Experiential learning as management development
By Henrik Holt Larsen, Copenhagen Business School
Studies show that 60% of Danes don’t know by 4:00 pm
what they are going to have for dinner that evening.
(Irma, press release, Feb. 19, 2003).
How can one then expect them to know
what their career will be like
10 or 20 years from now?
Abstract
An important part of management development is experiential learning processes in the workplace.
These – not necessarily planned, expected, wanted or pleasant – methods have traditionally been
deemphasized in the management development literature and (conscious) practice. The informal,
intangible and spontaneous nature of experiential learning has made these methods more difficult to
research – and more difficult to monitor for organizations. The paper provides a theoretical
background for experiential learning in the workplace and uses a particular national arena to
illustrate the field, i.e., Danish line managers and HRD managers. Results from the Leonardo
project are presented, showing that (in particular line) managers seemingly underestimate the
impact of experiential management development. Implications for future research and management
development practice are presented.
Introduction
The locus or subject for management development has been a cornerstone in the management
development literature. Frequently, management development has been perceived as overlapping
with or identical to manager development, hence defining management as behavior, traits, style or
techniques of individuals, i.e., managers. In particular, this is a predominant feature of US
management literature. In contrast, other paradigmatic approaches focus on the interaction between
managers and non-managers or even include managerial processes in groups and communities not
having appointed managers in the first place in the management concept. Participative management,
autonomous work groups, leader-follower interplay and self-management are all examples of
concepts typical for this approach. (An anecdotal illustration of this is Ghandi who is claimed to
have said: “There goes my people. I am their leader, so I better follow them.”). Other examples are
studies of the impact of national culture on managerial behavior, e.g., the Hofstede comparative
study of differences in power distance. The less power distance, the less significant the distinction
between managerial and non-managerial employees – or managerial behavior and followership - is.
To illustrate this two-fold but also blurred conceptualization, let us quote the definition of Storey &
Tate who use the term management development “to embrace both manager training and
development and higher-order management development activity” (p. 198). But what is “higherorder management development”? This is exactly the problem of the field that there is no
commonly explicated and accepted definition of management development. The broadness – and,
consequently, intangibleness – of the concept is apparent in the reference mentioned, as Storey &
Tate go on stating that “it can be seen that the range of development activity presents a series of
options between formal and informal, off-the-job or on/in/through-the-job, employer managed or
self-managed, for the present job or future positions, individually contextualized or organizationally
contextualized.” The advantage of welcoming in this way a “series of options” is including more
features under the management development umbrella. The disadvantage is an up-front
contamination of the concept and more trouble when trying to distinguish the concept of
management development from career dynamics, organization development (OD), change
management or knowledge management.
In this paper, we will focus primarily on informal, on-the-job activities, where the locus for learning
is the individual (albeit the catalyst for individual management development will in most cases be
the organization). Obviously, this discussion of (a particular approach to) management development
will make surface an underlying interpretation of the concept of management. The more
management is seen as characteristics by or behavior of individuals, the more management
development becomes the study of managerial processes rather than features by individuals.
Specifically, in this paper we:
-
challenge the traditional concept of management development as being the development of
managerial competencies of individuals
-
suggest an alternative interpretation of management as being processes of influence between
interacting individuals, some of whom may be – but do not necessarily have to be – holders
on managerial positions
-
define management development as any process in an organization which increases the
capability (competence) of the organization to deal with managerial processes
-
present data from a Danish study of management development across industry and size.
Hence, the objective of this paper is not to provide a comprehensive analysis of the management
concept – and from there go to management development. In reverse, the paper offers a discussion
of one particular form of management development, i.e., experiential learning of managerial
features, and from that shed some light on the distinction between management development and
manager development (and by doing so indirectly illustrate the difference between managerial
processes and behavior of individuals who have been assigned to managerial positions).
Experiential learning
Experiential or self-directed learning has a long history, with milestones being the work of Maslow
and Rogers (humanistic school), Lewin (experiential learning), Kolb (learning cycle, cf. below),
Piaget, Vygotsky etc. (cf. Stansfield (1996)). Significant roles were also played by Argyris
(organizational learning), Revans (action learning), Dewey (inquiry and thoughtful action) and Lave
and Wenger (communities of practice). These scholars have all provided fairly comprehensive
theoretical models of experiential learning. In addition, many scholars support experiential learning
for more pragmatic reasons, typically because the “learning environment” (which in this case is
identical to the work environment) was already at hand:
On-the-job training is often more economical than formal instruction, for it takes
advantage of the physical proximity of workers, the use of free time and idle
equipment during a production break, the filling in by subordinates during a
temporary absence of superiors, and the virtual absence of excess training since
training is tailored to the learning capabilities and needs of each trainee. (Rosenbaum,
1984:21).
Despite very different theoretical, ideological and practical backgrounds, these scholars all have in
common an emphasis on the learning potential of naturally occurring tasks or experiences (in work
life, or outside). In addition, they incorporate in the analysis to a varying extent the learning
potential of formal training activities. This latter category represents situations where “real life” is
simulated by means of paper and pencil instruments, unstructured group dynamics, instrumented
group dynamics, video feedback, and computer augmented feedback, etc. (Mac Namara & Weekes,
1982). The more “authentic” the learning situation is, the more it should occur without deliberate,
external staging.
The distinction between experiential learning situations and more formal training activities has to
do with the nature of the learning site. It is the difference between an actual learning environment,
which is “the field”, or the actual organizational environment, compared with an artificial learning
situation created by the means of class settings, video equipment, or computers, etc. However, this
distinction, when it comes down to actual learning situations, becomes very blurry. An illustration
of this would be fast-track programs, which can be regarded with reasonable justification as
experiential learning situations, despite the comprehensive criticism that such programs often do not
expose participants to “real life challenges”. The assigned jobs, courses etc. are often artificially
created and not necessarily (an integrated) part of mainstream organizational life.
Another example relates to some of the major theories on experiential learning. It might be
questioned whether action learning theory (being a classic model of experiential learning) should
have been classified de facto as “experiential learning”, as Revans’ model in particular rested on
deliberately (and “artificially”) created group learning situations, which partially took place “away”
from the organization. Young and Dixon (1995) do actually make a distinction between action
learning “which posits real-world action as a valuable source of knowledge about self, and
conversely, views organizational change as a manifestation of individual growth and development”,
and learning from experience “which explicates the relationship between challenging/stressful
experiences and learning” (ibid.:2). Action learning is often built into formal training programs, but
“real-world action” is stressed (McGill and Beaty, 1995), whereas experiential learning in principle
is latently present in any task performed by an individual. Common between the two theoretical
approaches, however, is the utilization of the learning potential of (certain types of) human action,
that is, performing challenging and difficult tasks. In the following, we will use the term
“experiential learning” as a common denominator for any type of learning process based on human
action involved in performing tasks (typically, but not exclusively) in a work organization, rather
than by being enrolled in formal training programs.
It is not significant for the analysis of the learning process as such to determine just where the
precise dividing line is between formal training and experiential learning as a common denominator
for action involving the generation of experiences through performing tasks. However, there are
two important reasons for being very conscious about the relative contributions and weaknesses of
the two theoretical camps. First, management development represents a continuous, overlapping
flow of learning situations which are difficult to separate, and some of which are of an experiential
nature, while others are formal training. Second, awareness of the interface between the two
“schools” helps us to analyze a crucial issue in learning, which is the role of reflection. As this is an
important aspect of - or in fact, a prerequisite for - learning, we will devote the next subsection to
this topic.
On the whole, there has been a lack of conceptual rigor in the study of and emphasis on the
reflection aspect of the experiential learning process. Not only that, but it has also been fairly
overlooked that there ever was a problem in the first place. However, reflection is incorporated into
many experiential learning theories. A well-known example is Kolb’s learning cycle (1984), which
conceptualizes reflexive observation as a phase in the learning cycle. However, the role of
reflection has not been well understood (or even emphasized to any significant extent) in existing
theories, and the notorious problems related to reflection in this particular type of learning situation
has only been given marginal attention. Very appropriately, Seibert (1996:247-248) asks the
important question: “It is axiomatic that we learn from experience … or is it?”, and goes on
answering the question in the following way:
Contrary to popular belief, we do not learn directly from experience. Experience
merely provides raw data. This data is rich with potential for learning, but it is not the
learning. It is only after we attribute meaning to an experience - that is, when we
interpret the raw data of the experience - that learning can result. Thus we learn from
the meaning we give to experience, not from experience itself, and we give meaning
to experience by reflecting on it (Kolb, 1984; Mezirow, 1991).
In short, reflection is an important part of the learning process, but does not unavoidably occur in
relation to experiential learning. The reflection that does occur varies in nature and volume with the
character of the learning situation and the consciousness of the learner. If no reflection takes place
(during or after), the activities cannot be characterized as learning situations, but should be regarded
as mere task performance or work related activities. The fact that reflection does take place will not
guarantee correct learning. Reflection is a personal interpretation process, and unconscious motives
and attitudes may lead to rationalization, projection and other psychological mechanisms by which
a person can distort and misinterpret actual circumstances (context, content and outcome)
surrounding the learning process. This argument is central to social construction theory, where
sensemaking and construction of meaning are seen as inherent aspects of learning (Weick, 1995).
Reflection can be conscious or unconscious, it can occur as an integral, simultaneous part of
experience, or it can occur at some other time. It can be deliberate and voluntary, or it can be
imposed upon the person involved. It can be individual, or it can be a spin-off of a collective
learning process. It can also vary in intensity, content, and consequences. And reflection is a
significant component of sensemaking and meaning creation.
Management development in practice: A Danish example
In this section, results from the Danish part of the European Leonardo research project on
management development will be presented. The Danish study comprises telephone interviews with
a line manager and the person responsible for Human Resource Management in each of 101
companies.
The managers being interviewed were asked which management development methods the
companies applied. Table 1 shows the percentage of HR managers and line managers that agree to
the specific method being used for management development.
It appears from the table that traditional methods are used extensively. Internal training and
participation in external courses and conferences are preferred to job rotation, e-learning, and
mentoring.
Table 1: The use of the various methods of management development
External courses and conferences
Internal training programs
Formal training after start in the company
Job rotation
Mentoring
Training via the Internet
Temporary outplacement of employees
HR Managers Line Managers
60
44
56
49
45
31
33
22
22
24
9
2
2
5
It is not surprising that HR managers speak of a larger scope of training activities than do line
managers. HR managers are often responsible for initiating and coordinating management
development in the company. It is their professional and organizational domain that is being
influenced, and they react accordingly. In contrast, line managers primarily reflect on their own
management development, while HR managers include the whole company – though primarily
from the HR perspective. Also, HR managers could be expected to have a more positive impression
of the management development methods being used, as they are assessing their own work. Studies
in other countries – e.g. Norway – show that line managers’ and HR managers’ ‘perceptions of
reality’ often differ profoundly. The two groups seem to adhere to two quite different ‘(un)realities’.
As it appears from the table, mentoring is given high priority to line managers. A potential
explanation for this is that a number of line managers are seeking informal mentors, which is not
always known by the HR manager.
According to 60% of the HR managers, the company uses external course, conferences, and
seminars as methods for management training. Furthermore, 56% of HR managers state that next to
external courses, internal training programs are most frequently used. Line mangers consent to this
prioritization, but not to the extent to which the latter is used. 49% of the line managers find that
external courses are used to a high extent whereas 44% find that external courses, conferences, and
seminars are highly used. It appears that line mangers find internal training to be employed more
extensively than external courses.
Line managers and HR managers agree to training via the Internet and outplacement of employees
being the least used methods.
The extent to which job rotation and internal training programs is used depends on the size of the
company. It takes time and resources to prepare and implement internal training programs.
Therefore it is no surprise that large companies of more than 500 employees use internal training
programs more extensively than smaller companies, cf. table 2. Thus 60% of the companies with
more than 500 employees use extensively internal training programs while the same only applies to
15% of companies with 20-99 employees. The percentage for companies with 100-249 employees
is 16, and 32% of companies with 250-499 employees are also using internal training programs
fairly extensively.
The number of employees also has an impact on to what extent job rotation is used, but here we find
greater differences. None of the companies with 20-99 employees uses job rotation extensively,
whereas 32% of companies with more than 500 employees do so. It is interesting that 12% of the
companies with 100-249 employees use job rotation while only 4% of companies with 250-400 do
so.
Table 2: The use of management methods by size of company
Company size
Internal training programs
External courses
Internal job rotation
Temporary outplacement
Mentoring
E-learning
Formal training
20-99
15
32
9
4
11
100-249
16
21
12
7
7
250-499
32
7
4
7
500+
68
22
32
4
9
18
It can be almost impossible to use systematic job rotation in smaller companies operating with a few
employees performing the same functions, such as sales or economy. On the other hand, the
characteristic of small companies is that they do not operate with the same division of labor and
specialization, as do large companies. In effect jobs in smaller companies are typically broader than
similar jobs in large companies, meaning that the former have ‘build-in job rotation’. Our findings
show that it takes more than 10 employees before formalized job rotation becomes widespread in
the company. A number of companies have become increasingly focused on flexibility, including
employees and managers being able to perform several functions and to move fast between different
units. This is an argument for staking heavily on job rotation in the company.
It is suggestive that industry plays no role in choice of methods. Across industries the preferred
method for fulfilling learning needs is thus to let employees attend courses.
The almost automatic juxtaposition of (need for) learning and participation in courses is seen in
other sectors as well. A representative study among municipal employees and managers reveals that
courses are by no means the preferred way of learning (Larsen, 2002a; 2002b).
Opting for courses as a method for management development probably reflects conventional
thinking among both HR managers and line managers. More recent methods, such as mentoring and
e-learning, are only considered to a modest extent as an alternative or supplement to courses. Much
seems to indicate, however, that management development is a field in constant transition, and that
it is important to many companies to follow-up on the most recent trends. In addition, the larger
demand from managers for development may lead to new methods being considered or tested.
Certain of the interesting open-ended responses in the study show that employing new managers or
employees in the HR department may result in management development being given higher
priority. And job rotation across companies may result in positive training dynamics. New
generations of managers seem on and off ready to seek new challenges. Professional and collegial
networks may help facilitate that change of job proves advantageous to both employees and
companies.
The need for testing new methods for management development is great. The methods that have
proved effective must be consolidated in the companies and in this context both HR managers and
line managers play an active role. For the education sector the challenge consists in make future
employees familiar with concepts such as mentoring, coaching, and job rotation as tools for
management development.
In short, the Danish study shows that:
 the interviewed managers prefer traditional methods for management development
 more recent methods, e.g. mentoring and e-learning, are not incorporated to any appreciable
extent
 the proportion of training equals company size
 there is no correlation between choice of method and industry
 the great challenge of incorporating mentoring and e-learning, and the responsibility for
benefiting from this, rests with both companies and the educational sector.
Perspectives
In this paper we have analyzed how the organization provides a framework for learning processes.
The analysis has shown that:
-
organizations constitute a fertile ground for experiential learning (as well a number of
extramural activities (e.g., networking and relationships) also contribute to the learning of
individuals)
-
job assignments and job moves where people succeed when presented with challenge and
uncertainty have a large learning potential
-
experimentation and risk-taking in particular can provide learning opportunities
-
learning is elicited by the interplay of action and reflection
-
reflection can be very difficult to achieve, but helps people to make sense out of their
actions, and
-
people who have been “spared” failure and trauma may face what Argyris (1991:101) calls
“the learning dilemma”, which is “they are enthusiastic about continuous improvement - and
often the biggest obstacle to its success.”
What is actually very stimulating for experiential learning may in the eyes of a “rational”
bureaucratic organization be very provocative, and could be interpreted either as unprofessional
behavior, a waste of resources, (unjustified) impulsive reaction, play or irresponsible risk-taking.
This evokes processes of rationalization, where “variation and trial-and-error learning processes are
often masked by retroactive accounts of stable and purposeful behavior”, (Robinson & Miner,
1996:90-91). Such organizational defense mechanisms can filter organizational learning processes.
To the extent the organization feels uneasy about unconventional behavior or learning, this may
seriously restrict the range of situations to which organizational members are exposed. The hidden
agenda, which contains a tacit suppression of uncontrollable and unpredictable situations, may
eventually “pull the teeth out” of the learning potential of an organization, because it shortcuts some
of the most powerful learning processes, much along the lines of what March (1988) calls “the
technology of foolishness”. Examples of this are less “dangerous” job assignments, exposure to
“organizational citizens” (as superiors, mentors, etc.) rather than “wild characters”, frequent
reporting to upper level key people, and more traditional teaching methods being used in career
development courses and seminars, etc.
Regardless of whether learning is intentional or unintentional, planned or incidental, wanted or
unwanted, initiated within or outside the organization, it is there and cannot in most cases be traced
back to its many sources of origin. The fact that organizations increasingly break down boundaries
to the outside world, join networks or strategic alliances, and exchange information and resources,
represents in a sense an after-the-fact acceptance of “cross-boundary learning theory”, which
propounds that learning in its acquisition and application does not respect organizational,
geographical or life sphere barriers. This makes it easier to create “an open market” for
management development.
Despite many studies on management development and learning, we agree with London and Noe
(1997:74) that “research regarding the influence of job demands on learning and development is
needed. Job demands influence development directly through the opportunities they provide and
indirectly through the sense of challenge they create.” They also state (Ibid.:74) that “career
motivation may […] influence the relationship between job demands and learning”, as people who
are strong in career resilience may benefit in terms of learning from difficult tasks and obstacles,
whereas people weak in career resilience may suffer from difficulties and obstacles.
In short, there is an important research agenda and need for studies crossing the paradigmatic
boundary from (exclusively) looking at individuals and formalized structures to a more informal
and process oriented view on management development.
References:
Argyris, C. 1991. Teaching Smart People How to Learn. Harvard Business Review, 69 (3), 99-109.
Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Larsen, H.H., Svabo, C., Andersen, T., Hjalager, A-M, Leth, C. and Scheuer, S.:
Læring på jobbet – et overblik.
København: KL and KTO, 2002a
Henrik Holt Larsen, Svabo, C., Andersen, T., Hjalager, A-M, Leth, C., Scheuer, S. and S. Thomsen
Læring på jobbet – metoder og erfaringer. København: KL and KTO, 2002b
London, M., & Noe, R.A. 1997. London’s Career Motivation Theory: An Update on Measurement and Research.
Journal of Career Assessment, vol. 5, 1, 61-80.
MacNamara, M., & Weekes, W.H. 1982. The Action Learning Model of Experiential Learning for Developing Managers.
March, J.G. 1988. Decisions and Organizations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
McGill, I., & Beaty, L. 1995. Action Learning. 2. Ed. London: Kogan Page.
Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Robinson, D.F., & Miner, A.S. 1996. Careers Change as Organizations Learn. In Arthur, M., & Rousseau, D.M. (Eds.),
Boundaryless Careers, 76-94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosenbaum, J.E. 1989. Organization Career Systems and Employee Misperceptions. In Arthur, M.B., Hall, D.T., &
Lawrence, B.S. (Eds.), Handbook of Career Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press, 329-353.
Seibert, K.W. 1996. Experience Is the Best Teacher, If You Can Learn from It: Real-Time Reflection and Development. In
Hall, D.T. and Associates, The Career is Dead - Long Live the Career, 246-264. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stansfield, L.M. 1996. Is Self-development the Key to the Future? Participant Views of Self-directed and Experiential
Learning Methods. Management Learning, 27, 4, 429-445.
Storey, J. & Tate, W. Management Development. In Bach, S. & Sisson, K. (Eds.). Personnel Management, 3 rd Ed.
Oxford: Blackwell, 2000
Young, D.P., & Dixon, N.M. 1995. Extending Leadership Development Beyond the Classroom: Looking at Process and
Outcomes. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Weick, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.