CASE 1I took the recommended Leadership Training and Developm.docx

CASE 1
I took the recommended Leadership Training and
Development report: Values in Action Inventory of Strengths
assessment. My values identified from this assessment were as
follows: love, fairness, kindness, hope, gratitude, honesty,
teamwork, leadership, forgiveness, perseverance, humility,
perspective, zest, prudence, creativity, judgement, bravery,
curiosity, self-regulation, social intelligence, humor,
appreciation of beauty & excellence, love of learning,
spirituality. I was surprised and overwhelmed with joy to see
love as my number one value. Though I have a ton of love to
give, I feel that I have a hard time express my love for others.
Knowing that this assessment identified love as a significant
strength gives me great strength that even though I don’t
recognize my outward display of love, it is received by others. I
was also surprised to see love of learning so low on the list. I
love to learn new things, I’m just not one to pick up a book and
read I would rather learn new things using the hands-on method.
It is possible that my inability to identify my out-ward displays
of love have clouded my perception on thought of a love to
learn. I would have thought that leadership and social
intelligence would have been higher on the list. I love to lead
and mentor the new airman coming into the military. I’m not
surprised at all by spiritual and humor being so low on my list.
I’m not very good with making jokes, most people only laugh at
me when I am trying to be serious. I am not a religious person
therefore spiritual feel right where it should have. After taking
this self-examination I will need to learn how to use my
strength better rather than using my weaknesses. This test was
very eye opening for me and will allow me to become a better
leader along the way.
I scored fairly high on all sections of the emotional
intelligence self-assessment in chapter 3 of Sterret (2006). I

scored a 20 on self-awareness, 22 on self-confidence, 19 on
self-control, 19 on empathy, 21 on motivation, and 21 on social
competency. The results seem to be in line with what I would
have expected. I have been the enlisted leader of a section for
the last 6 years and have learned if the person working for you,
believes you care about them they tend to work much harder to
support your efforts. On the leadership assessment I scored
mostly 5 or 4 with a couple 3. I completed one assessment and
sent three assessments to airmen that previously worked and
currently work for me, all the results were relatively
comparable. The fellow airmen were initially not able to
identify the links between their strengths and weakness’, as I
would hope. I think I scored myself lower than the troops
scored me, because I tend to have higher expectations for
myself than others. It was nice to see how people that have
worked for you grade you when it comes to your leadership. It
gives me inspiration that I am actually doing a good job leading
the personnel under me.
I identified well with the section Develop a language of
strengths discussed in Passmore (2012). In this section it states
you can expand one’s self-knowledge by seeking feedback,
‘aha’ moments, to establish a clear picture. When I first started
the lesson I didn’t believe that I was great at expressing love. I
felt that I had always struggled to find ways to show love to
everyone I surround myself with. After I talked with my
husband Daniel, mother Sharon, and Vicky who is my best
friend; I realized that I am much better at expressing love to
everyone I encounter than I thought. They helped me realize,
that even though I don’t walk around giving kisses or hugs to
anyone, those I’m acquainted with to the ones I love more than
anything. They showed me that; my kindness, compassion, and
my ability to put the needs of those around me above my own
are my unique way of showing love. Everyone I encounter has
an opportunity to witness my love, though the ones closest to
me are the ones able to understand that is my unique way of
showing love. I always try and make everyone know how

special they are and how awesome it is to be special, I fortunate
to know through this feedback that others know this too.
I worked with the previous identified airmen on applying
her strengths to re-craft work to enhance her job performance
and leadership traits with her airmen, as identified in the Job
Fulfilment and Performance section of Passmore (2012). SSgt
Janavaris a fellow comptroller airman and an airman I currently
mentor had trouble connecting and motivating an unruly Airman
First Class. With the tools learned from this section we were
able to identify that her strength was honesty followed by
teamwork. This helped her understand what is important to her
and how to makes her foster her strengths to be a better
supervisor. We used her strength honesty to develop an open
line of communication; this allowed her specific goals and
expectations to be effectively communicated. Second, we were
able to use her teamwork strength to foster a better relationship;
this established a “One Team One Fight” mentality which
helped bring her team together and she has seen an improved
work relationship and work product.
Before I began this quiz I was not a strong believer that
taking a quiz could definitively tell the strengths or weaknesses
of a person or what type of leader or mentor someone is or
would become. In my opinion people who typically take quizzes
or surveys are either going to be overly critical on themselves
or they are not going to be truly honest with themselves. I think
the vast majority of people anticipate the person they want to be
told they are and they cater their responses to be told what they
want to hear not who they actually are. These quizzes have
showed me numerous strengths that I knew and agree with, like:
love, fairness, kindness, hope, gratitude, honesty, teamwork,
leadership, forgiveness. I feel fortunate that even though I know
I’m the person who was overly critical on myself this section
has taught me the importance of being honest and able to seek
the advice or feedback from others to learn more about yourself.
If I had not taken this class I would not of reached out to my
husband Daniel, mother Sharon, or my best friend Vicky and

learned a valuable lesson about how I love and how that is
received by others. Though I may not agree with the entire
order in which my strengths were listed, I am able to identify
that through this section I have grown and learned lessons I
would of otherwise not. I still believe that being a leader is
mostly about the relationship you develop with your
subordinates and your ability to adapt to their strengths and
weakness. I think this is the critical component quizzes or
surveys cannot capture. This quiz has taught me, and with the
information I have learned I am now able to strengthen my
previous beliefs and learn more about myself from those closest
to me. In closing you have to create a relationship based off
each individual and what they need from a leader and this class
has fortified those beliefs.
CASE 2
Despite the position which an individual holds, leadership
aptitude is very important, especially when moving a person
through their career when assuming a leadership role.
Employees and organizations who are smart understand this as a
significant prerequisite for businesses survival and to establish
leadership aptitudes at each level. People are unique, and there
is a puzzle of identity or personality (R, 2011). Personality is a
combination of sentiments, contemplations, and practices which
make people special. Some identity elements are not mistakable
to all. They are easier to recognize jokester in a gathering.
Various identity elements cannot be displayed to the world
outside. Johari window and transactional analysis are a variety
of the theories which are important in the cultivation of
leadership skills when considering the relationship to others (R,
2011).
The process of accepting and giving criticism is a significant
standout among the most important ideas in training. Using this
criticism procedure, we are in a position to view ourselves just
like others see us. People usually figure out how we see them
using feedback. Criticism provides data to a person either
verbally or nonverbally. Feedback is usually a response by

others as far as recognitions and emotions are considered.
Johari window is among the models which highlight the process
of receiving as well as giving feedback (Patchin, 2015).
Johari window is among the main models which are used as part
of leadership as well as feedback training. The reason behind
the use of this model is because there consists of parts where we
are known and others we are not known. Knowing this and how
it affects how we view ourselves furnishes us with a significant
understanding of where we must center. Feedback is usually at
the center of understanding what is functioning and what is not
functioning (Patchin, 2015). Considering all things except
feedback, we must establish our realities. Johari window
enables us to think of where knowns and unknowns can be
found to make us mindful and to improve our relationships with
others. For instance, I should understand that the behavior of
my supervisor as being unconscious and disruptive. I should
avoid getting frustrated because of any kind of behavior by
different people. I must practice achieving emotional stability to
avoid anxiety when individuals like my supervisor are around.
Consequently, I should attempt to make unknowns of my
supervisor like extreme dominance or be work oriented to
public quadrant by ensuring that they are known to him and that
he understands how others feel about the behavior he portrays
(Patchin, 2015).
Transactional analysis insists that in a social setting which is
not constrained, we tend to work from these three senses of
self-states. These ego states are sentiment arrangements,
thinking as well as conducting what we live with and work with.
The self-state is the child ego state which is where we act like
we used to do in our youthful days. The other one is parent
sense of self-state where we act just like parents. The last one is
adult ego state of target reality as well as the surroundings. This
is a conscience state, and it is produced in a reaction without
hesitating. Our identity when complete includes all these self-
image states. In a social setting, we usually exhibit the states
and at times shifts accidentally from one state to another. For

instance, when in front of our supervisors, we may portray child
conscience state but when with our subordinates, we tend to
display parent sense of self-state. There was a time I was late
to submit my report to my supervisor, and after my efforts to
explain why I was late, his response was a clear indicator that I
am always late and I cannot do better on that side. I found
myself worked up and I said to him that he did not have any
right to judge me in any case. This is an example of a parent-
child transaction. To me, he acted just as a parent, and he
scolded me in a way which suggested that he understood my
childhood life. There was another time when I counseled my
subordinated at work because he was absent without leave. This
was a good example of the child to child transaction. Each of
these three self-image states improves our lives (Wilson, 2014).
When we call an individual immature, we simply suggest that
child ego state has commanded over the other sense of self-
states in that person. In whichever case and with some kind of
work, people can unleash their lethargic adult ego state. This is
worth knowing. This learning about our conduct which advises
us concerning what we are doing and this information can help
us in grasping other practices arrangements which will most
likely provide us with high ground in life. Psychologists make
use of the word transaction to mean social intercourse. In social
circumstances, one can make a transactional jolt when saying
something and other people reacts with a transactional reaction.
A transaction is integral and straightforward when both stimulus
and reaction from an ego state supplements each other (Patchin,
2015).
The transaction with my supervisor as mentioned above would
have been improved by making sure that conversations that are
work related must be carried out using adult ego state where
both stimulus and responses are done professionally. For
example, instead of judging me because of late submission of
my report, the supervisor would have asked me why I submitted
the report late and then advise me on the consequences of late
submission professionally (Barron, 2015). I would also have

given a response professionally giving a genuine explanation
when I submitted my report late and how I would avoid such
lateness in the future. Maintaining professional talks or
conversations with adult ego state helps in making sure that
professionalism prevails in workplaces. When using adult ego
state, people function like computers. They work on information
they gather, store it or even use it to settle on choices per
rationale based systems. When in this ego state, a person
utilizes consistent deduction to handle issues and ensuring that
a parent or a child feelings are as per the procedure (Wilson,
2014).
In conclusion, Johari window and transactional analyses are
very important models and theories which help in building
leadership skills. They enable one to understand how to relate to
their juniors and superiors in a workplace. They also help
highlight on addressing each other and how to deal with
different situations. A leader who prioritize the employees
usually give them freedom to talk to him or her and this
improves their morale and confidence thus translating to
positive input in their jobs.
CASE 3
The 360-degree feedback is an evaluation system that allows an
individual to have their performance assessed my multiple
raters who interact with them, providing them a clear view of
how their activities affect others and how others view their
performance (Carelli, 2010). This allows the individual to
develop their weak points and provide better performance. The
survey sample from Survey Monkey would be the most
applicable survey for my organization. The survey was
relatively easy to fill, and it focused on the most important parts
of one’s performance such as teamwork, ability to work with
others and productivity.
The survey also had a good rating mechanism. The rating
system had five selections from extremely well to extremely
poor which allows the person completing the survey to provide
an accurate answer to the questions asked. The survey also

addresses each person in the company, which allows everyone
to have a 360 survey conducted on themselves. Thus allows
each member of the team to have a clear view of how their
actions affect those around them. The survey can also be easily
customized to the organizational needs. The questions asked are
very general but focus on important topics related to one’s
performance. These questions can be easily replaced with
questions that are more precise to those topics without having to
change any other aspect of the survey. The survey also
maintains the confidentiality of the raters. The reports do not
give the identities of those who took part in assessing an
individual but only show the results of that evaluation. This
confidentiality will allow the employees to fill out the forms
truthfully and give accurate assessments.
When I filled the survey to assess my skills, the report stated
that I have good teamwork skills, good productivity, and I have
the ability to motivate others. The survey, however, also stated
that I have poor people skills and tolerance for criticism as well
as a lack of adherence to the work goals given.
The survey was useful to help me identify areas I can improve
on. I was able to identify the areas that I excel in and will
continue to work to ensure that I continue to perform these
functions at a high level. The survey also helped to identify the
areas of my performance that require improvement. This will
allow me to work hard in those areas and improve my
performance so that I can be a better performing employee
(Mukherjee, 2014). The survey also helped me to understand
myself professionally. I know my strengths, and this will help
me chose a career path and development plan that will ensure
that I progress in the path that is best suited for me. I was also
able to identify my weakness this will allow me to adopt
strategies to increase my performance and develop these
weaknesses into strengths.
The survey stated that I have poor people skills. People skills
are essential for leadership as it allows one to develop positive
relations with the followers thereby earning their trust and

making them more willing to follow you. I will develop a plan
to help improve my people skills. The survey also stated that I
have a low tolerance for criticism. Criticism is an important
source of self-evaluation. Lack of tolerance for criticism
prevents the followers from freely giving their opinions on
various issues. Allowing followers to provide constructive
criticism is essential to teamwork and team development. If
followers cannot be open with their idea the team
innovativeness and productivity may decrease. To ensure an
increased performance of the team, I will adopt strategies that
will allow me to be more tolerant of criticism. The survey also
stated I need to improve my commitment to work goals.
Commitment to work goals allows one to become more
productive. The followers emulate their leader, and since I am
not committed to work goals, my followers will not be
committed either which will lead to mediocre results. To avoid
this, I must be more committed to work goals.
When I took the survey to evaluate my current supervisor, the
results were that they are very helpful and available to the
employees and consistently reward and punish behavior as well
as give feedback. They are, however, unable to motivate the
staff and relate with them. I believe that these results were fair
to my supervisor since I ensured that I had the least personal
bias possible when filling out the form. I only used my personal
experiences to judge his character and skipped the questions
that I wasn’t sure of (Carelli, 2010). I ensured that I did not use
my knowledge of his personal life or relationships as a factor in
answering my questions.
The main areas for improvement were his ability to motivate
staff and relate well with them. My supervisor has few positive
relations with the employees, and this greatly affects his ability
to manage the staff. The employees see him as closed off, and
this reduces their trust in him. I believe that he needs to work
on developing his people skills and particularly his emotional
intelligence. Emotional intelligence is the ability to understand
the feelings of others and have full control over personal

emotions. This will enable him to foster better relationships
with the staff. Better relationships will then enable him to
easily motivate his followers since they will trust and believe in
him and his decisions.
After taking the survey twice, I believe that the survey is
appropriate for use by the organization. The survey offered
questions that are quick and easy to answer, and it had a rating
scale that would allow one to give an appropriate answer to the
questions asked. The survey also focused on all the areas that
are crucial to one’s performance such as productivity,
commitment to work goals, people skills, and teamwork. I
believe that these factors made the survey appropriate for use
by the organization.
The survey also asked questions that are necessary for myself
and the supervisor. The supervisor form asked questions about
his availability to the staff, his helpfulness, consistency with
the reward and punishment, people relations and ability to
motivate the employees. These questions are in line with the
supervisor’s job which is to manage the staff and to assure that
they provide the best production. The questions also tested the
critical elements of the supervisor’s skills in achieving their
work goals and objectives. The self-assessment form tested
one’s commitment to work goals, ability to work with others,
tolerance to criticism and professionalism. These are all
important factor on determining if the employee is a good fit for
the organization. The survey allows an employee to understand
their strengths and weaknesses and compare their self-
perception to other people’s views so that they can have a clear
picture of their true performance. The questions were easy to
answer and relate to one’s roles and duties as an employee.
There are several questions that I believe could be added to
each form. For an example I would add the question; how
comfortable are you when going to the supervisor for help? For
the self-evaluation questions similar to the following question
would be beneficial. How competent do you think you are to
tackle your job?

Several pitfalls would be encountered when carrying out this
survey. One of them is the potential for bias when filling out
the forms. People may be biased when filling out the forms and
give incorrect information. May employees tend to praise
themselves or use this as a chance to defame some of their
colleagues or even use personal relationships as a factor when
providing the answers. This would lead to incorrect assessments
(Lepsinger & Lucia, 2009). The employees may also
intentionally give incorrect assessments due to fear of
retaliation and lack of confidentiality. There could also be a
disparity among the self-assessments and the rater’s assessment
due to the individuals giving themselves a lot of self-praise to
avoid any retaliation for poor performance.
To overcome these pitfalls the company must ensure that each
employee understands the importance of being honest and
unbiased while completing the assessment. I would explain to
these raters the importance of the assessment and encourage
them to use only the behavior they have seen to answer the
questions and not any aspect of one’s personality or personal
life. The organization can also go to extraordinary lengths to
ensure confidentiality of the results and the rater’s identity to
ensure that they are comfortable giving their honest reports
about the individual’s performance. I would also explain that
the 360- degree feedback is only for personal development and
not to be used for any reward, punishment or promotion
activities. This would ensure that the individuals remain honest
with their self-assessment answers and there would be less
discrepancy between the self-assessment and the rater’s
assessment results.

03Action learning
supervision for
coaches
r o y c h i l d s , m a r t i n W o o d s , d a v i d W i l l c o c
k
a n d a n g y m a n
introduction
t his chapter is about making more high quality coaching
available to a much wider community. This stems from a strong
belief in the
benefits of coaching and a desire to create/support initiatives
that
promote this aim. However, our experience is that coaching,
certainly
coaching in organizations, has been focused on high value
individuals
where the concept of ‘value’ usually has a salary connotation.
While
this is understandable and, in many ways, justifiable we believe
that
organizations would benefit from making coaching available to
more
people at different levels. However, a key barrier to this is cost.
Coaching
is usually conducted one-to-one, which means that it involves a
high
level of resourcing that is inevitably costly. While those of us
who

believe in coaching may well argue that the benefits exceed the
costs, we
have found that persuading people of this does not necessarily
lead to a
slackening of the purse strings. This suggests that our aim of
increasing
the community that can benefit from coaching is likely to be a
long, hard
battle. We have therefore promoted the concept of action
learning
supervision (ALS) as a way of accelerating our aim. Along the
way we
have discovered that this is not a second-best option – rather it
is of clear
value and should exist alongside the traditional approaches to
supervision. Done in the right way we believe that this is a
method for
launching novice coaches into a community of practice that is
low cost
without sacrificing the aim of achieving high standards of
professional
standards.
31
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
1.
K
og

an
P
ag
e.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t

pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r

ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed
on 1/9/2017 4:52 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY
AN: 390433 ; Passmore, Jonathan, Association for Coaching.;
Supervision in Coaching : Supervision, Ethics
and Continuous Professional Development
Account: s3642728
32 Approaches to supervision
Background to supervision in coaching
The idea and practice of supervision has its roots in counselling
and
therapy. In these disciplines the practitioner may address many
deep,
long-term issues that involve a range of psychological and
emotional
levels. In such situations there is a danger that the practitioner
becomes

emotionally entangled with the client and so supervision is seen
as a way
of bringing some perspective and distance to the relationship.
From the
therapy and counselling perspective the purpose of supervision
has been
seen as threefold; this was summarized by Kadushin (1992) in
his
discussion concerning supervision in a social work context:
1 Education – to ensure the development and upgrading of
knowledge, skill and attitude through the encouragement of
reflection on and exploration of their work and providing ideas,
tips, techniques and knowledge to the process.
2 Support – the practical and psychological support to carry
through the responsibilities of the role. Coaching is a taxing
process and the stresses and pressures of the work can affect
coaching performance potentially, in extreme circumstances,
leading to burnout. Here the supervisor’s role is to support the
coach in managing the pressures and supplying emotional
support
where needed.
3 Administrative/managerial – the promotion and maintenance
of
good standards of work and adherence to policies and good
practice. Here the supervisor would provide support and
guidance
in the areas of good practice and values of being a coach. It
would
include the aspects of standards, ethics and boundaries.
Since coaching is a relatively new discipline/profession, it is
useful to
borrow from related professions. However, important questions

need to
be asked about what is genuinely relevant and how far the
parallels
provide an appropriate or inappropriate model for coaching.
Such
questions are complicated by the lack of agreement on the
boundaries
for coaching. Some suggest that it should be focused on
performance
issues and behaviour change only. Others argue that, even if the
aim is
performance and behaviour change, these are profoundly
affected by
deeper psychological, emotional and motivational issues and
that these
will inevitably occur in the course of a good coaching
relationship.
These issues aside, few would argue that the core of supervision
(as
defined by Kadushin) can only be beneficial to coaching as a
profession
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
1.
K
og
an
P

ag
e.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm

is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap

pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
33Action learning supervision for coaches
and the people it hopes will benefit from good practice.
However,
questions still remain. An important one is how much
psychological
background, training and knowledge are necessary or advisable
for
coaches and, more pointedly, for coach supervisors. Many of
those
advocating supervision from a counselling or therapeutic
context
generally see this as absolutely essential on the basis that such
coaches

should see the psychological and emotional dimension to
performance
issues earlier and with greater clarity than their
(psychologically)
untrained counterparts. They may also work to a different
boundary
and depth with their clients and therefore regard supervision as
a
psychological process. However, there are many coach/mentors
who
neither have a counselling/therapy background nor hold it
necessary to
be supervised by someone who has. Their work may be more
strategic
than behavioural and they may regard supervision more as a
process of
consultation. This highlights some of the debate concerning the
form
that supervision should take and some of the options (Salter,
2008).
Background to action learning
Action learning, as the name suggests, is something that
happens all the
time. Whatever activity we are engaged in can provide an
opportunity
for learning. With children we see this happening at a
phenomenal rate.
As we get older, we are less likely to learn as quickly and so a
more
conscious approach is required. What is now called action
learning was
founded by Reg Revans, a Cambridge scientist, in the 1930s. He
observed that his colleagues learnt a good deal from each other
even if

they were not of the same discipline. Simply by sharing
problems,
questioning each other and receiving each others’ views and
comments,
all the scientists made useful contributions even if it was not
their
expertise! This moved the emphasis away from knowledge and
expertise
towards discovery and exploration. Subsequently, as director of
education and training at the National Coal Board, he developed
the
approach that has now been carried across the globe and applied
extensively within and across organizations in every sector. As
long ago
as 1985, an MBA based exclusively on action learning was
started and
in 1995 Revans hosted the first action learning conference in
London.
Revans noted that ‘lasting behavioural change is more likely to
follow
the reinterpretation of past experience than the acquisition of
fresh
knowledge’. This shifts the emphasis of learning towards
action.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
1.
K
og

ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
Following action there is a need to reflect and consider what has
happened, what worked, what could have been better and to then
consider what could be done differently. At some point this
leads to
experimenting with new actions and the cycle can begin again –
all of
which is very reminiscent of Kolb’s learning cycle. Revans
(1982)
summarized the process in terms of a simple formula:

Learning (L) = Programmed Knowledge (P) + Insightful
questioning (Q)
This means that the essentials for Action Learning are:
1 An environment in which people are willing to share, admit
mistakes and learn.
2 A process of enquiry – clearly fuelled by insightful
questioning.
3 Periodic opportunities to practise and review that practice.
4 Access to resources (people, books or electronic information)
that
can fill knowledge gaps if required.
Action learning has parallels with a number of group processes
such as
group facilitation, group coaching, team coaching and peer
coaching (in
a group context). All of these are overlapping models and all
can be
useful for development. However, we wanted to position our
approach
to the action learning model because we wanted to de-
emphasize the
need for the ‘wise and experienced’ supervisor. Now this is not
to
devalue what wisdom and experience has to offer – which is a
great deal
– but there is not enough of it around and it can be expensive.
why use the action learning supervision
approach?

One reason for ALS is not so much the cost of traditional
supervision
but the fact that it is not always effective. For example, one of
the critics
of supervision in therapy (Myler, 2007) makes the following
points:
1 Most supervision is ineffective (which he claims from his
personal
experience and from anecdotal evidence).
2 Supervisors are themselves problematic (making the point that
a
good practitioner does not necessarily make a good supervisor).
3 It is a money-spinning exercise (the fact that it has become a
requirement for qualification introduces motivations beyond
‘noble support’).
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
1.
K
og
an
P
ag
e.
A
ll

r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f

ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le

c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
4 Most famous therapists were never supervised in the modern
sense.
5 It is a power play that plays out a parent–child relationship.
6 It can be easily replaced by other methods (namely group/peer
support).
Of course it can be easy to find examples of ineffective practice
and this
should not be used to condemn a practice that can be done well.
However, it does show the weakness of relying on one approach
that
may not always achieve what is desired. We are not presenting
ALS as
an alternative to more traditional approaches. Ideally we would

see it
running alongside (ie ‘as well as’ rather than ‘instead of’).
However, it is
important to note that we do not see ALS as a second-best
option. We
regard it as having equal standing because, in some ways, it is
more in
tune with the basic principles of coaching. This is because, no
matter
how it is dressed up, the traditional approach is founded on
knowledge,
wisdom and expertise (ie the common expectation is that it is
like an
apprenticeship with ‘a more experienced colleague providing
learning
input, challenge and support to more junior colleagues’). ALS
challenges
this approach in two ways. First, it proposes a group process
rather than
the one-to-one dyadic relationship. Second, it honours the
fundamental
belief of all coaching – that the coachee already has the skills
and answers
to his or her most important questions. A criticism of traditional
approaches to supervision has been conceptualized in terms of
Berne’s
work in transactional analysis. Myler (2007) states that:
As a supervisor you are acting as a Parent to the counsellor’s
Child ego
state. This means that the supervisor is not acting as coach or
mentor but
as a superior who is often judgemental and parental in guidance.
It does
not matter whether the supervisor takes a critical parent’s role
or that of

a nurturing parent – the power play is the same. The counsellor
is
submitting through experience of childhood to a parental
symbiosis with
the supervisor. This is unhealthy and restrictive and most
counsellors will
take the Adaptive Child’s role in that they will submit to
supervision as a
way to make their Parent (supervisor) happy.
While Myler cannot claim that this is true for all supervision
relationships it does advise us to be wary. It could also be
implied that
that ALS is more easily concordant with coaching’s
fundamental
beliefs since it does not depend on the skills and experience of a
more
experienced supervisor (although this can still be available).
Instead, it
relies on creating a spirit of enquiry together with good
questioning.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
1.
K
og
an
P
ag

e.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is

si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl

ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
These are the fundamentals of the action learning approach from
which the best learning can ensue.
what is involved: setting up the parameters
As part of the training participants are invited to sign up to the
principles
for working in each of the groups. These are summarized below
and are
communicated prior to Module 1 and then revisited prior to the
division
into groups. Each trainee is asked to sign up to:

●● Bringing real problems, questions and issues to the group.
●● Being willing to share openly his or her experiences,
mistakes,
hopes and fears that arise from the process of coaching –
recognizing that attention is given to the process, feelings and
relationships as well as the content.
●● A firm (signed) commitment to treating all information
disclosed
by the trainee coaches and information about their coachees as
confidential – the only thing to be taken out of the group is the
learning (this signed commitment includes the usual proviso
concerning serious illegality or risk of harm).
●● Taking full responsibility for him- or herself in terms of his
or her
own learning and development.
●● Using ‘I’ language as far as possible.
●● Giving equal attention and commitment to other’s issues and
learning as he or she does to his or her own – which means
giving
as well as receiving.
The role of the facilitator: each group has a facilitator who
helps the
group to form and to understand the process. In the early stages
the
facilitator manages the process, which means establishing the
format
and timing, enabling everyone to participate, ensuring that the
questions
build up coherently in terms of enquiry and clarification before
offering

ideas and solutions, checking that the questions are of most use
to the
presenter of the problem, and checking with the other
participants
about the usefulness of the process at each step.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
1.
K
og
an
P
ag
e.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t

be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t

fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.

Account: s3642728
how it works
There is a nine-part sequence involved in a typical action
learning
session, as follows:
1 A group check-in where set members report briefly on what is
happening in their life including any reflections or actions from
the last meeting plus a brief description of what they would like
to
bring to the session.
2 The group decides who will present their issues and what time
will be allowed to each.
3 The first person (the presenter) is chosen, who presents a
problem,
experience or issue without interruption. It can sometimes be
useful for this to be summarized in a short sentence and written
on a flipchart.
4 The group asks clarifying questions to ensure that the
elements of
the problem are fully articulated and understood. These
questions
should be asked slowly and encourage reflection since they are
designed to help the presenter to come to a deeper
understanding
of the issue and are not opportunities for the group to offer

advice, pass judgement or tell their own anecdotes. The
presenter
has a clear brief to only address the questions that he or she
feels
are appropriate, relevant or useful.
5 When sufficient understanding has been achieved and if it is
appropriate, the problem can be acted out in a ‘fish bowl’
setting.
This involves one or more members of the group playing the
role of
the characters involved. For example, one member can play the
role
of the presenter (as coach) and another of the presenters the
coachee.
6 The presenter reflects, expands or reframes the problem and
then
formulates some options and actions.
7 The group assists the presenter to review these options and, if
he
or she desires, they can offer suggestions until such time as he
or
she is ready to make a resolution to take specific actions (no
matter how small).
8 The group then reflects on the process and gives feedback on
what
has taken place. It is useful to capture some of the key moments
and insights and to identify what was particularly useful. It can
also help to identify which questions were particularly
challenging
and insightful.
9 The process is then repeated with the next presenter.

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
1.
K
og
an
P
ag
e.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du

ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s

pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728

For this process to work, it is important that group members
show
genuine respect for the presenter and that they see their role as
helping
him or her to articulate and understand the problems and to
explore the
issues. As in all such situations the key skills are listening and
questioning.
It can be useful to analyse the questions that are asked and to
reflect on
whether there is scope for a greater range and variety to be
used. In the
early stages, the facilitator will play a major role in this and
may,
sometimes, intervene by asking the questioner to rephrase the
question
in a more open way. However, this is all aimed at modelling the
process
so that eventually the group participants will become skilled at
doing
this themselves. Some of the ways to think about the questions
asked by
the group are whether they helped the presenter to:
●● clarify the situation, the options or the way forward – these
are
‘inquiry’ questions;
●● achieve a deeper insight – these are ‘challenging’ questions;
●● consider new ideas and options – these are ‘catalytic’
questions;
●● identify/release hidden emotions that are blocking the

process –
these are ‘cathartic’ questions.
c a s e s t u d y 1 (David Willcock facilitator)
The key theme that emerged very early on was the development
of good
listening and questioning. Perhaps this was particularly evident
because
of the background of the people in this action learning group.
All were very
busy operational managers who had been selected for the
programme to help the
organization develop a coaching and mentoring capability. Their
usual style (which had
been the basis for their success in their career to date) was to
work at a fast pace, giving
advice and opinion and making quick decisions. Hence the
expectation of their
organizational role was to provide (rather than facilitate)
solutions. This was in stark
contrast to the needs of the coaching role they were hoping to
take up. They needed to
learn to appreciate the need for a slower pace and for different
kinds of questions – ones
that would encourage the coachee to reflect on the meaning and
best course of action that
would be true for him or her. However, the early group
dynamics were characterized by
their old habits – a fast pace, rapid conversations and the
trading of views and opinions
interspersed with leading questions. All were well intentioned,
but the intellectual
understanding of the coaching process and skills (acquired in
the training modules) had yet
to become natural. It quickly became apparent that the style

they used in the action
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
1.
K
og
an
P
ag
e.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro

du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se

s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728

learning groups was habitual and was inevitably played out in
their coach/coachee
interactions. The facilitator’s contribution helped them to
reflect on how they were
operating and what needed to change – namely to learn, listen
and ask questions that were
relevant to the presenting issue, rather than making judgements,
giving advice based on
their own experience and getting side-tracked with their own
examples.
Thus the action learning group provided a context for learning
from the parallel process –
how their approach in the group mirrored how they worked with
their coachees. All group
members, to a greater or lesser extent, tended to slip into
advice-giving with coachees early
on in the programme, making suggestions about action or asking
‘leading’ questions. Working
on this in the group helped them to experience the benefits of
the coaching approach directly
– asking the questions, providing space for the focal person to
reflect, staying with the silence
rather than filling it. Since the facilitator was able to
demonstrate (role model) the appropriate
behaviour they all learnt to recognize the appropriate approach
and soon began to call each
other to account, thus increasing the amount of listening and
questioning in the group. Early
on in the programme a ‘time out’ would often be called to
review the group process, the
impact it was having and the implications for coaching practice.
Knowledge inputs were

provided where relevant, such as a reinforcement of good
listening and questioning and an
explanation of the issues of power and control in the coaching
relationship.
From the facilitator’s perspective a key learning point was that,
no matter how well
defined your process or ground rules, the process is going to be
‘lumpy’ in the early stages.
Patiently role modelling the process combined with group
coaching and occasional ‘expert’
inputs gradually steered the action learning set towards a more
sustainable self-managed
process. Maintaining a light touch and a sense of humour also
helped. The groups’
development over the period of the programme can be likened to
a shift in the locus of
control, from the facilitator to the action learning group
members and from them as coaches
to their coachees. A key lesson that emerged over the period of
the programme was
summarized by one group member who said: ‘Of all the actions
agreed with my coachees,
the only actions they committed to and followed through on
were those they arrived at
themselves. All the actions I suggested earlier in the programme
were not followed through
on. This is powerful learning for me.’
c a s e s t u d y 2 (Martin Woods facilitator)
The background for this case study is an action learning group
of five
individuals who worked for a large local government authority.
The
participants were aiming to become internal coaches across a

partnership
of local authorities – this was part of the process for
introducing a coaching culture within
the authority. The trainee coaches had attended as a large group
of 24 trainees but the
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
1.
K
og
an
P
ag
e.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t

Account: s3642728
action learning based supervision was in the smaller groups.
One of the trainee’s (Rose –
name changed) main role within the authority was as a trainer
and subsequently training
manager. She was very enthusiastic about this role, which she
enjoyed, but she saw the
benefits of undertaking the coaching training and supervision to
extend her skill set and
effectiveness.
At the first session, the facilitator explained the process for
action learning (see above)
and the importance of bringing real coaching examples and
issues to subsequent meetings.
To facilitate this, the other four members agreed to use each
other as coachees. In addition
they agreed to seek out other coachees so that they could obtain
sufficient practice in
between meetings. The group took personal responsibility for
arranging their own practice
sessions and reviews and used the ALS sessions as a way of
formally reviewing their
progress and presenting questions on how to best learn and
progress.
At the second ALS session Rose presented her issue, which was
about how she could
become more ‘inquiring’ since she recognized her tendency to
‘fix’. She explained that, having

been a trainer for many years as well as having a personality
that tended towards being a real
action-based problem solver, she couldn’t stop herself from
suggesting ways to resolve her
coachee’s issues. She recognized that the coaching process was
different – requiring her to
help the coachee identify his or her own way forward. She was
finding this hard to do.
Rose then summarized her ‘issue’ as ‘turning problem solving
into enquiry’. The group then
began to ask her questions about her last coaching session. This
enabled her to identify
specific examples of when she had slipped into problem-solving
rather than enquiring. The
process required the facilitator to act as ‘referee’ by ‘blowing
the whistle’ when the group
moved towards closed questions or trying to give advice. Once
Rose had a clear picture of
what she did and how she did it she was asked what she felt
would be the best way forward.
She decided to ‘try doing it differently’ by practising in front of
the group. This meant choosing
one of the members to play the role of her coachee. During the
role play the facilitator called
some ‘time-outs’ which allowed a review of progress at various
points.
Rose was surprised by how often she unconsciously stepped into
‘fixing’ things.
Interestingly, during the time-outs, the group also demonstrated
the same tendency – ie
suggesting how she could have phrased her question rather than
asking her how she might
have phrased it differently. This was an extremely useful
example of the ‘parallel process’

whereby Rose’s own tendencies were being played out by the
group. She was also able to
give feedback to the group about how, when they showed
genuine curiosity (enquiring
rather than giving advice), she found herself relaxing and being
able to be more reflective,
thoughtful and experimental. She stated how she felt more in
control, more respected and
more willing to trust her own thinking and conclusions. In other
words, the coaching
process was being enacted.
Naturally, Rose was not immediately able to make all the
necessary changes but over a
period of two or three ALS sessions it became clear that her
practice was improving
dramatically. This became really clear to the group when, at a
later meeting, Rose facilitated
the learning of another group member. In a ‘fish bowl’ coaching
process she managed to
pursue an issue with a group member right through to a quality
outcome (without
intervention or time-outs). The ‘coachee’ had not expected to
make such progress and this
was the point at which both Rose and the group realized the
progress she had made.
Subsequently Rose has presented a very competent portfolio of
coaching evidence to the
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2

01
1.
K
og
an
P
ag
e.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m

wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r

U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
coaching assessment team, resulting in her obtaining her
recognized coaching qualification
with flying colours.
The successes in this action learning group can be summarized
as follows:

●● Trust: the development of openness and trust between
members was very evident –
from some hesitant beginnings to some very open declarations
of fears, uncertainties
and vulnerabilities that the group respected and supported. The
group became able to
discuss almost anything without fear of judgement.
●● Responsibility: there can be a propensity for the group
facilitator to take an expert/
parental role. The process allows a rapid shift from being
facilitator-led to self-
managing – and this group took early responsibility for
managing their own time and
learning. After the second ALS they began running sessions
without the facilitator
(which were necessarily restricted due to costs).
●● Diversity of process: the process is flexible enough to
appeal to all learning styles –
visual (the group members see each other in action in co-
coaching scenarios played
out in the ALS sessions), auditory (group members hear
examples of good and bad
practice) and kinaesthetic (group members have the opportunity
to try out new ways of
working and responding to what ‘effective’ feels like).
●● Diversity of inputs: the process encourages non-experts to
contribute. It is very
powerful to see how even the most naive question can produce
great learning.
●● Learning through action: the focus is on learning not
judgement. This gives trainee

coaches an opportunity to experiment live. It also gives them a
rare opportunity to see
others in action. This not only gives a rich source of ideas about
questioning and styles
through observation, but it also provides real practice in a safe
environment.
why is ALS useful: what are the benefits of
this approach?
As we mentioned at the start of this chapter, one of the key
benefits of an
ALS set approach is its low cost. Using external coaches or
supervisors
can be expensive. By teaching people ALS skills and role
modelling these
with the group, the process skills are built in preparation for
‘going
alone’, which makes for a very efficient model. Thus, although
efficiency
and cost were the initial drivers for this approach, the benefits
appear to
be much wider. They include:
●● A process that allows multiple relationships and
perspectives to
become part of the learning process.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01

1.
K
og
an
P
ag
e.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi

th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.

S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
●● The development of relationships that extend the informal
network of communication, which has impact beyond the work
on the coaching development – an antidote to the isolation that
is
sometimes felt by those primarily engaged in coaching in
organizations.

●● A tone and approach that is empowering since all group
members
contribute and new trainees learn that they have valuable
perspectives that are helpful to others even when they are not
‘experts’.
●● Moving from a culture of ‘training’ to one of ‘learning by
doing’
with the opportunity to take risks in a safe environment and
hence
allowing people to experiment and ‘stretch’ with different
approaches and behaviours.
●● Moving responsibility for learning from the ‘teacher’ to the
‘learner’ and the avoidance of ‘social loafing’ since all
members
are actively involved.
●● A forum where people can feel listened to and where
feelings and
emotions can be expressed and explored.
●● A self-sustaining process – group members can continue to
meet
and support even when funding dries up.
●● Creating a community of practice that allows the ideas and
principles to be more widely shared and promoted within the
organization than tends to happen with individually focused
interventions.
Our experience of ALS is that it can work very well – and that
it has
advantages over individual supervision. We recognize that some
people
who have experienced individual supervision may doubt that

they would
learn as much in a group situation; this is usually because they
have
concerns about developing the high level of trust that is
necessary for a
group to operate with the degrees of openness and challenge
that
characterizes the best ALS groups. Perhaps this means that ALS
is not
the right approach for some groups. However, our experience is
that the
people who want to become coaches have a strong orientation
towards
openness, learning and support.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
1.
K
og
an
P
ag
e.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s

re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e

pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig

ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
Conclusion
Traditional approaches to supervision can be highly effective –
but not
in all situations at all times. We know that the purpose of
supervision
should be to develop competence, capability and learning in an
environment that opens people up for this opportunity rather
than
closes it down. The word ‘supervision’ can have connotations of
one-way
traffic, of the ‘right-wrong’ world of the expert. Given some of
the
limitations and criticisms it is useful to have alternative
approaches. In
the same way as there is a need for both individual therapy and
group
therapy, there is value in individual supervision and group
supervision.
For those interested in group supervision, the approach adopted

here,
stimulated by the action learning approach, has merit as a tool
since it
fits closely with the coaching ethos.
References
Kadushin, A (1992) What’s wrong, what’s right with social
work supervision, The
Clinical Supervisor, 10 (1) 3–19
Myler, S (2007) Supervision for Therapists – A Critique,
http://ezinearticles.
com/?Supervision-for-Therapists–-A-Critique&id=561830,
accessed 5 July
2010
Revans, R W (1982) The Origin and Growth of Action Learning,
Chartwell-Bratt,
Brickley, UK
Salter, T (2008) International Journal of Evidence Based
Coaching and Mentoring,
Special, 2, November
(www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/
coaching&mentoring)
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
1.

K
og
an
P
ag
e.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th

ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.

o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
44
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©

2
01
1.
K
og
an
P
ag
e.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or

m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm
it
te
d
un
de

r
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
1 Action learning: its origins and
principles
Chapter overview
This chapter introduces the idea of action learning including the

values
and principles proposed by Revans. After discussing the origins
of the idea
in Revans’ professional and personal life, his ambitions for
action learning
are laid out in the three systems of Alpha, Beta and Gamma: the
decision
or strategy system; the infl uencing or negotiation cycle and the
learning
process as experienced uniquely by each action learner. These
three
systems are illustrated with the help of a case example from a
manufacturing company.
What is action learning for? According to Revans, it is for
tackling the
‘wicked problems’ of organizations and society rather than the
puzzles
which are the focus of much conventional education and
training. And it
cannot succeed in this purpose unless any such efforts are
conducted in the
light of certain critical values, which are discussed under the
heading
‘What is action learning really about?’
The chapter closes by introducing ‘My practice notes’, which
feature in
every chapter. These are an invitation to refl ect on what has
been read by
writing some notes on how this relates to your current practice.
This chapter contains:
• Introduction
• What is action learning?

• The origins of action learning
• The ambition of action learning
• What is action learning for?
• What action learning is NOT
• So, what is it really about?
• What has action learning become now?
Chapter overview
This chapter introduces the idea of action learning including the
values
and principles proposed by Revans. After discussing the origins
of the idea
in Revans’ professional and personal life, his ambitions for
action learning
are laid out in the three systems of Alpha, Beta and Gamma: the
decision
or strategy system; the infl uencing or negotiation cycle and the
learning
process as experienced uniquely by each action learner. These
three
systems are illustrated with the help of a case example from a
manufacturing company.
What is action learning for? According to Revans, it is for
tackling the
‘wicked problems’ of organizations and society rather than the
puzzles
which are the focus of much conventional education and
training. And it
cannot succeed in this purpose unless any such efforts are
conducted in the
light of certain critical values, which are discussed under the
heading
‘What is action learning really about?’

The chapter closes by introducing ‘My practice notes’,g which
feature in
every chapter. These are an invitation to refl ect on what has
been read by
writing some notes on how this relates to your current practice.
This chapter contains:
• Introduction
• What is action learning?
• The origins of action learning
• The ambition of action learning
• What is action learning for?
• What action learning is NOT
• So, what is it really about?
• What has action learning become now?
24924.indb 724924.indb 7 06/12/2012 14:5406/12/2012
14:54
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
M
cG
ra
w-
Hi
ll

E
du
ca
ti
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho

ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U.
S.

o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
AN: 524880 ; Pedler, Mike, Abbott, Christine.; Facilitating
Action Learning : A Practitioner's Guide
Account: s3642728
8 Facilitating action learning: a practitioner’s guide
• What does all this mean for the action learning adviser or
facilitator?
• My practice notes 1
Introduction
Action learning originates with Reginald Revans (1907–2003) –
Olympic
athlete, nuclear physicist, educational reformer and professor of

management (Figure 1.1).
Drawing on ancient sources of wisdom and more recent
philosophers
such as John Dewey, Revans sought the improvement of human
systems by those who must live and work in them. Action
learning
suggests that we can address the most diffi cult challenges and
problems
through our own experiences and learning. Revans’ idea is at
one and the
same time a pragmatic methodology for dealing with diffi cult
challenges
and a moral philosophy based on an optimistic view of human
potential.
• What does all this mean for the action learning adviser or
facilitator?
• My practice notes 1
Figure 1.1 Professor R.W. Revans
24924.indb 824924.indb 8 06/12/2012 14:5406/12/2012
14:54
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
M

cG
ra
w-
Hi
ll
E
du
ca
ti
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y

fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u

nd
er
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
Action learning: its origins and principles 9
What is action learning?
‘There is no learning without action and no (sober and
deliberate)

action without learning’
R.W. Revans 1907–2003
Revans never gave a single defi nition of action learning, and
always
maintained that there is no one form to what he described as
ancient
wisdom. The action learning idea is essentially simple, but its
imple-
mentation and realization in the organizational and social world
is
anything but. Because it is concerned with achieving useful
change
and with the often profound learning that comes from being
engaged in
this process, it can never be communicated as a simple formula
or
technique.
However, many people are tempted to try to do just this. One of
the
main reasons for writing this book can be found in our
amazement as
what is currently described and sold as action learning. We are
part of the
movement to bring the action learning idea into practice in the
world and
our aspiration is to ensure that it is not sold short.
Acknowledging
that there is no one right or fi nal way to describe action
learning, here is
our shot at describing action learning as it is currently applied
in
many settings today: ‘Action learning is an approach to
individual and

organizational learning. Working in small groups known as
“sets”, people
tackle important organizational or social challenges and learn
from their
attempts to improve things.’
This sounds straightforward enough, and it is: action learning
brings
people together to exchange, support and challenge each other
in action
and learning:
• First, each person joins and takes part voluntarily. (You can’t
be
sent or send anyone else – although you might work at
persuading
and encouraging them.)
• Secondly, each person must own an organizational task,
problem,
challenge or opportunity on which they are committed to act.
• Thirdly, because we are very much more likely to succeed
with the
help of friends, action learning sets or small groups are formed
to
help each other think through the issues, create options and
above all . . .
• Fourthly, take action and learn from the experience of taking
that
action.
These four elements are depicted in Figure 1.2.
24924.indb 924924.indb 9 06/12/2012 14:5406/12/2012

14:54
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
M
cG
ra
w-
Hi
ll
E
du
ca
ti
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay

n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex

ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.

Account: s3642728
The action learning set
The set is a very distinctive aspect of action learning. This
small group
meets regularly over time to help each other to act and to learn,
and
works on the basis of voluntary commitment, peer relationship
and
self- management. Revans described the set as: ‘the cutting
edge of every
action learning programme’ (2011: 10).
Figure 1.3 gives a depiction of a set at work. What do you see
in the
picture in Figure 1.3?
Figure 1.2 Four elements in action learning
Figure 1.3 The action learning set
24924.indb 1024924.indb 10 06/12/2012 14:5406/12/2012
14:54
Co
py
ri
gh

t
©
2
01
3.
M
cG
ra
w-
Hi
ll
E
du
ca
ti
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr

od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us

es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728

• These fi ve people seem to be engaged in an experiment of
some
sort . . .
• It seems that they are trying to test some idea they have
conceived
but don’t really know how to go about it . . .
• What is being attempted looks risky, there is the prospect of
some danger, at least to the person tied to the top of the
‘wheel’ . . .
• Of the four people not at immediate risk, two seem to be
pushing
for the action, one seems to be in a restraining position, whilst
the last seems to be observing and taking notes.
This is one picture of what an action learning set looks like in
action. It
helps its members to choose and tackle new challenges and to
learn from
the experiences arising from taking that action.
Revans trained as a physicist and brought the application of
scientifi c
method to the resolution of human problems. His crucial
insight, which
marks him off from most of his contemporaries and many
thinkers today,
is that the really diffi cult problems and challenges (those
without right
answers) are never resolved by experts (who deal in right
answers) and can

only be resolved by the people who actually have these
problems and face
these challenges. Resolving our own diffi culties and improving
our own
systems is a diffi cult and daunting prospect and one we might
often seek
to avoid. But action learning suggests that with a little help
from a few
trusted friends, by working collaboratively we can begin work
on inventing
our own paths to the future.
The action learning set is to help each other to:
• make a voluntary commitment to work together on the
‘intract-
able’ problems or challenges of managing and organizing;
• choose problems or opportunities that personally engage the
members of the set, so that they become those in which ‘I am
part
of the problem and the problem is part of me’;
• check individual perceptions of the problem, help to clarify
them
and render them more manageable, and also to create and
explore
options and alternatives for action;
• take action in the light of new insights gained from
questioning
and discussion in the set;
• support and challenge each other to act and learn effectively;
• refl ect on and learn from the experiences of taking action by

bringing back accounts of the action and its effects. Learning is
fi rst about the problem or opportunity being tackled; secondly
it
is about personal awareness – learning about oneself; and
thirdly
it is about the processes of learning itself or ‘learning to learn’.
(It
24924.indb 1124924.indb 11 06/12/2012 14:5406/12/2012
14:54
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
M
cG
ra
w-
Hi
ll
E
du
ca
ti
on
.
Al
l
ri

gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om

t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c

op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
is the second and third of these types of learning that are
essential
for the transfer of learning to other situations.)
• acquire the skills of action and learning and become aware of
group processes and what makes for effective teamwork.
That’s about as much as you need to know about action learning
in order
to get on with it.
Revans was always very suspicious of people giving out too
much
theory or too many explanations; it was all so obvious to him –
he wanted
people to get on with it. Like eating ice cream or riding a
bicycle, action
learning has to be experienced. So, have a go and try it out, see

how it
works for you.
Finally, here’s another defi nition of action learning from a
doctor who
was refl ecting on her experience of working in a set (Box 1.1).
The origins of action learning
Action learning emerged as an important idea in the late 1960s.
At this
time and with the help of colleagues, Revans initiated two major
projects:
in a consortium of London hospitals (Wieland and Leigh 1971;
Clark
1972; Wieland 1981); and in the UK’s General Electric
Company (Casey
and Pearce 1977). Action learning was – and still is – an
unusual innova-
tion in organization development and management education
because it
is based on managers doing their own research and tackling
their own
problems. In championing the learners and doers it is opposed
to expert
consultancy and traditional business school practice.
In 1965, Revans resigned his professorship at the University of
Manchester following his failure to infl uence negotiations over
the new
Business School, which he suggested should be based on action
learning
principles. Instead it was decided to build the Manchester
Business School
around the MBA, which was imported from the standard
practice in US

Business Schools. Revans left in protest at what he saw as the
victory of
the ‘book’ culture of the old University (Owens College) over
the ‘tool’
culture of the College of Technology (later UMIST), which he
saw as being
closer to the needs of managers (1980: 197).
The action learning idea came to fruition over a long period of
gesta-
tion and it was only in the 1970s, after leaving university life,
that Revans
fi rst began using the term action learning. In a series of key
books and
papers beginning with Developing Effective Managers (1971),
over the next
ten years he laid out the theoretical and practical guidelines of
what we
now know as action learning. Revans’ action learning is not just
a new
24924.indb 1224924.indb 12 06/12/2012 14:5406/12/2012
14:54
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
M
cG

ra
w-
Hi
ll
E
du
ca
ti
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo

rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd

er
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
Box 1.1 Recipe for successful action learning
Ingredients
• 6–8 people
• some tasks or problems
• commitment

• trust
• concern
• time
• experience
• support
• challenge
• risk
• facilitation
• humour
Method
Take a liberal slice of time, and mix thoroughly with the
lifetime
experience of several committed people. Sprinkle a generous
helping of
concern for others, and add enough trust to mould the mix until
it jells
fi rmly together. An added catalytic facilitator may help it to
bind.
Season with a little risk. Add support and challenge whenever
necessary. Leave to simmer indefi nitely, stirring regularly as
you feed in
a variety of problems. An occasional dash of humour will
prevent the
mix from sticking.
Results
So what do you get? Opportunities!
• the opportunity to focus on particular areas of your
professional life
and to discuss at a level which, for a variety of reasons, you
cannot

do at work;
• the opportunity of new perspectives on such areas based upon
the
experience of others;
• the opportunity to develop and practise new skills in a
relatively safe
environment;
• the opportunity for reassurance that others have also ‘been
there
before’.
. . . and friendship.
Source: Adapted from the original by Sheila Webb,
Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Airedale
24924.indb 1324924.indb 13 06/12/2012 14:5406/12/2012
14:54
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
M
cG
ra
w-

Hi
ll
E
du
ca
ti
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w

it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er

U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
theory of management and organizational learning, but a
philosophy for
living and working based on strong ethical values. The
importance of
moral and ethical considerations is always apparent throughout
Revans’
writings, and his action learning is as much an ethos as it is a

method.
Recent research (Boshyk et al. 2010; Boshyk 2011) suggests
that Revans’
early life experiences and personal development as a young man
shaped
the later development of his ideas in important ways. For
example, there is
an infl uence of Quaker values, perhaps from his family and
certainly later
from attendances at Quaker meetings in Cambridge in the 1930s
when he
was moving away from physics because of his doubts about
being involved
in research that could be used for aggressive purposes.
The similarities between Quaker belief and practices and action
learning are quite striking. As Boshyk notes (2011: 89):
‘Quakerism puts
an emphasis on action or “practice”, which takes precedence
over belief,
which “has meaning only in so far as it is enacted in practice” .’
Boshyk
et al. (2010: 54–9) comment on the similarity between the
workings of the
traditional Quaker ‘clearness committee’ and the action learning
set: any
person seeking clearness on a deep personal problem or decision
can call
together fi ve or six diverse but trusted people to help them fi
nd their
inner voice. The clearness committee meets for about three
hours, on one
or more occasions, and starts with a ‘centering silence’.
Members do not
speak to the focus person except to ask honest, caring questions

to serve
that person’s need rather than their own curiosity. The clearness
committee, dating back perhaps to the 1660s, was devised to
draw upon
communal wisdom to address the taxing problems of life, whilst
acknowl-
edging that these inevitably fall to individual responsibility and
so must
protect that person’s integrity and essential self- direction from
the risk of
invasion by the judgements and beliefs of others.
Action learning, like the person calling clearness committee,
starts in
‘not knowing’, or as Revans often said, unless we understand
and acknowl-
edge our own ignorance in the face of diffi cult problems, then
we are not
able to seek questions and learning. And there are other
parallels between
action learning and Quaker beliefs and practices: Quaker values
include
pacifi sm, equality, standing up to injustice and ‘speaking truth
to
authority’; Quaker practice focuses on the importance of doubts
and of
the posing of questions and holds that quietness and refl ection
are essen-
tials. Finally the strong belief in community resonates with
Revans
‘Comrades in adversity’.
24924.indb 1424924.indb 14 06/12/2012 14:5406/12/2012
14:54
Co

e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f

ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.

Account: s3642728
The ambition of action learning
However, action learning was designed for an industrial society
and for an
age marked by the increasing predominance of large scale
organizations.
Behind the simple rules of action learning described in the fi rst
part of this
chapter, Revans’ thinking is based on what he called a
‘praxeology’ or
‘general theory of human action’ made up of three interacting
systems:
alpha, beta and gamma (Box 1.2).
Box 1.2 Revans’ General Theory of Human Action – alpha, beta
and gamma
alpha – the strategy system encompassing the external
environment, the
available internal resources and the managerial value system;
beta – the decision system or negotiation cycle required to
implement the
decision or strategy – of survey, trial, action, audit and
consolidation;
gamma – the learning process as experienced uniquely by each
action
learner, involving self- questioning and awareness of self and
others.

Source: Revans (1971: 33–67)
Alpha, beta and gamma are not easily separable in practice and
are
perhaps better seen as interacting parts of a whole. Taken
together these
three systems illustrate the scope and ambition of Revans’
action learning:
• System alpha is the source of the organizational problems to
be tackled.
It sums up what Revans learned from his operational research
phase in the 1940s and 1950s when he applied his scientifi c
training to studies of mines, factories, schools and hospitals.
The
analysis of the external environment is necessary to reveal what
opportunities and challenges may exist, whilst the inventory of
internal resources is needed to see what may be deployed to
exploit them.
In adding the managerial value system to this orthodoxy of
mainstream strategic thinking, Revans makes it clear that deci-
sions are not just rational acts, but are contested and involve
moral choices. System alpha is not just an intellectual analysis,
but one which pays attention to history, cultures, power, politics
and risk- taking in considering what different groups think
ought
to happen, and what they need to do about this.
Box 1.2 Revans’ General Theory of Human Action – alpha, beta
and gamma
alpha – the strategy system encompassing the external
environment, the
available internal resources and the managerial value system;

beta – the decision system or negotiation cycle required to
implement thee
decision or strategy – of survey, trial, action, audit and
consolidation;
gamma – the learning process as experienced uniquely by each
actions
learner, involving self- questioning and awareness of self and
others.
Source: Revans (1971: 33–67)
24924.indb 1524924.indb 15 06/12/2012 14:5406/12/2012
14:54
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
M
cG
ra
w-
Hi
ll
E
du
ca
ti

on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi

ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl

ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
• System beta describes how the organizational problems should
be
tackled via successive cycles of planning, action, refl ection and
learning. This, at the same time, is the cycle of scientifi c
endeavour,
the project cycle and also a ‘cycle of institutional learning’
(1971:
129). Addressing the problem involves an initial defi nition but
also a negotiation of this meaning with important sponsors,
clients, other actors and groups who are implicated
or affected. The problem evolves as a result of learning from
successive trials as options and opportunities for action emerge
and effected.

• System gamma is concerned with the personal learning of the
individual
in their interactions with systems alpha and beta. All learning is
voluntary, and how we learn from taking action on problems
embraces both the person and the problem situation. It includes
‘the effect of the change or action upon the manager, in one
direc-
tion, and its complementary effect upon the situation, in the
other’
(1971: 54–5). System gamma recognizes that it is the individual
who must make sense of the interaction of the three systems as
the
basis for their actions. Revans wrote of system gamma that it
was:
‘the essence . . . [it] represents in its own way the structure of
all
intelligent behaviour, and offers, in conjunction with systems
alpha and beta, one starting point for a general theory of human
action, for a science of praxeology’ (1971: 58).
This general theory and its three systems set out the vision of
action
learning as a blend or admixture of individual action and
learning, succes-
sive trials and cycles of experiment and wider systems change.
Revans’
thinking prefi gures the interest in the learning organization and
organiza-
tional learning which emerged some 20 years later.
This brief sketch of Revans’ ambitions for action learning also
serves
to frame the challenge for the action learning adviser or
facilitator: to
achieve these aims calls for far more than the facilitation of

small groups.
Facilitating sets is but a small part of the picture, as the
example from
John Tann Security shows (Box 1.3).
24924.indb 1624924.indb 16 06/12/2012 14:5406/12/2012
14:54
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
M
cG
ra
w-
Hi
ll
E
du
ca
ti
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r

es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p

ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig

ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
Box 1.3 John Tann Security
Colin, John, Les and Pete were senior line managers at John
Tann
Security Ltd., a heavy fabrication company making safes, vaults
and
security equipment. They formed themselves into a management
action
group with the help of an external adviser.
The company was faced with a number of problems including
small batches, high product variety and changing fashions in the
market
for security equipment. The directors wanted to increase output
and
effi ciency and also develop the management potential of their
key
people. Unusually perhaps, they also felt that ‘often good ideas
in a
company do not originate at Board level’. They wanted to
establish an

environment in which ‘ideas would fl ow upwards through the
company
structure’.
The four managers met weekly with the external adviser over
six
months and worked well as a team. At the last meeting they
reviewed
their success together with their sponsoring director. Unusually
however,
they did a second review four years later (all of them were still
working
in the company) and evaluated the benefi ts under four
headings:
1 Productivity – over the four years productivity improvement
was
+11%, +19%, +17% and +13% (the original target = 15%).
Whilst
not stemming entirely from the action learning, this was seen as
the
major factor.
2 Individual management development – the four managers
believe
that the action learning experience ‘was the most signifi cant
factor’
in establishing better decision making, more delegation, less
defen-
sive attitudes and improved ability to take criticism, improved
self-
confi dence and leadership, proper application of disciplinary
procedures and the ability to confi de in their director in the
belief
that ‘he wanted them to manage and would allow them to do
so’.

3 Team building – they now operate as a much more effective
team.
4 Continuing use of action learning – the four formed a set for
their
deputies and shared the role of adviser in order to pass on what
they had learned. This set was not so successful; it met for
several
meetings but then petered out. The four managers put this down
to the presence of one of themselves as part of the company
hierarchy and the absence of an external adviser.
Source: Adapted from Brown (1991)
24924.indb 1724924.indb 17 06/12/2012 14:5406/12/2012
14:54
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
M
cG
ra
w-
Hi
ll
E
du

ca
ti
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p

er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U.
S.
o
r

ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
What is action learning for?
The John Tann example illustrates several of the purposes of
action
learning. Action learning is for tackling the really difficult
challenges
and problems facing us as managers and citizens, but it is also a
profound source of personal development. The ‘principle of
insuffi-
cient mandate’ holds that unless we can change ourselves we
cannot

change anything that goes on around us (Revans 2011: 75–6), or
to
put it another way round, when we set out to change things in
the
world and we do this from a starting position of openness to
learning
then we also find ourselves changed in the process. The four
John
Tann managers are developing themselves as persons as well as
mana-
gerially by tackling the productivity and other challenges of
their
organization.
Colin, John, Les and Pete set up their group because they sensed
that
they needed to learn in order to resolve the problems facing the
company.
Revans’ change equation holds that:
L ≥ C
which means that people, organizations or societies only fl
ourish when
their learning (L) is at least equal to, or better still, greater
than, the rate of
environmental change (C). He further suggests that adults learn
by
combining what we already know with fresh questions about
what we do
not know. His learning equation holds that:
L = P + Q
so that learning is a combination of P (programmed knowledge),
or what we

already know; and Q (questioning insight), which is inspired by
fresh
questions about the challenges where we do not know and do
not have
solutions. The element of Q is the key to the distinction Revans
makes
between:
PUZZLES and PROBLEMS
Puzzles have ‘best’ solutions and can be solved by applying P
with the
help of experts. Revans uses the word ‘problems’ to describe
situations
where there are no right answers and which are best approached
through
questioning which provokes new lines of thinking, action and
learning.
Action learning is not designed for puzzles, which are ‘diffi
culties from
which escapes are thought to be known’, but for situations
where ‘no
single course of action is to be justifi ed . . . so that different
managers, all
reasonable, experienced and sober, might set out by treating
them in
markedly different ways’ (Revans 2011: 6).
24924.indb 1824924.indb 18 06/12/2012 14:5406/12/2012
14:54
Co
py
ri
gh
t

uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es

p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U.
S.
o
r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728

Another name for this sort of challenge is ‘wicked’. Grint’s
(2008:
11–18) leadership model (Figure 1.4) has three sorts of
problems and the
progression from ‘critical’ to ‘tame’ to ‘wicked’ shows up in
increases in
uncertainty about solutions and the much greater need for
collaboration.
Critical problems such as heart attacks, train crashes or natural
disasters
demand swift action, leaving little time for procedure or
uncertainty.
Although tame problems such as planning heart surgery or
building a new
hospital can be very complicated, they are ‘tame’ because they
are
amenable to the tools of rational planning. Wicked problems
defy rational
analysis and require leadership and learning. Wicked issues are
messy,
circular and aggressive. Eliminating drug abuse, homelessness
or crime in
a neighbourhood; motivating people; developing
entrepreneurship or
working across boundaries in organizations are all tricky in this
way.
Simple strategies and straightforward actions often lead to
unintended
consequences due to the complex interdependencies of issues
and stake-
holders on site.
Action learning is the process intended for such wicked issues:
proceeding by questions, by not rushing to solutions, by

learning from
making deliberate experiments and deliberated risks.
What action learning is NOT
Revans is famous for saying what action learning is not (2011:
62–74)
rather than what it is. It is NOT ‘Project Work, Case Studies,
Business
Games and other Simulations. Group Dynamics and other Task-
free
Figure 1.4 Three types of problem
Source: Grint (2008)
24924.indb 1924924.indb 19 06/12/2012 14:5406/12/2012
14:54
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
M
cG
ra
w-
Hi
ll
E

du
ca
ti
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut

p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U.
S.
o

r
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.
Account: s3642728
Exercises, Business consultancy and other Expert Missions,
Operational
Research, Industrial Engineering, Work Study and Related
Subjects’ nor
even ‘Simple Commonsense’. Revans concludes his review of
what action
learning is not, by saying that:
action learning is less structured than these other approaches . .
.

It makes little use of teachers, specialist and other professional
sclerotics, and tries to encourage the managers themselves,
those
who have to take the decisions about their own tasks, to
discover
how best to help each other.
(2011: 74)
On the other hand, it also follows from his account that there
may be
many efforts at organizational improvement that can achieve
action
learning. Call them ‘quality circles’, ‘productivity improvement
teams’,
‘action inquiry groups’ or whatever you wish. It matters little
what a
group is called (the naming should fi t the circumstances); the
acid test is
whether the people concerned are helping each other to take
action on
their problems and challenges, and whether they are learning
from this
work.
Indeed, one of the strengths of action learning is that, being
never
defi ned once and for all, it must be re- interpreted or re-
invented to fi t the
present conditions. This means it is never in danger, as fi xed
techniques
often are, of being popular today and forgotten tomorrow. The
basic ideas
are simple, but we always need to craft the practice and fashion
our own
ways of applying them. This inventing element is what

CASE 1I took the recommended Leadership Training and Developm.docx

CASE 1I took the recommended Leadership Training and Developm.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CASE 1I took the recommended Leadership Training and Developm.docx

Similar to CASE 1I took the recommended Leadership Training and Developm.docx (6)

More from wendolynhalbert

More from wendolynhalbert (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CASE 1I took the recommended Leadership Training and Developm.docx