular, in their learning from one another. The activities of the set advisor will vary depending on the unique nature of each set. Minimally, there are the following roles:- ‘Model’: The set advisor indicates, through their actions, what it is legitimate to address within the set as well as the ways in which set members can assist one another’s learning. Through being sensitive when questioning people and by framing questions that lead set members to fresh and useful perspective and actions the set advisor is providing a ‘model’.
- ‘Filling In’: The set advisor will need to do the things that no one else is doing. For instance, if no one confronts an issue that seems obvious to the set advisor, they may be the one to take it up within the set if no one else is prepared to do so. The set advisor helps to ensure that the set maintains a balance of challenge and support of its members.
- ‘Mark the Learning’: During an individual time slot a set member may move through many changes of perspective, many new awareness and realisations. It can be useful for these to be explicitly ‘marked’ for set members so they consciously recognise the shifts in thinking they have made, and think through how these might manifest in action.
- ‘Review of Set Process’: This term means that the set advisor may act in order to help the set with the process by which it does things. They may comment on the dynamics of the set, help to resolve conflicts, assist the set to review its effectiveness, or whatever might seem appropriate. This kind of activity is not concerned directly with the tasks that people are carrying out, but rather focuses on the means by which the set is operating. (Extract Learning sets process SHU2015)
What I had failed to do as part of my role was to identify the impact of disclosure of learning on an individual within a larger group. I had been happy to see learning and sharing taking place and not seen the impact of not sharing.
Case study 2
The Human Resources Department of a Higher Education Establishment had identified that leaders within the organisation would benefit from a Leadership Development programme to embed new ways of working following a restructure. The first stage of this was to work with the senior leadership group to begin the process and then to continue to deliver development to middle managers utilising the learning achieved. The senior leadership group comprised approximately 150 senior leaders across a wide range of academic disciplines and central departments. A well respected leadership development provider designed a programme which comprised 3 blocks of development sessions, 2 of which were residential and a one day conference. Between each session they inserted ALS's of 3 hours each quarter for a period of one year. All were to be facilitated by a member of the HR departments' organisation development team. .My role was as a facilitator of twoof these. The development programme was a non-negotiable activity and in theory so was the ALS. However, gaining buy in to these was problematic from the start. The process for the set was based on my experience in case study 1 although prior to the critical incident discussed. Each set comprised 6-8 senior leaders, most of whom had secretaries who managed their diaries. Identifying a 3 hour window when all were available was almost impossible. Each facilitator had to introduce themselves to the participants who had been selected by trying to ensure a mix of gender/department/faculty/staff type. At the first meeting the process was introduced. In the Red group I had a promising first session. Everyone seemed ready to participate, with just a few questions about the process and there was a general feeling of what Pedler (1996 p61) says is a willingness to "give it a good go". For Pedler this is his "acid test" for participants. This group continued to meet throughout the year, each member bringing their problem or issue and supporting each other through some difficult and challenging times. My contractual involvement ended and to the best of my knowledge the group continued to meet in a self facilitated way. The Black team however was a completely different experience. I struggled to get a first session diarised where everyone could attend. This resulted in my telephoning each participant, talking through the format of the sessions, giving examples of how others has benefitted and asking them to just try "giving it a go". Although some of the participants agreed and asked their secretaries to prioritise the sessions, a number did not. John, an academic who I had known from a previous role in administration was open in his hostility to the process. He asked me "what qualifications do you hold that makes you a suitable facilitator?", "Why does it take 3 hours, I'm far too busy for that", "Do you mean to tell me that I have to give up 3 hours of my time for the possibility of 30 minutes on my issue?" Although I felt that I gave appropriate answers (I have a Masters in Organisation Development and consultancy, 3 hours gives some airtime to all if it is needed, learning occurs from helping others work through their issues in addition to your own) John never attended a set meeting. Others gave verbal agreement and yet could never agree a time. 3 members of the Black set met twice and my involvement with them ended as they jointly decided thatthey could "manage without me". My perception of this was that my position within the organisation as a member of HR was getting in the way of them sharing the issues that were most challenging for them and which occurred following a restructure.Further reading of Revans (1998 p12) suggests the role of the facilitator should be to "contrive that it achieves independence of them at the earliest possible moment".