Title - Exploring the theory and practice of Action Learning Sets through 3 Case studies
Author - Lynne Booth
Organisation - Senior Lecturer, Sheffield Hallam University
Sheffield Hallam University
City Campus
Stoddart Building
Howard Street
Sheffield
S11WB
E.Mail l.m.booth@shu.ac.uk
Stream 8 - Scholarly Practitioner Research/Teaching and Learning
Submission type - working paper
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to learn from the integration of facilitator and participant
perspectives of action learning with reference to academic theory. The methodology
employed is an autoethnographical (Symon &Cassell 2012) account, that is writing
ethnographically on the self where "the self and the field become one" (Coffrey, 2002 cited in
Symon & Cassell 2012 p 315) using 3 case studies. Each is explored using critical incidents
(Farrell 2008), those instances that appeared more illuminating than others, to identify aspects
of learning that may improve research and practice. The findings are that the practice of
action learning (Revans 1982) through learning sets is improved by a better understanding of
academic theories of learning. A number of issues need to be considered in relation to
research limitations. Other researchers/case studies might illuminate different aspects of
learning from their practice, a more structured attempt to illicit views from participants may
identify other areas to explore and research into other academic areas may also have linkages
to this concept. This paper questions the context of the learning set, the nature of the
participants and the skill of the facilitator. Its value is in acknowledging the role that theory
and practice have in shaping each other.
Keywords: case study; action learning; emotional intelligence; reflective practice; facilitation:
organisation development.
Introduction
This paper stems originally from my experience as a student on the MSc Organisation
Development and Consultancy (ODC) course and the learning and development of self
through the Action Learning Sets (ALS's) as a key element of the course. ALS's are identified
as sessions in which the "managers would be encouraged to learn with and from each other
using the group review to find solutions to their immediate problems" (Revans 1982 p 64)
which stems from his work in the 1940's in relation to the Coal mining industry. This concept
is also explored by many other authors (Mumford 2006, Pedler 1996, Marquardt 2009). My
role as a facilitator of ALS's in 3 separate case studies explores the difference that context,
participants, and facilitator makes to the perceived value of these periods of reflection and the
differing tensions encountered. In each case study I will describe the context and design of the
sets and use critical incidents to discuss the issues that arose and the tensions between theory
and practice. Where appropriate I will include verbatim comments from participants. Findings
and conclusion identify further issues for research. All references to names, colours etc are
fictitious.
Case study 1
The Masters in Organisation Development and Consultancy (ODC) is one of 3 courses in
organisational change delivered by Sheffield Hallam University, the other 2 being courses in
Mentoring and Coaching and Charity Resource Management. These 3 courses operate with
mixed course ALS's delivered in 3 hour duration in each of 8 study blocks delivered over 18
months. I was a student in the ODC course and found the ALS to be supportive, challenging
and developmental. In particular it allowed me to discover through sensitive but challenging
questioning, experiences in my past that were holding me back. Once surfaced and dealt with
I was able to reframe situations that were causing me concerns in my present. On graduating
and taking up a part-time academic role, I began to facilitate one of the sets on the programme
hoping that I could enable that same growth and learning in others.
At this time the ALS was attached to a module and to 2 assessment instruments. The first of
which was a learning contract. Students had to complete the contract by answering 5 key
questions. The set guidance sets these out as follows:
Where have I been? (What is my background, previous experience? How have I
learned in the past?) Clarifies Learning Needs

Where am I now? (What skills and qualities do I possess? What kind of person am I?)
Clarifies Learning Needs

Where do I want to get to? (What kind of person do I want to be? What kind of
understanding/skills do I need to gain?) Defines goals

How do I get there? (What learning programme do I need? What process can I go
through in order to learn?) Indicates Plan of Action

How will I know if I have arrived? (How do I evaluate my learning? What measures
do I need in order to assess myself? What evidence do I need to provide to others?)
Gives Basis for Appraisal
This was shared amongst the other set participants at each of 4 blocks and a mix of supportive
and challenging questions were raised with the idea of prompting new insights and learning.
Revans (1998 p4) identifies this as L= P+Q, Learning equals programmed knowledge plus
questioning insights. Marquardt (2009) adds "R" for reflection. Although Revans and others
insist that attendance must be voluntary, and of course we could not force anyone to attend
any element of our course, there was an implicit compulsory attendance requirement. In order
to pass the learning contract all members of the set had to agree that you had shown learning
within these 5 questions through the work of the set. The second assessment was to choose an
area of interest identified through the learning contract and to work through that with the help
of the remaining 4 sets. This worked well with almost full attendance at all sets. It should also
be noted that the courses had strong numbers of 15-20 per course with almost all students
taking the full MSc programme. Issues arose when the context of the learning sets changed.
The environment for Masters level study within a recession created a reduction in student
numbers to between 10-12 per course and the course leaders were encouraged to allow
multiple entry points to the courses and students taking Certificate only attendance to attract
numbers. The courses were redesigned and the ALS's were maintained with 8-10 participants
(to allow for students dropping out before the end) but without an assessment element. This
shift was to allow further specialism by each course in terms of content and assessment as the
course leaders considered this may have greater market appeal and to save money in terms of
facilitators. My own feelings were that this was a backward step however I was not in a
position of authority in terms of the course design and management or having any knowledge
of action learning evaluation. Pedler & Trehan (2010) in their editorial note a number of ways
in which value can be assessed. One that resonates with my experience is from John
Burgoyne that "confidence and the ability to learn, but focused on the usefulness of action
learning in improving our capabilities in dealing with the wicked problems spread around
complex systems and networks" so that it is seen as having a broad value rather than a narrow
specific task focus. In addition, our assessment practice for all modules was to ask students to
be reflective in their assignments in equal measure to their inclusion of academic content and
the learning sets supported their developing capability in this area.
The difficulty now became one of a changed environment whereby the participants
considered attendance to be voluntary. Attendance and value identified is mixed in relation to
our new format. In some ways the battle to keep ALS's has become a personal one. In order to
achieve some sense of evaluation I asked the participants of one set for some feedback that I
could use to encourage other students to "give it a go" Here are their voices.
Some comments from previous students
"Sharing our learning agenda allowed us to develop a high degree of trust very quickly"
"This allowed me to work on real personal issues, sometimes work but sometimes home ones
too"
"These were very challenging and I put stuff out there to the group that I wouldn't normally
share"
"Because I was in a group I shared things, which is extraordinary for me. There is something
about this group that frees you up"
"Some incredible business issues were shared, discussed and learnt from"
"Developing thought processes in the set maximises value of other learning in the blocks and
in the assignments"
"I see it as an integral part of the content. Seeing an action learning set in action is incredibly
useful, the way others frame questions and think things through. Often in other arenas we just
bombard people with our solutions because we all jump in. The learning set method is very
positive"
"I was sceptical at first but gradually crept up in my 'value for money' and became one of my
top 3 aspects of the course. It helped my listening, questioning and my impact. Some of us
made some huge life changes"
"I shared things I wouldn't share with my partner. Needs a lot of steering at first and
important to share deep stories"
"It's important to commit to each other and commit to challenge and be challenged. The level
of trust means it’s a safe place to explore whatever vulnerabilities we have"
"You don't always have to bring an issue yourself to learn from others. However being in the
spotlight is quite powerful"
"Sometimes the learning set is like dropping a pebble in a pond. You only feel the ripples
later. Learning builds each time"
I feel this links strongly to Burgoyne's view previously mentioned. As can be seen these are
only positive comments from students on block 6 of the programme and part of my ALS.
These were students who had not only given it a go but "stuck with it". I cannot include the
views of students who have a more negative view as no-one continued to participate who did
not value the process. Maybe this supports the view that they need to be optional. One
reflection I can make is that the assignments of students who chose not to attend were less
reflective and less critical in terms of theory and practice.
A critical incident in terms of this
case study is a recent one again at block 6. Following the usual check in where I ask if anyone
has any issue they would like to work on, Pat a participant who had shared issues in previous
sessions, said firmly but quietly "I don't feel I want to share any issues with this group
anymore." I was taken aback by this and momentarily stunned into silence. I allowed her
comment to "have its moment" (Blanchard 1998) and when the silence ended I asked her what
led her to say this. She answered "Each time I share my thoughts and feelings and others in
the group say they haven't anything to share as they are 'issued out' by dealing with them in
their course study blocks. This makes me feel needy as they are only here to help me and not
be helped themselves. It creates a power relationship that makes me uncomfortable and I don't
want to feel that way anymore" Again I let her comment have its moment. I then asked her if
she could name the group she was referring to. With hindsight this was probably not the best
approach and maybe not needed however she responded and named the participants of one
course. I asked how they felt about this. Jo admitted that she had indeed used those words and
had not realised that this might have a power dynamic in the group, James said that as far as "I
am concerned I'm not going to make issues up for the sake of it" This latter response was
maybe prompted by a feeling of defensiveness that I had encouraged by asking Pat to "name"
them. We had a discussion about this and Jo said she had something we could work on and
the rest of the set progressed with both Jo and James contributing an issue and identifying key
learning from doing so. In this instance it both highlighted the value of ALS's but also raised
the issue of the role of the facilitator.
The role of the set advisor is to assist participants in their learning, in particular, in their
learning from one another. The activities of the set advisor will vary depending on the
unique nature of each set. Minimally, there are the following roles:



‘Model’: The set advisor indicates, through their actions, what it is legitimate to
address within the set as well as the ways in which set members can assist one
another’s learning. Through being sensitive when questioning people and by
framing questions that lead set members to fresh and useful perspective and
actions the set advisor is providing a ‘model’.
‘Filling In’: The set advisor will need to do the things that no one else is doing. For
instance, if no one confronts an issue that seems obvious to the set advisor, they
may be the one to take it up within the set if no one else is prepared to do so. The
set advisor helps to ensure that the set maintains a balance of challenge and
support of its members.
‘Mark the Learning’: During an individual time slot a set member may move through
many changes of perspective, many new awareness and realisations. It can be
useful for these to be explicitly ‘marked’ for set members so they consciously
recognise the shifts in thinking they have made, and think through how these might
manifest in action.

‘Review of Set Process’: This term means that the set advisor may act in order to
help the set with the process by which it does things. They may comment
on the dynamics of the set, help to resolve conflicts, assist the set to review
its effectiveness, or whatever might seem appropriate. This kind of activity is not
concerned directly with the tasks that people are carrying out, but rather focuses
on the means by which the set is operating. (Extract Learning sets process SHU2015)
What I had failed to do as part of my role was to identify the impact of disclosure of learning
on an individual within a larger group. I had been happy to see learning and sharing taking
place and not seen the impact of not sharing.
Case study 2
The Human Resources Department of a Higher Education Establishment had identified that
leaders within the organisation would benefit from a Leadership Development programme to
embed new ways of working following a restructure. The first stage of this was to work with
the senior leadership group to begin the process and then to continue to deliver development
to middle managers utilising the learning achieved. The senior leadership group comprised
approximately 150 senior leaders across a wide range of academic disciplines and central
departments. A well respected leadership development provider designed a programme which
comprised 3 blocks of development sessions, 2 of which were residential and a one day
conference. Between each session they inserted ALS's of 3 hours each quarter for a period of
one year. All were to be facilitated by a member of the HR departments' organisation
development team. .My role was as a facilitator of two of these. The development programme
was a non-negotiable activity and in theory so was the ALS. However, gaining buy in to these
was problematic from the start. The process for the set was based on my experience in case
study 1 although prior to the critical incident discussed. Each set comprised 6-8 senior
leaders, most of whom had secretaries who managed their diaries. Identifying a 3 hour
window when all were available was almost impossible. Each facilitator had to introduce
themselves to the participants who had been selected by trying to ensure a mix of
gender/department/faculty/staff type. At the first meeting the process was introduced. In the
Red group I had a promising first session. Everyone seemed ready to participate, with just a
few questions about the process and there was a general feeling of what Pedler (1996 p61)
says is a willingness to "give it a good go". For Pedler this is his "acid test" for participants.
This group continued to meet throughout the year, each member bringing their problem or
issue and supporting each other through some difficult and challenging times. My contractual
involvement ended and to the best of my knowledge the group continued to meet in a self
facilitated way. The Black team however was a completely different experience. I struggled to
get a first session diarised where everyone could attend. This resulted in my telephoning each
participant, talking through the format of the sessions, giving examples of how others has
benefitted and asking them to just try "giving it a go". Although some of the participants
agreed and asked their secretaries to prioritise the sessions, a number did not. John, an
academic who I had known from a previous role in administration was open in his hostility to
the process. He asked me "what qualifications do you hold that makes you a suitable
facilitator?", "Why does it take 3 hours, I'm far too busy for that", "Do you mean to tell me
that I have to give up 3 hours of my time for the possibility of 30 minutes on my issue?"
Although I felt that I gave appropriate answers (I have a Masters in Organisation
Development and consultancy, 3 hours gives some airtime to all if it is needed, learning
occurs from helping others work through their issues in addition to your own) John never
attended a set meeting. Others gave verbal agreement and yet could never agree a time. 3
members of the Black set met twice and my involvement with them ended as they jointly
decided that they could "manage without me". My perception of this was that my position
within the organisation as a member of HR was getting in the way of them sharing the issues
that were most challenging for them and which occurred following a restructure. Further
reading of Revans (1998 p12) suggests the role of the facilitator should be to "contrive that it
achieves independence of them at the earliest possible moment".
Case study 3
This case study is based on an ALS as part of a City wide certified Leadership programme.
Participants included a number of middle managers in a range of organisations across a City
e.g. Fire, Police Health, Council etc. and included 2 Universities. My experience involved
running 3 separate ALS's over 3 cohorts of participants on a wider Postgraduate Certificate
programme. Each one was designed to run four times over one year to support a cross City
development initiative. This was the first time that I had experienced an ALS that had a
specific task attached to the process. The participants on the first two cohorts were asked to
identify a cross institution/organisation project that would benefit the Sheffield City region.
As part of an accredited course, with a specific task focus and with an assessment attached to
it in terms of the project, attendance was implicitly compulsory. There were approximately 10
participants in each ALS meeting for 3 hours each time. The role of the facilitator was to
facilitate individual learning through the operation of our traditional learning set approach
( check in, individual issues, check out) and to help facilitate progress in terms of identifying
a project to work on and how the group worked together to achieve its aims. The first set
meeting was taken up with discussing the process, expectations, groundrules etc as with any
other ALS. However questions from the set were focused around the project task and
assessment. One of the key roles for a facilitator is judging when and how to intervene in a set
process. It was obvious from the comments that the sort of deep rather than surface learning
(Boud 1990) that I wanted for the group was not going to be achievable until the immediate
concerns and anxieties had been addressed. Although Beattie, Collins and McInnes (2010)
consider in some depth a variety of approaches to this concept I am using it here simplistically
as deep meaning to include understanding the underlying reasons for thoughts, behaviour etc
and surface as a more temporary, problem solving exercise. More time was taken up with this
latter aspect which resulted in the ALS element of the time being limited to an hour at the end.
Each subsequent set meeting felt like a battle where I would remind the participants of the
time allowed to discuss progress on the task and the time on learning issues and then work
hard to keep them to the process. Despite this, when they did work on issues of learning they
were supportive of each other and noted key learning they could each take away. I felt that the
separation of the two elements got in the way for the first group and despite my
encouragement to bring as an issue their work on the project task itself to try to integrate both
elements there was a reluctance to do so. With hindsight it may have been the shared
responsibility for the task that prevented them from publicly acknowledging the issues they
faced in the task itself. In another group following the project task presentation I asked a
participant how the ALS had worked for them. She said "At the first one we had some very
vocal people who insisted that they had plenty of support for issues outside the group. They
wanted to focus on the project task as their senior managers were watching this aspect and
would make a judgement about the projects and them too. I wished the facilitator had stuck
them out instead of folding and letting them get away with it. I feel we missed out from
something good". Argyris and Schon (1974) discuss the nature of single and double loop
learning and I can see key links here to the idea that the task becomes a way of fixing the
problems identified (single loop) whereas the action learning approach can uncover why these
occurred in the first place resulting in double loop learning. This also links to the concepts of
deep and surface learning (Boud 1990, Beattie, Collins and McInnes 2010) already identified.
Learning identified
In Case study 1 and 2 the learning expected was around self development and in case study 3
it was a combination of self and cross organisational learning. My personal expectation in all
cases was that participants would experience the incredible learning that I had experienced as
a participant and would view these as a positive step in their reflective knowledge of self
which would in turn improve their practice. My experiences however uncovered a number of
features in terms of theory and practice that have led me to believe that the nature of the
participant group impacts substantially on the perceived value of an ALS.
Conclusions
In each of the cases the context, nature of participant and role of the facilitator played some
part in my varied experience.
Case study 1 identified the role of the facilitator as a key element in terms of maximising the
learning for the participants. In recognising the impact of what is not happening as much as
what is happening can help foster deeper learning for the whole group. The point of action
learning being 'describing one's very ignorance and, more than that, in trading it with others
equally ready to confess their own (Revans 1982p38 cited in Pedler (2011p2) The nature of
the participants in terms of cross course/different organisations ensured this was not an issue
for the group.
Case study 2 occurred following a restructure and included senior leaders and internal
facilitators. This potentially limited the opportunities to have honest and open discussions
about issues of personal concern and raised a number of defensive routines (Hirschhorn 1992)
that inhibited participation. This is a key element of action learning. According to Pedler
(1996) the organisation has to be ready for it and you and your colleagues need to want a
culture of enquiry and questioning. The role of an internal facilitator and the impact of this
was never questioned before the programme. The role of facilitator as a "neutral servant of the
group" could not be demonstrated.
Case study 3 again highlights the role of the facilitator in terms of their ability to work with
the anxieties of the group and hold the line in terms of the nature of action learning.
In each of these case studies and my own experience, deep rather than surface learning is only
achieved through accessing your own inner feelings in terms of what is important and why.
This links to the theory of Emotional Intelligence (Goleman 1996, George 2000) and the view
that you need to understand and manage your own feelings in order to understand the impact
on others. ALS's provide a vehicle for that exploration. In much of the literature around
Action Learning the role of emotion and how to work with this is not fully explored. My
experiences suggest that the facilitator should have a good understanding of this for
themselves and that the nature of the set, set participants and the context needs to recognise
the emotional aspects of sharing issues within an organisational and course environment.
Further work is needed to explore the links between learning theories and action learning and
potentially develop various forms of action learning sets. My personal learning is that a more
critical approach to understanding the context of the ALS may have made me more useful to
the set process and that my own positive experience of one type of ALS may have been a
barrier to developing other forms in practice. A further issue appears to be the timing at which
participants may move from giving it a go, to valuing the space for reflection it brings.
References
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1974) Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness.
Publisher Jossey-Bass,
Beattie, V. Collins, B. and McInnes, B. (1997) Deep and surface learning: a simple or
simplistic dichotomy? Accounting Education vol 6 (1), p1-12
Blanchard, K. (1998) Gung Ho! : increase productivity, profits and your own prosperity.
Publisher London Harper Collins Business
Boud, D. (1990) Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher
Education Vol 15 issue 1 p101-11
Farrell, T.S.C. (2008) ELT Journal volume 62/1 January 2008; Published by Oxford
University Press;
George, J. M. (Aug 2000) Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence
Human Relations Vol 53 issue 8 p1027-1055
Goleman, D. (1996) Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ Publisher
Bloomsbury
Hirschhorn, L. (1992) The workplace within Psychodynamics of Organizational Life The MIT
press.
Marquardt, M.J., Leonard, S., Freedman, A., and Hill, C. 2009. Action learning for
developing leaders and organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Press
Mumford, A. (2006) Action Learning: Nothing so practical as good theory. Action Learning:
Research and Practice vol 3 no 1 p 69-76
Pedler, M. (1996) action learning for managers Lemos & Crane in association with the
Learning Company Project
Pedler, M. (2011) Editorial Action Learning: Research and Practice 8:1, p1-4 March 2011
Pedler, M. & Trehan, K. (2010) Evaluating action learning, Action Learning: Research and
Practice, 7:2, p117-119
Revans, R.W. (1982) The origins and growth of action learning, Chartwell Bratt Publisher
Revans, R. W. (1998) ABC of action learning. Empowering managers to act and learn from
action. 3rd Ed Lemos and Crane.
Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (2012) Michael Humphreys and Mark Learmouth ch 18,
Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges, Sage
publishers.