ACTION LEARNING LITERATURE REVIEW

BY

UMMAHANI AMIN

(ummahani@yahoo.com)

SUBMITTED TO BUSINESS SCHOOL NETHERLANDS, AS A COURSE REQUIREMENT IN

PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE AWARD OF MBA EXECUTIVE.

SUBMISSION DATE: JUNE 15TH, 2018

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
1.1 MAJOR INFLUENCERS IN THE FIELD OF ACTION LEARNING……………………………4
1.2 KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTION LEARNING……………………………………………….6
1.3 ACTION LEARNING AND ACTION RESEARCH: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES…7

2.0 THE PROCESS OF ACTION LEARNING: METHODS AND APPROACHES………………………. 11

3.0 APPLICATION OF ACTION LEARNING TO THE METROPOLITAN LAW FIRM………………..15

3.1 NOTABLE INDUSTRIES ACROSS THE WORLD WHERE ACTION LEARNING IS BEING
USED…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17

4.0 CHALLENGES OF ACTION LEARNING………………………………………………………………………. 19

5.0 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………21

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………22

2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The British originator of Action Learning as a concept, Reginald Revans, defined it thus:
‘’Action Learning is a means of development, intellectual, emotional or physical, that
requires its subjects, through responsible involvement in some real, complex and stressful
problem, to achieve intended change to improve his observable behaviour henceforth in
the problem field.’’ (Revans, 1982).
Action Learning focuses on identifying a current need; asking questions to obtain
feedback and determine what the appropriate next steps or actions may be; taking action
on that feedback; and reflecting back on the actions that were taken to see what worked
and what needs to be refined. These steps made action learning to be focused on two key
behaviours: Reflective inquiry and Continuous Learning.
In the words of Stacia Thompson, ‘’if our true goal is to build action-based skills and
habits-and to instil confidence in those skills and habits so they are genuinely adopted
and internalised-then the learning experience has to include the same action-based
activities. We don’t learn to ride a bike by reading about it or watching someone else ride
a bike. We have to do the activity.
Action learning is focused on learning by doing, and solving complex problems along the
way. It was originated in October 1945 by Reginald Revans, while he was working with
the British coalmining industry. His ideas were tested by setting up a staff college for the
coal mining industry, at which the field managers would be encouraged to learn with and
from each other, using the group review to find solutions to their immediate problems
that require urgent resolution.
Action learning is a powerful organisational tool that works like this: A diversified group
of four to eight members solve a complex, urgent problem. While seeking innovative
solutions to the problem, the group members simultaneously develop their leadership
methodology in the United States. It is being used by such companies like Well Fargo,
Boeing, Nationwide Insurance, to name just a few (Marquardt, 2015).
In Marquardt’s (2004) model, there are six components to the action learning, which are:
1. A Problem
2. A diverse group or set
3. Reflective Inquiry process
4. Power to take action
5. Commitment to learning
6. Action Learning Coach

3
In major forms of action learning, the sets work together to proffer solutions to the
problems, but a coach is included in the group set. The responsibility of the coach is to
promote and facilitate learning, as well as encouraging the set to be self-managing.
Action Learning turns ordinary problem solving on its head, getting out of the usual
groupthink mentality, eschewing the ‘’management of agreement’’ rut, and doing away
with organisational silence. When a team commits to using action learning to solve a
complex, immediate problem, the team creates a culture of in-depth communication,
takes ownership of the problem, and may uncover internal conflict that gets resolved
rather than continuing to simmer below the surface.
1.1 MAJOR INFLUENCERS IN THE FIELD OF ACTION LEARNING
Theoretical foundations of Action Learning were first proposed in a book by Reginald
Revans (1971), in which he described the ideas behind and the outcome of an Action
Learning programme developed by the Belgian Foundation Industry. Reg Revans is
recognised as the initiator of the concept of Action Learning, and his famous learning
equation; L = P+Q, explained that Learning is the total of programmed knowledge (P) and
questioning insight (Q). To Revans, programmed knowledge represents the knowledge in
current use and Q means fresh insights into what is not yet known.
The fundamental objective of action learning is the encouragement of Q. Other scholars,
such as Mumford (1991) and Inglis (1994) have developed this equation further. Mumford
(1991) stated L=Q1+P+Q2, where Q1 is the need to resolve a managerial problem which
leads to the acquisition of relevant knowledge. P, stimulates the identification of further
management opportunities-Q2. Inglis (1994) explained L= P+Q=I, where I is
implementation. Inglis believe that Action Learning requires action to be taken, not mere
recommendation. His idea is supported by Marquardt (1996). Action Learning is a
continuous process of learning and reflection, supported by colleagues, with an intention
of getting things done. Through action learning, individuals learn with and from each
other, by working on real problems and reflecting on their own experiences.
Garrat (1987) believes that action learning is a process for the reform of organisations
and the liberation of human vision within organisations. The process is based on taking
one or more crucial organisational problems and, in real times, analysing their dynamics;
implementing the proposed solutions derived from the constructive criticisms of
colleagues; monitoring results; and through being held responsible for these actions,
learning from the results, so that future problem solving and opportunity-taking are
improved. Action Learning is concerned with managing risks and uncertainties and on
learning from them for the benefit of the stakeholders of the organisation (Garrat, 1987).

4
Action Learning is a disciplined approach based on the theory that a group of people,
sharing similar concerns, can work together to resolve real problems or issues, bringing
additional resources or knowledge as necessary (Pedler, 1991). It is an investment and its
return can be measured by the extent to which the individual set members grow and
develop, by the extent to which the organisation becomes more effective in responding
to changes in the environment, and by the bottom-line result (Inglis, 1994).
These views are further developed by Marquandt (1999), where he argued action learning
as both a process and a powerful programme that involve a small group of people solving
real problems while, at the same time, focusing on what they are learning and how their
learning can benefit each group member and the organisation as a whole. The solving of
problems and the resolution of issues within the organisation are a key focus and unique
capability of Action Learning. However, action learning is not only a problem solving
process, it also provides more opportunities for people to consider and evaluate the
solution more deeply and carefully (Marquardt, 1999).
Some of the questions to be asked to ensure the quality of the solution which enhance
the learning capabilities are:
I. How realistic is the solution in terms of the goals and resources of the
organisation? (An alternative that may seem logical but cannot be implemented
is useless)
II. How effective will this solution be in solving the problem?
III. Are there any new problems that might be created by this solution?
When those questions are asked during the action learning process, double-loop learning
takes place. Through the questioning, probing and reflective elements of Action Learning,
problem solving is much more likely to avoid these and other biases. Throughout the
action learning process, members of the group are continuously forced to show what they
have considered their own biases. A successful solution will involve internal changes in
people as well as external changes in the organisations.
Revans (1983) argued, in true Action Learning, it is not what a man already knows and
tells that sharpens the countenance of his friend, but what he does not know and what
his friend does not know either. It is recognised ignorance, not programmed knowledge
that is the key to action learning: People start to learn with and from each other only
when they discover that no one knows the answer, but all are obliged to find it.
The Table 1 below shows the characteristics of action learning based on Peddler (1991)
and Marquandt and Reynolds (1994).

5
 KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTION LEARNING

MARQUARDT AND REYNOLDS

PEDLER (1991) (1994)
Action Learning is outcome-
1 Action Learning focuses on problems, not puzzles. oriented
It is designed to transfer knowledge
systematically throughout the
2 No one knows the answer organisation
3 Action is always part of the solution Enables people to learn by doing
4 A group of interested people works together Encourages continual learning
Creates a culture where learning
5 The group is guided by an experienced advisor becomes a way of life.
It is an active rather than a passive
6 Processes are always transparent approach
Games and simulations are usually anathema to It is done mainly on the job, rather
7 Action Learners than off the job
Self, or organisational development is a bi-product Allows for mistakes and
8 of action learning experimentation
Develops skills for critical reflection
9 L = P+Q and reframing
Is a mechanism for developing
10 Change is embarrassed learning skills and behaviour
Demonstrates the benefits of
11 organisational learning
Models working and learning
12 simultaneously
Is problem-focused rather than
13 hierarchically bound
Provides a network for sharing,
supporting, giving feedback, and
14 challenging assumptions.
Develops the ability to generate
15 information
Breaks down barriers between
people and across traditional
16 organisational boundaries
Helps an organisation move from a
culture of training to a culture of
17 learning.
18 It is systems-based

6
 It applies learning to other parts of
19 the organisation as appropriate

1.2 ACTION LEARNING AND ACTION RESEARCH: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

Similarities and differences between Action Learning and Action Research need to be
explored for a better understanding. Management development is about helping
individuals prepare themselves for the future by developing their potential. Action
Learning forces people not only to think out of the box, but to think about who they are-
as managers, leaders, and individuals. This change enables the participants to re-examine
their company in a new light. Basically, action learning has the ability to deal with the
organisational challenges such as: creating new organisational structure, building good
cultures, and changing people’s mindsets which lead the individuals and organisations to
grow and to change (Dotlich and Noel, 1998).
Action Learning contributes to continuous improvement and transformational change.
Because it involves collaborative questioning by organisational members of their own
action, it promotes more productive reasoning, by encouraging leaders to explore real
business problems in a non-defensive way, together with supportive colleagues who feel
free to question, criticize and advise (Limerick, Et al, 1994). Marquardt (1996) posits that
action learning involves: (1) The development of skills and knowledge through the process
of reflecting on action taken when solving real problems, and (2) The organisational
change which occurs when participants address organisational problems from new
perspectives.
What action learning entails and its benefits can be summarised as follows:
I. Shared Learning throughout various levels of the organisation
II. Greater self-awareness and self-confidence due to new insights and
feedback.
III. Ability to ask better questions and be more reflective
IV. Improved communications and teamwork
V. Significant financial or productivity gains as an outcome
VI. Development of participants in technical, leadership and management
capabilities.
VII. Generation of new knowledge to be shared and utilized within the
organisation.
VIII. Offer the opportunity for real business results
IX. Include complex issues with many possible solutions

7
 X. Require divergent and creative thinking
XI. Ability to measure opportunities objectively
XII. Require cross-functional expertise to solve
XIII. Provide opportunity for leadership and management skill development.
The role of action learning is to change organisational behaviour and increase productivity
and creativity. Action Learning can be used effectively at the three levels of Policy,
Strategy, and Operations (Garratt, 1987). The central ideas of action learning are related
closely to the views of John Dewey and his associates, about the need to establish a
linkage between thinking and acting. According to Inglis (1994), once action learning is
introduced into an organisation, it immediately sets in motion the process of asking
questions, gathering information, and enforcing reflection upon how to bring about
change.
The impact of Action Learning may be assessed at the level of its effect on individuals, the
apparent outcome from specific projects and programmes, and in wider terms, upon
management education as a whole. Although, most scholars advocate that action learning
should be introduced into organisations where a high degree of openness and trust
already exists, it is also possible, in some instances, to use action learning as a vehicle for
creating that openness and trust.
There are two famous remarks Revans (1990) used to describe the theme of genuine
Action Learning: ‘’Well, boys, the money’s gone; we’d better all try thinking,’’ and ‘’what
is an honest man, and what need I do to become one?’’ These help us understand the
goals of Action Learning. The first part of the first remark is simply a statement of fact:
calamity had arrived, history was passing, the world had changed, and so many other
decisive interpretations, comments, observations. The second part is, in many senses,
Action Learning: the immortality of response to overwhelming challenge. It is not about
the objective, the material, the physical, but about the personal and the social, the
individuals and the communal, the intuitive and the participant. It anticipates the future’s
response to the failure of the past. The second remark helps us to understand that action
learning has no prefabricated moulds in which to recast the learners, no recitative
abracadabra to tap out the answer to the next uncertain question. Nobody could indicate
what it might be for you, only you yourself could seek to understand it from within
yourself.
Action Research refers to a variety of evaluative, investigative, and analytical research
methods designed to diagnose problems or weaknesses- whether organisational,
academic or instructional- and help develop practical solutions to address them quickly
and efficiently. Sugar (2000) defined Action Research as a disciplined process of inquiry
8
conducted by and for those taking action. The primary reason for engaging in action
research is to assist the ‘’actor’’ in improving and refining his or her ‘’actions’’.
The process of Action Research involves the following six steps:
1. Selecting a focus
2. Identifying Research Questions
3. Collecting Data
4. Analysing Data
5. Reporting Results
6. Taking informed action
Action Learning and Action Research are focused on solving management problems using
different approaches. While Action Research is an important ‘’fix it’’ approach in which
the action researcher takes an existing practice from somewhere else and implements it
in their own field of practice to effect an improvement, Action Learning is learning by
doing (O’Brien 1998).
‘’Action Research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an
immediate problematic situation and to further the goals of social science simultaneously.
Thus, there is a dual commitment in action research to study a system and concurrently
to collaborate with members of the system in changing it in what is together regarded as
a desirable direction. Accomplishing this twin goal requires the active collaboration of
researcher and client, and thus it stresses the importance of co-learning as a primary
aspect of the research process’’ O’Brien (1998).
One other thing that separates Action Research from Action Learning is the emphasis on
scientific study. In Action Research, the ‘’researcher’’ studies the problem systematically
and ensures the intervention is informed by theoretical considerations. Data is collected
and analysed, presented on an ongoing, cyclical basis. Methodological tools are employed
to suit the exigencies of the situation.
Gerald Susman (1983) gave a somewhat more elaborate explanation of Action Research
as captured in the diagram below:

9
 DIAGNOSING
Identifying a
problem

ACTION PLANNING
SPECIFYING
*Considering
LEARNING
alternative courses

EVALUATING TAKING ACTION

*Studying the *Selecting a course
consequences of action

Winter (1989) provides a comprehensive overview of six key principles guiding Action
Research:
A. Reflective Critique: An account of a situation. This principle ensures that people
reflect on issues and processes and make explicit interpretations, biases,
assumptions and concerns upon which judgement are made.
B. Dialectical Critique: Social Reality is consensually validated. A dialectical critique is
required to understand the set of relationship both between the phenomenon and
its context, and between the elements constituting the phenomenon.
C. Collaborative Resource: Participants in an action research project are co-
researchers. The principle of collaborative resource presupposes that each
person’s ideas are equally significant as potential resources for creating
interpretive categories of analysis, negotiated among the participants.
D. Risk: Initiators of action research are expected to use the principle of risk to allay
fears of other participants, by pointing out that they, too, will be subject to the
same process, and whatever the outcome, learning will take place.
E. Plural Structure: The nature of the research requires a multiplicity of views,
critiques and commentaries which could bring about multiple possible actions and
interpretations.
F. Theory, Practise, Transformation: For action researchers, theory informs practice,
practice refines theory, in a continuous transformation. In any setting, peoples

10
 actions are based on implicitly held assumptions, theories, and hypotheses, and
with every observed result, theoretical knowledge is enhanced. The ensuing
practical applications that follow are subjected to further analysis, in a
transformative cycle that continuously alternates emphasis between theory and
practice.
2.0 THE PROCESS OF ACTION LEARNING: METHODS AND APPROACHES
Action Learning involves an alternating series of workshops with field experiences. The
workshops are designed to provide participants with insight, information and tools. They
may involve everything from guest speakers who shock and provoke, and often include
coaches who help participants understand the issues involved in their projects by giving
tools that facilitate their ability to complete the project successfully.
Field experiences range from outdoor adventures that help teams grow and work
together, to data gathering and team meetings. Innovative and unusual techniques are
certainly a part of this process. What sets action learning apart is how learning is
interwoven with action. Participants are asked to address real and challenging business
issues, but they do so within a ‘’temporary system’’ created by the action learning
process. This system encourages participants to make discoveries about themselves, as
they try to solve business problems. It provides teammates, and sometimes a coach, to
help with this self-discovery and places them in unfamiliar situations with types of people
they have never worked with before (Dotlich and Noel, 1998)
Although, a great deal of pressure is placed on people to perform, there is also a great
deal of freedom to experiment and try new ideas and approaches. There are two ways to
present the action learning process- one outlined by Marquardt’s (1999) Model, which
contains six key components, and the other, Dotlich and Noel’s (1998) model, which
contains twelve steps.
Marquardt (1999) developed six interactive and interdependent components of an action
learning programme as captured below. The strength and success of action learning rely
on the effective interaction of these elements:

11
 GROUP
ACTION
LEARNING SET

QUESTIONING
AND
REFLECTION PROBLEM FACILITATOR
PROCESS

RESOLUTION
TO TAKE
ACTION

A PROBLEM: Action Learning is built around a problem (be it a project, a challenge, an

issue, or task), the resolution of which is of high importance to an individual, team, and
or organisation. The problem should be significant, within the responsibility of the team,
and provide opportunity for learning.
ACTION LEARNING SET: The core entity in action learning is the action learning group.
The group is composed of four to eight individuals who examine the organisational
problem that has no easily identifiable solution. Ideally, the make-up of the group is
diverse, so as to maximize various perspectives and to obtain fresh viewpoints. Depending
on the type of action learning problem, groups can be composed of individuals from
across functions or departments. In some situations, groups are composed of individuals
from other organisations or professions, for example, the company’s supplies or
customers.
PROCESS THAT EMPHASISES INSIGHTFUL QUESTIONING: By focusing on the right
questions rather than the right answers, action learning focuses on what one does not
know, as well as what one does know. Action learning tackles problems through a process
of first asking questions to clarify the exact nature of the problems, reflecting and
identifying possible solutions, and only then taking action.
RESOLUTION TO TAKE ACTION: There is no real learning unless action is taken, for one is
never sure the idea or plan will be effective until it has been implemented. Members of
the action learning group must have the power to take action themselves or be assured
that their recommendations will be implemented (barring any significant change in the

12
environment or the group’s obvious lack of essential information). Action enhances
learning, because it provides a basis and anchor for the critical dimension of reflection
described earlier.
COMMITMENT TO LEARNING: Solving organisational problems provide immediate,
short-term benefits to the company. The greater, long-term, multiplier benefit, however,
is the learning gained by each group member and how the group’s learning can be
applied, on a systems-wide basis, through-out the organisation. The learning that occurs
in action learning has greater value strategically for the organisation than the immediate
tactical advantage of early problem correction.
GROUP FACILITATOR: Facilitation is important to help the group slow down its process in
order to allow sufficient time to reflect on learning. Facilitators help group members
reflect on how they listen, how they may have reframed the problem, how they give each
other feedback, how they are planning and working, and what may be shaping their
beliefs and actions.
Dotlich and Noel (1998) developed a very clear road map for the action learning process,
based on their experience of working with General Electric, Ameritech, Shell, Nations
Bank, Citibank, Arthur Andersen, and Johnson & Johnson. When you try to interest
management in this concept of action learning, they will often ask you the question: What
does an action learning programme look like? The table below explains the twelve
element framework for an action learning programme.
STEP OF ACTION LEARNING CONTENT OF STEP
Normally a CEO or a business head whose role will be
Sponsor critical throughout the action learning process.
Business issues or challenges which are affecting or will
Strategic Mandate affect the organisation
A written chronology and description of how an action
Learning Process Roadmap learning process is likely play out
Choose people who will have an impact on the strategic
mandate. Action learning will not work if cronyism and
Selecting Participants politics dominate the process.
People from different backgrounds, functions, business
units and hierarchical levels. In many instances, team
members are chosen based on their differences and
potential for conflict rather than their similarities and
Forming Learning Teams synergies.
Someone who is comfortable working in interdisciplinary
groups and who combines great intuition with superior
Coaching communication skills. The coach will be intervening in

13
 team situations where emotions run high and individuals
are vulnerable
There is an educational component within the action
learning programme. Sometimes the Professors, business
leaders or other area experts are invited to share new
information and knowledge with the action learnning
Orientation to the issue participants, to help them reframe the issue at hand.
To seek out relevant information from various unique
sources. That means interviewing customers, vendors,
analysts, benchmark companies, employers, academics
Data gathering and industry leaders.
Teams learn how to send individuals or pairs of people out
for certain information, including how to benchmark other
companies productively, and integrate their findings into a
Data Analysis whole
This is a rehearsal process. This is the stage in which
participants have to distinguish the real from the ideal.
Management can be involved at this stage to share their
views and provide feedback to the action learning
Draft Presentation participants
The final presentation is where the knowledge gained from
weeks of action learning is put to test. The goal is always to
secure a commitment from the sponsor to act on the
Presentation team’s recommendations
Self-reflection is what distinguishes action learning from
normal work. Questions will be asked as: “As you look back
on what you did yesterday, what did you learn?
Participants are asked to keep a journal describing their
Reflection (debriefing) feelings about what is happening.

Source: Action Learning, Dotlich and Noel (1998)

14
 3.0 APPLICATION OF ACTION LEARNING TO THE METROPOLITAN LAW FIRM
The Metropolitan Law Firm was founded in 2006 by yours truly (Mrs Umma’ani Amin). It
is a multi-specialist law firm that provides corporate legal services and consultancy to
business sector of the Nigerian Economy, with the strength of the firm being the profound
understanding of the investment environment of the capital market and business laws in
Nigeria.
The Metropolitan Law firm is distinguished by excellence, integrity, industry, depth and
scope of its legal advisory. The firm provides seamless services to its highly diversified
clientele which include high net worth individuals, public and privately held commercial
businesses and financial institutions as well as Government and State owned entities
involved in sophisticated corporate and financial transactions and complex dispute
resolution proceeding. The firm is registered as a capital market solicitor with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The staff strength of the firm is currently 17 (Seventeen), consisting of six lawyers and five
paralegals or clerks, while the remaining five staff handle the administrative jobs in the
Firm. The said six lawyers work as employed attorneys not partners. The legal practice
areas that the metropolitan law firm focus on are multi-faceted, they include:
 Securities Law
 Labor and Employment Law
 Tax Law
 Bankruptcy Law
 Criminal Law
 Family Law
 Appellate Law
 Company Law
Application of Action Learning to the practise of law at the Metropolitan Law firm has
been partly imbibed, unknowingly. In any of the client cases the metropolitan law firm
has had to take either as advocates for the plaintiff or the defendant, our motions and
briefs are discussed in ways similar to the action learning methodologies. A team of
lawyers at the firm, usually four, would be asked to study the case. Here, the client case
becomes the “problem” as could be found in action learning.
The essence of studying the case is to come up with strong recommendations and
relevant citation of supporting evidence and case laws to favourably argue the litigation.

15
The Practise of action learning is not completely far from this. The head of the law firm
intervene where necessary, thereby fulfilling the requirements of ‘’coach” as espoused
by action learning. Through this approach problems are resolved faster, and lawyers in
the firm practically learn by doing.
Daily responsibilities of lawyers and paralegals at the Metropolitan Law firm include:
Interviewing clients, rendering legal advice, performing legal research, taking depositions,
attending site inspections, arguing motions before a judge, and drafting legal documents
including pleadings, discovery, motions and briefs. While we cannot affirm that all these
job responsibilities could be subjected to action learning processes and procedures, it is
worthy of mentioning that with a sound knowledge of how action learning works, our jobs
at the metropolitan law firm would be better enhanced.
For our aspect of job which requires us to be corporate attorneys here “deals” are worked
on rather than “cases” and we advocate in boardrooms rather than courtrooms. The
structuring and negotiation of business transactions, performance of due diligence
drafting of transactional documents, counselling of clients, submission of materials to
government bodies, drafting of contracts, resolutions, legal opinions and escrow trust
agreements, all these can only be achieved if action learning processes are properly
employed.

16
3.1 NOTABLE INDUSTRIES ACROSS THE WORLD WHERE ACTION LEARNING IS BEING
USED
Marquardt 2015, mentioned the following industries and specific organisations across the
globe where action learning is being used:
JAPAN: KIRIN BREWERY
Kirin Brewery is a food and beverage company in the Asia- Oceania region. It was having
trouble with the quality of its cans, a problem that began affecting sales and the
company’s relationship with the customers. An action learning team, formed with
members from four business units- Customer service, sales, manufacturing and quality
control developed a strategy for producing a higher quality can.
The technology needed to redesign the can was relatively simple, and the can took less
time to manufacture, was less costly, and received fewer complaints.
CARRIBBEAN: NATIONAL BANK OF DOMINICA
Customer Service had deteriorated at the National Bank of Dominica, and customer
service staff had ongoing conflicts with other bank employees. An action learning team
developed more than 40 strategies to address the challenges.
The solutions included rap lyrics for customer service, shirts with logos that fit within the
bank’s branding scheme, quarterly meetings with fun activities, a “meet and greet”
training initiative on how to exchange pleasantries with customers, and a new reward
system for service staff. Sample rewards are vouchers for vacations, shopping trips and
electronic products (such as textbooks and iPod) items that are less expensive than those
top management had been considering.

KENYA: UNITED NATIONS’ ENVIROMENTAL PROGRAMME

When the United Nations outgrew the office accommodations at its headquarters in
Nairobi, Kenya, it was determined to construct a new carbon-neutral building without
compromising the quality of the working environment. An action learning team
comprised of U.N Environmental Programme officials and Microsoft leaders met for three
days in Nairobi to develop a strategic plan for designing and building the new UNEP

17
headquarters building, a plan that included fundraising, data collection, IT assessment,
solar panel implementation, culture change and marketing.
After the initial face-to face meetings, the action learning team met virtually on a monthly
basis. Amazingly, the construction of UNEP headquarters was completed within 12
months. It was opened with world-wide acclaim by the UN Secretary General, who
described the building as a “living model of our sustainable future that takes
environmental sustainability to a new level”.
SOURCE: Action learning around the world by Michael Marquadt (2015)

18
4.0 CHALLENGES OF ACTION LEARNING
There are various factors impeding action learning. The theories of action (Argyris, 1995)
provide a background for an understanding of the issues. There are two types of theories
of action: One is the theory individuals espouse and which comprises their beliefs,
attitudes and values. The other is their theory in use, namely the theory they actually
employ. Argyris (1995) found often fundamental systematic mismatches between
individual’s espoused and in-use designs and designs developed to keep themselves
unaware of mismatch.
This occurs when the issues are embarrassing or threatening, the precise time when
effective learning is crucial.
Other challenges of Action Learning are:
MINDSET: Members of the action learning set and other staff in the organisation need to
have encouraging mindset before action learning would work. This mindset will facilitate
the action learning as self- managing groups workout the as – yet unknown solution to
the problem.
MANAGEMENT’s UNDERSTANDING: The difficulty for management to understand
relates to the nature of action learning designed, an uncharted journey with the
destination unknown. It is difficult to say what you will see, hear or learn on this trip- only
that you will experience it, and that experience may not always be pleasant (Pedler 1991)
ROADMAP: If a clear “roadmap” to keep the discipline of the action learning process is
not developed, this may impede the successful implementation of action learning.
FACILITATOR: If there are no experienced action learning coaches or facilitators who
could intervene directly in behaviours, confront, challenge, question or compliment the
entire process, action learning may not be successful.
RETURN ON INVESTMENT: Action Learning is not a simple process, and clear returns on
investments are not guaranteed.
GROUP THINKING: The group needs to be skillful in divergent and convergent thinking,
and be able to manage their emotions, welcome the clash of opinions, and be open and
willing to change.

19
HOLD- UP - EFFECTS: This speaks to a situation whereby a manager, having been involved
in an action learning program returns to his normal work setting, but may consciously
decide to use only a part of the skills that were acquired in the course of the programme
in order to solve a problem in his own department (De Loo and Berstegen, 2001)
TRANSFER AND IMPLEMENTATION: When Managers return to their normal work setting,
a transfer problem may arise, as although they now possess improved skills to solve a
problem, it might be difficult to implement in their usual environment.

20
5.0 CONCLUSION
Action Learning focuses on identifying a current need, asking questions to obtain
feedback and determine what the appropriate next steps or actions may be taking action
on that feedback, and then reflecting back on the actions that were taken to see what
worked and what needs to be refined. This practically explains our process of handling
beliefs and law research at the Metropolitan Law Firm. The only snag is that we have not
been calling it “Action Learning”
At the Metropolitan Law Firm, we work in a knowledge based industry where personal
leadership development and being savvy in the knowledge of law are the two essential
qualities that stand out our lawyers. Developing future leaders is important to the long
term sustainability and advancement of an organisation (Peters, 2013). Action Learning
focuses on two key behaviours: reflective inquiry and continuous learning. Questions are
a vital component of action learning initiative. The ability to ask powerful and insightful
questions and practise reflective listening are imperative for the success of action
learning. All these are put into practise of law at the Metropolitan Law Firm.
From the Foregoing, we have been able to explain the concept of Action Learning with a
stint on its historical development. Attempt is also made to talk about the key influencers
in the field of action learning. A comparative analysis of the similar yet different term:
Action Research, is also made.
The process that the action learning initiative is expected to follow are also explained. By
and Large, this project is a review of literature on action learning as a concept. It did not
claim to have exhausted all the available literature in that field. It is a humble codification
of some literature to further contribute to knowledge on Action Learning.

21
REFERENCES
Argyris, C., 1995. Action science and organizational learning. Journal of managerial
psychology, 10(6), pp.20-26.

De Loo, I. and Verstegen, B., 2001. New thoughts on action learning. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 25(2/3/4), pp.229-234.

Dotlich, D.L. and Noel, J.L., 1998. Action learning: How the world's top companies are re-
creating their leaders and themselves. Jossey-Bass, Incorporated.

Garratt, B., 1987. Learning is the core of organisational survival: action learning is the key
integrating process. Journal of Management Development, 6(2), pp.38-44.

Inglis, S., 1994. Making the Most of Action Learning. Gower, Old Post Road, Brookfield, VT
05036-9704.

Limerick, D., Passfield, R. and Cunnington, B., 1994. Transformational change: towards an
action learning organization. The Learning Organization, 1(2), pp.29-40.

Marquardt, M.J., 2004. Optimizing the power of action learning. Davies-Black Publishing..

Marquardt, M.J. and Reynolds, A., 1994. The global learning organization. McGraw-Hill.

Mumford, A., 1991. Individual and organizational learning–the pursuit of change. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 23(6).

O’Brien, R., 1998. An overview of the methodological approach of action research.

Pedler, M. ed., 2011. Action learning in practice. Gower Publishing, Ltd.

Revans, R.W., 1982. What is action learning? Journal of management development, 1(3), pp.64-75.

Schwandt, D. and Marquardt, M.J., 1999. Organizational learning. CRC Press.

Susman, G., 1983. Action research: a sociotechnical systems perspective. Beyond method:
Strategies for social research, 95, p.113.

Winter, R., 1989. Learning from experience: Principles and practice in action-research. Falmer Pr.

Yeo, R.K. and Marquardt, M.J., 2015. (Re) Interpreting action, learning, and experience:
integrating action learning and experiential learning for HRD. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 26(1), pp.81-107.

22