J. Workplace Learning, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2003

A Review of Action Learning Literature 1994-2000

Part 1 – Bibliography and Comments

Peter A.C. Smith and Judy O’Neil

Introduction

As individuals, and in clusters and organizations, we are awash in assumptions. We presume validity at our peril in contexts that are increasingly complex and ambiguous. If we wish to learn to successfully address this multitude of issues it is critical that we continually explore and question our suppositions by surfacing our insights, and evolving fresh questions leading from our ignorance. The ability to think things through and de-brief experiences at non-trivial personal and contextual levels is increasingly recognized as essential to effective learning and performance. Action learning is a well-proven individual, collective and organizational development philosophy that provides a sound setting for such reflective inquiry.

Professor Reg Revans originated action learning in its traditional generic form in the 1940’s as a means to improve UK coal production (Revans, R.W., Plans for Recruitment, Education and Training for the Coalmining Industry, Mining Association of Great Britain, London, 1945), and he later proposed the relationship L = P + Q to help better define action learning (Revans, R. W., The Origin and Growth of Action Learning, Chartwell Bratt, London, 1982). In this relationship, L represents learning attained through engagement in action; P represents learning gained from accepted authorities; and Q represents learning initiated as people question their own direct experience. Revans believed that far too much emphasis was placed on P and far too little on Q; the process of action learning is intended to redress this imbalance.

A very wide variety of organizations now utilize action learning, and it gains ever widening application throughout the world. Action learning appears in numerous variants, much like the automobile is available in all manner of makes and styles whilst still being recognizable as an automobile. Generically action learning is a form of learning through experience, “by doing”, where the task environment is the classroom, and the task the vehicle. Action learning programs are typically based on the following tenets:

¨ Participants tackle real problems (no “‘right” answer) in real time

¨ Participants meet in small stable learning groups (called “Sets”)

¨ Each Set holds intermittent meetings over a fixed program cycle

¨ Problems are relevant to a participant’s own workplace realities

¨ A supportive collaborative learning process is followed in a Set

¨ Process is based on reflection, questioning, conjecture and refutation

¨ Participants take action between Set meetings to resolve their problem

Action learning has a flexible “elicitive” framework designed to draw out, capture and build on what is, rather than operate in a pure, detached, analytical and rational world of what should be. It is well known that experience itself is a very slippery teacher; most of the time we have experiences from which we never learn. Action learning seeks to throw a net around slippery experiences, and capture them as learning, i.e. as replicable behavior in similar contexts and as a source of questions in differing contexts. By forcing reflection and promoting insightful inquiry with perceptive partners in situations where solutions are not always obvious, and by leaving responsibility for implementation of the solution in the participant’s hands, the individual makes sense of an experience by conceptualizing it and generalizing the replicable points; and plans for future actions based on the learning gathered. In this way the action learning set provides a “safe practice field” where the participants’ mental models and future actions are shaped and reshaped in continual developmental cycles.

As interest in action learning continues to grow among practitioners, theorists and researchers, in both the academic and organizational fields, a significant number of articles are published addressing its various facets. This review proposes to provide some organization and understanding of these articles to facilitate access and appreciation.

Two previous reviews of the action learning literature by Alan Mumford (Management Bibliographies & Reviews, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1985; Management Bibliographies & Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 6/7, 1994) respectively covered the field prior to 1985 and the period 1985-94. Both reviews included books as well as journal articles. This current review covers the period 1994 –2000 and is limited to publicly available journal articles. In preparing this review, we have attempted to be as inclusive as possible, gathering articles from and through a number of sources. We have included articles that deal specifically with action learning (highlighted as a keyword or used in the text) as well as some related articles focusing on action technologies. Articles included are listed in the Bibliography section. The Bibliography is intended to be comprehensive; any relevant articles not included were an oversight and not intended as a critique of their usefulness

We have chosen to follow Mumford in categorizing articles; however we have revised Mumford’s categories as shown in Table 1. These categories were initially determined by an overall examination of the articles and were refined to their final format based on more extensive reading. Figure 1 charts the number of articles cited per category/subcategory, bearing in mind that one article may be categorized in a number of ways—for example, an article may be a case study of an executive development programme so would be categorized as C1, an Action Learning Practice case study, and D2, an Action Learning Focus on executive development. We believe that the resulting pattern is instructive, as it provides the reader with an overall view of the literature showing areas of emphasis, and forms the basis for the discussion in the next section.

Part 2 of this literature review will provide signposts into the 1994-2000 action learning articles via short summaries of articles that we feel represent the salient features of each category. Our hope is that this approach will serve the dual purpose of indicating sources of information (P) and further avenues for research (Q).

General Discussion

In the category of Collections, three special issues journals were devoted to action learning articles. Two (Bibliography, # 31-38; 59-65) were general in nature and the third (Bibliography, # 79-83) dealt with educational themes. Articles of particular interest have been examined in Part 2 of this review. One report (Bibliography, # 2) was first displayed on-line by the American Society for Training & Development and has since been published in paper form. This report was also of a general nature but grounded in research, and has been considered in Part 2.

About 11% of all articles categorized under Action Learning Fundamentals still deal with basic definitions and descriptions of action learning. One wonders what there is left to say. Based on his later comments (Revans, R. W., The Origin and Growth of Action Learning, Chartwell Bratt, London, 1982), we suspect that Reg Revans, the originator of action learning would echo this sentiment. Fortunately there is a healthy balance of articles focusing on “pushing the envelope” through process variants, and others dealing with various action technologies. There are also a substantial number of articles dealing with learning, adaptation and reflection.

Since there are only three articles dealing with the once very thorny issue of how much programmed knowledge (P) action learning sets should accept, and no articles addressing puzzles versus problems, these topics seem to have been settled to the satisfaction of most practitioners. There were only a few articles dealing with facilitation and coaching, which is surprising given the number of programs that use coaches that are described in articles in the Action Learning Practice category. Although only a trickle at this point, articles dealing with technology-assisted action learning seem destined to grow, given the current interest in e-learning. No articles were found covering all the subcategories in a single article.

By far the most active publication category is Acton Learning Practice. Case reviews and research related pieces top the category, with preparation, design and implementation well covered. It is particularly gratifying to see that evaluation is covered in a very significant number of articles. In this category it is possible to find quite a few articles that cover all five subcategories.

The category covering Action Learning Focus is by its nature populated by topics that are not typically inter-related, although there are clearly some overlaps. Perhaps the biggest surprise is the number of articles that address education and androgogy. Mumford in 1994 referred to a growing interest in academia in action learning (Management Bibliographies & Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 6/7, 1994; pp. 4) and this has clearly continued. The original perceived “disconnect” between traditional academic teaching and action learning (Revans, R. W., The Origin and Growth of Action Learning, Chartwell Bratt, London, 1982) appears to be much less of an issue. Indeed, many now see a real compatibility between the two.

Since action learning was originally recommended as a management development tool, it is no surprise that it’s application in management and executive development still produces a substantial number of publications. The reluctance of organizations to devote special attention to high achievers is likely the reason why there are so few articles dealing with this subject. However, in a world where leadership is in very short supply, the small number of articles dealing explicitly with its development is a mystery.

The OD category contains articles dealing with change, planning and culture, so it is to be expected that this category would be well populated. Because of its relevance to organizational learning, action learning has been reasonably well featured in articles on the learning organization, but it has been seemingly of only marginal interest to knowledge management practitioners. The use of action learning to develop competencies is featured in a few articles. Its application to team and unionized contexts is slight, which is also puzzling since many of the fundamentals of action learning—i.e., development of skills to work in groups and teams, and the fact that all participants engaging in the process act as equals—would work well in both contexts. There is also only little interest shown in its applications in open space and research conferences and in the quality arena. A disappointment is the number of articles in the Communities of Practice category; since in our experience as consultants this is a growing and important area.

Table 1

Schema for Categorizing Action Learning Articles

Bibliography

Note: Articles listed by date in descending order

1. Strategic planning as action learning, Peter Smith, Abby Day, Organisations & People, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2000

2. Action learning: real work, real learning, Judy O'Neil, Peter Smith, ASTD What Works On Line, 1Q2000 http://www.astd.org/virtual_community/research/What_Works/

3. Action learning and leadership, Michael J. Marquardt, The Learning Organization; 07: 5 2000; pp. 233-241

4. Credit mapping: validating work based training using action learning outcomes, Julian Wills, Journal of Workplace Learning; 12: 3 2000; pp. 89-93

5. Modelling the virtual university, Richard Teare, Journal of Workplace Learning; 12: 3 2000; pp. 111-123

6. Strategic directions in the management of the corporate university paradigm, Richard Dealtry, Journal of Workplace Learning; 12: 4 2000; pp. 171-175

7. Strategizing at work: practitioner perspectives on doctoral set working, Jennifer Bowerman, Journal of Workplace Learning; 12: 3 2000; pp. 124-130

8. The knowledge harvest: ensuring you reap what you sow, Anne Christie, Eric Sandelands, Journal of Workplace Learning; 12: 3 2000; pp. 83-89

9. Creating a significant and sustainable executive education experience A case study, Jeanne M. Liedtka, Carol Weber, Jack Weber, Journal of Managerial Psychology; 14: 5 1999; pp. 404-420

10. Design and evaluation of an action learning program - a bilateral view, Jennifer Bowerman, JohnPeters, Journal of Workplace Learning; 11: 4 1999; pp. 131-139

11. Learning action learning, L.C. Koo, Journal of Workplace Learning; 11: 3 1999; pp. 89-94

12. Developing management competencies for fast-changing organisations, Andrew May, Career Development International; 04: 6 1999; pp. 336-339

13. Action learning: a "highbrow smash and grab" activity? Valerie Wilson, Career Development International; 04: 1 1999; pp. 5-10

14. Learning from action: imbedding more learning into the performance fast enough to make a difference, Lloyd Baird, Philip Holland, Sandra Deacon, Organizational Dynamics; 27: 4 1999; pp. 19-32

15. The many faces of action learning, Victoria Marsick, Judy O'Neil, Management Learning; 30: 2 1999; pp. 159-176

16. The design of the action project in work-based learning, Joseph Raelin, Human Resource Planning; 22:3, 1999; pp. 12-28

17. The action dimension in management: different approaches to research, teaching, and development, Joseph Raelin, Management Learning; 30: 2 1999; pp. 115-125

18. Action learning, Salaman G., The Post Office Management Network Review, April 1999; pp. 40

19. Cyber tutoring and learning: how to facilitate action learning on line, Sandelands, E., GAJAL Published Papers Vol. 3, No. 2, 1999

20. A "ROSE +6" architecture for customized, single-company management development seminars, Mark E. Haskins, Jeanne Liedtka, John Rosenblum, Jack Weber, Journal of Management Development; 17: 7 1998; pp. 503-515

21. Work-based learning in practice, Joseph A. Raelin, Journal of Workplace Learning; 10: 6/7 1998; pp. 280-283

22. Action learning and the leadership development challenge, John Peters, Peter A.C. Smith, Journal of Workplace Learning; 10: 6/7 1998; pp. 284-291

23. The essential principles of action learning, Craig Johnson, Journal of Workplace Learning; 10: 6/7 1998; pp. 296-300

24. Action learning: business applications in North America, David Parkes, Journal of Workplace Learning; 10: 3 1998; pp. 165-168

25. Learn to ask the right questions, John Peters, Peter Smith, Journal of Workplace Learning; 10: 3 1998; pp. 169-172

26. Developing a curriculum for organizational learning, Richard E. Teare, Journal of Workplace Learning; 10: 2 1998; pp. 95-121

27. Implementing virtual support for workplace learning, Richard E. Teare, Journal of Workplace Learning; 10: 2 1998; pp. 122-137

28. Building and sustaining a learning organization, Richard Teare, Richard Dealtry, The Learning Organization; 05: 1 1998; pp. 47-60

29. The second generation learning organizations: new tools for sustaining competitive advantage, Robert M. Fulmer, Philip Gibbs, J. Bernard Keys, Organizational Dynamics; 27: 2 1998; pp. 7-20

30. Action Learning: Praxiology Of Variants, Peter Smith, Industrial & Commercial Training, Vol. 30, No. 7, 1998

31. Action learning in a nutshell, Robert L. Dilworth, Performance Improvement Quarterly; 11:1 1998; pp. 28-43

32. Action learning; more than just a task force, Nancy Dixon, Performance Improvement Quarterly; 11: 1 1998; pp. 45-58

33. Transfer of learning from an action reflection learning program, Lyle Yorks, Judy O'Neil, Victoria J Marsick, Sharon Lamm, Robert Kolodny, and Glenn Nilson, Performance Improvement Quarterly; 11:1 1998; pp. 59-73

34. Accelerated decision making via action learning at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Ellen D. Lanahan, Linda Maldonado, Performance Improvement Quarterly; 11:1 1998

35. Fitting action learning to corporate programs, Laura l Bierema, Performance Improvement Quarterly; 11:1 1998

36. Building global capacity with global task teams, Nancy M. Dixon, Performance Improvement Quarterly; 11: 1 1998

37. Using action learning with multicultural groups, Michael Marquardt, Performance Improvement Quarterly; 11: 1 1998; pp.113-128

38. Use of action learning as a vehicle for capacity building in China, Lichia Yiu, Raymond Saner, Performance Improvement Quarterly; 11: 1 1998; pp. 129-148

39. Action learning in the UK, Krystyna Weinstein, Performance Improvement Quarterly; 11: 1 1998

40. Engendering corporate scholarship for top level management performance, Dealtry, R., Journal Of Knowledge Management, March 1998

41. The corporate leadership crisis: break out this way, Peter Smith, John Peters, The Learning Organization; 4:2 1997; pp. 61-69

42. A networking model of change for middle managers, Hank Schaafsma, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal; 18: 1 1997; pp. 41-49

43. Australia's Karpin report: new priorities for management development? Hank Schaafsma, Journal of Management Development; 16: 1 1997; pp. 53-69

44. Action learning team - building bridges within a local council, Lyn Carson, Journal of Workplace Learning; 09: 5 1997; pp. 148-152

45. Action learning: an afterthought, Krystyna Weinstein, Journal of Workplace Learning; 09: 3 1997; pp. 92-93

46. Designing a quality action learning process for managers, Molly Ainslie, Gordon Wills, Journal of Workplace Learning; 09: 3 1997; pp. 100-110

47. A manufacturing organization action learning programme that has paid bottom-line profits, Richard L. Bunning, Career Development International; 02: 6 1997; pp. 267-273

48. Paradoxes of management development - trends and tensions, Colin Talbot, Career Development International; 02: 3 1997; pp. 119-146

49. Action learning and action science: are they different? Joseph A. Raelin, Organizational Dynamics; 26:1 1997; pp. 21-34

50. Teams and technology: tensions in participatory design, Don Mankin, Susan G. Cohen, Tora K. Bikson, Organizational Dynamics; 26: 1 1997; pp. 63-76

51. Q'ing action learning: more on minding our Ps and Qs, Peter Smith, Management Decision, Vol. 35, No. 5, 1997

52. Action learning - worth a closer look, Peter Smith, John Peters, Ivey Business Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 1, Autumn 1997

53. Performance learning, Peter Smith, Management Decision, Vol. 35, No. 10, 1997

54. A model of work-based learning, Joseph Raelin, Organization Science; 8: 6 1997; pp. 563-578

55. Individual and situational precursors of successful action learning, Joseph Raelin, Journal of Management Education; 21: 3 1997; pp. 368-394

56. Yorkshire Water Services' management development programme, Steve Antcliff Paul Kraus, Ken Allison, Management Development Review; 09: 6 1996; pp. 10-18

57. Measuring the ROI from management action learning, Gordon Wills, Carol Oliver, Management Development Review; 09: 1 1996; pp. 17-21

58. The learning organization: some reflections on organizational renewal, William D. Hitt, Journal of Workplace Learning; 08: 7 1996; pp. 16-25

59. A study of the role of learning advisers in action learning, Judy O'Neil, Journal of Workplace Learning; 08: 6 1996; pp. 39-44

60. Action learning revisited, Peter Cusins, Journal of Workplace Learning; 08: 6 1996; pp. 19-26

61. Action learning: bridging academic and workplace domains, Robert L. Dilworth, Journal of Workplace Learning; 08: 6 1996; pp. 45-53

62. Action learning: route or barrier to the learning organization? Rosemary Harrison, Journal of Workplace Learning; 08: 6 1996; pp. 27-38

63. Effective learners in action learning sets, Alan Mumford, Journal of Workplace Learning; 08: 6 1996; pp. 3-10

64. Experiencing action learning, Tom Bourner, Paul Frost, Journal of Workplace Learning; 08: 6 1996; pp. 11-18

65. Just another talking shop? Some of the pitfalls in action learning, Tom Bourner, Krystyna Weinstein, Journal of Workplace Learning; 08: 6 1996; pp. 54-65

66. Developing high- potential staff - an action learning approach, John Peters, Peter Smith, Journal of Workplace Learning; 08: 3 1996; pp. 6-11

67. Rogue learning on the company reservation, Tom Reeves, The Learning Organization; 03: 2 1996; pp. 20-29

68. A learning organization's syllabus, John Peters, The Learning Organization; 03: 1 1996; pp. 4-10

69. Yorkshire Water Services' employee development programme, Steve Antcliff, Paul Kraus, Ken Allison, Career Development International; 01: 6 1996; pp. 25-32

70. A journey into open space and an exploration of management development, Margaret Neal, Career Development International; 01: 4 1996; pp. 11-13

71. Information overload: permission to not know? Krystyna Weinstein, Career Development International; 4 1996; pp. 29-32

72. The evolutionary organization: avoiding a Titanic fate, Peter Smith, Hubert Saint-Onge, The Learning Organization, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1996

73. Business simulations are not just for finance, Peter Smith, Seth Levinson, Organizations & People, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1996

74. Boundary management in action reflection learning research: Taking the role of a sophisticated barbarian, L. Yorks, J. O'Neil, V.J. Marsick, G.E. Nilson, R. Kolodny, Human Resource Development Quarterly; 7: 4 1996; pp. 313-329

75. Whither management education: professional education, action learning, and beyond, Joseph Raelin, Management Learning; 25: 2 1994: pp. 301-317; reprinted in part as: Reformulating management education: professional education, action learning, and beyond, Selections; 12: 1 1995; pp. 20-30; and The future of management education: reconsidering professional education and action learning, Metropolitan Universities; 7: 3 1996; pp. 57-72

76. The global citizenship MBA orientation program: action learning at the University of Michigan Business School, G. Mercer, Journal of Business Ethics; 15: 1 1996; pp. 111-120

77. A refreshing angle on staff education; action learning at Britvic soft drinks, M. Meehan, J. Jarvis, People Management; 2: 14 1996; pp. 38

78. What can be learned using action learning, Bourner, T., Organizations & People, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1996; pp. 18

79. Learning to learn at the university, Frank, H.D., Education & Training, Vol. 38, No. 8, 1996; pp. 4-6

80. The use of action learning in British higher education, Frank, H.D., Education & Training, Vol. 38, No. 8, 1996; pp. 7

81. Action learning in management education, O’Hara, S., Webber T. and Reeve, S., Education & Training, Vol. 38, No. 8, 1996; pp. 16

82. In their own words: the experience of action learning in higher education, Bourner, T., Frosz, P., Education & Training, Vol. 38, No. 8, 1996; pp. 22

83. Action learning comes of age: questioning action learning, Bourner, T., Beaty, L., Lawson, J. and O’Hara, S., Education & Training, Vol. 38, No. 8, 1996; pp. 32

84. OMD put to the test, Phil Donnison, Management Development Review; 08: 5 1995; pp. 35-37

85. The learning organization: some reflections on organizational renewal, William D. Hitt, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal; 16: 8 1995; pp. 17-25

86. Using consulting projects in management education: The joys and jitters of serving two masters, David Lamond, Journal of Management Development; 14: 8 1995; pp. 60-72

87. Changing managers' defensive reasoning about work/family conflicts, Karen E. Watkins, Journal of Management Development; 14: 2 1995; pp. 77-88

88. Proof of the pudding, Nancy G. McNulty, Geraldine Robson Canty, Journal of Management Development; 14: 1 1995; pp. 53-66

89. When the talking is over: using action learning, Robert Newton, Michael J. Wilkinson, Health Manpower Management; 21: 1 1995; pp. 34-39

90. Joint action learning: a collective collaborative paradigm for the management of change in unionized organizations, John McAdam, Journal of Managerial Psychology; 10: 6 1995; pp. 31-40

91. Embracing electronic publishing, Gordon Wills, The Learning Organization; 02: 4 1995; pp. 14-26

92. Developing a learning organization through management education by action learning, Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt, The Learning Organization; 02: 2 1995; pp. 36-46

93. Executive education and strategic imperatives: a formula for crafting competitiveness, Albert A. Vicere, American Journal of Management Development; 01: 2 1995; pp. 31-36

94. Managers developing others through action learning, Alan Mumford, Industrial & Commercial Training; 2 1995; pp. 19-27

95. Learning in action, Alan Mumford, Industrial & Commercial Training; 27: 8 1995; pp. 36-40

96. Career development for high fliers, Terry Bates, Management Development Review; 07: 6 1994

97. When the talking is over: using action learning, Robert Newton, Michael J. Wilkinson, Management Development Review; 07: 2 1994; pp. 9-15

98. A portfolio approach to management development: the Ashworth model, Robert Newton, Michael Wilkinson, Management Development Review; 07: 1 1994; pp. 24-31

99. Empowering ethical endings, Christine Hogan, Management Development Review; 07: 1 1994

100.Action learning: executive development of choice for the 1990s, Louise Keys, Journal of Management Development; 13: 8 1994; pp. 50-56

101.The live case method of creating the learning organization, Tom Urban, J. Bernard Keys, Journal of Management Development; 13: 8 1994; pp. 44-49

102.Accrediting work-based Learning: action learning - a model for empowerment, Michael Gregory, Journal of Management Development; 13: 4 1994; pp. 41-52

103.Custom-designed programmes: the strategic response and implementation issues faced by business schools, Tony Cockerill, Executive Development; 07: 5 1994; pp. 28-32

104.Leading courageous managers on, Lesley Gore, Kathryn Toledano, Gordon Wills, Empowerment in Organizations; 02: 3 1994; pp. 7-24

105.Project MORALE: the empowerment of managers in their everyday work, Robert J. Newton, Michael J. Wilkinson, Empowerment in Organizations; 02: 1 1994; pp. 25-30

106.Action learning and action research in management education and development: A case study, Faith Howell, The Learning Organization; 01: 2 1994; pp. 15-22

107.Transformational change: towards an action learning organization, David Limerick, Ron Passfield, Bert Cunnington, The Learning Organization; 01: 2 1994; pp. 29-40

108.Learning for total quality: an action learning approach, K.C. Chan, The Learning Organization; 01: 1 1994; pp. 17-22

109.Action learning groups as the foundation for cultural change, J.E. Enderby, D.R. Phelan, The Quality Magazine; 3: 1 1994; pp. 42-49