I first became a member of an action learning set about ten years ago when I was a manager in a London public library service. I was not long in post and part of the senior management team. The head of service suggested I might join a set though, curiously, didn’t say much about what was involved. I decided to have a go and had the good fortune to become the member of a set facilitated by Roger Gaunt who has contributed greatly to the development of the counselling model of action learning (of which more later).

So began for me an exciting time of learning. I was greatly helped to undertake that job and subsequent work, I increased my self awareness and confidence, developed many skills, and gained new insights into how groups can work.

"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. The process helps us to take an active stance towards life and helps to overcome the tendency to think, feel and be passive towards the pressures of life." (1)

Action learning was initially developed by Reg Revans who perceived that managers can effectively work together to tackle the real problems they experience, rather restricting their learning to considering hypothetical examples. He made a useful distinction between "puzzles" for which a right answer can be found and "problems" for which there is no single solution or one way forward. (2) Action learning is a tool to resolve problems not puzzles.

Action learning has been further developed so that today the term describes a range of activity, which however shares much common ground. It is used for organisational and management development, in higher education, to support chief executives, within and without organisations and is of use to anyone, not only managers.

This article sets out to give an overview and will focus on the counselling model with which I am familiar and have been involved with for over ten years, initially as a set member and since also as a set facilitator and trainer of set facilitators.

An action learning set comprises of 4-7 people. These may be from the same organisation or from different organisations. The set may or may not be facilitated by a set advisor. A set may start out with a facilitator, and over time and as the skills within the group develop, become self facilitating.

It meets regularly, for a half day or whole day every four or six weeks, though there are other successful patterns of organising meetings. Some sets will provide an opportunity at each set meeting for each set member to work on the particular project / problem they have contracted to explore. Other sets will, each time they meet, negotiate that opportunity for one or more, but not all participants. If it is the latter, over time each person will have the chance to present and work with an issue deriving from their current work experience / environment.

Whichever way the set works, a commitment to attend each meeting will be required. Sets usually contract to meet for a number of months. Some then go on to negotiate further meetings. Regularly meeting the same group of people to work in this way, can reduce stress and anxiety, and actual or felt isolation.

Underpinning action learning is a belief in experiential learning. Kolb’s learning cycle (3), suggests we can use our experiences as a source of learning and development. The set itself provides the opportunity for describing our experience, reflecting upon it, deliberating upon and deciding on options for action. Action taken as a result can then be reviewed at the next set meeting.

To enable set members to feel fully able to use the time and space (the opportunity to present their problem to the rest of the set) available, some ground rules are negotiated. Agreeing confidentiality encourages trust to develop and for it to become possible to safely map my own ignorance (Revans suggested that people start to learn with and from each other when they discover that no-one knows the answer and there is an obligation to find one).

One aspect of action learning which makes it different from other types of group activity is that only one set member is in focus at a time. The rest of the set attentively listen and question the presenter using counselling skills. Advice is not given except on the infrequent occasions it is asked for by the presenter. The intention is to leave ownership of the problem with the presenter.

It is likely that the presenter’s view of their problem will change during the session, enabling them to deliberate on what they wish to do to solve or manage the problem. ‘I wanted to work out why I was getting stuck with implementing this new policy - now I see that the nature of my relationships with some of the other key people is getting in the way - I shall now try this approach’.

Also, frequently, the perception of other set members about their own similar situations will be illuminated. Most usefully set members will have a similar level of experience e.g. all first line supervisors or all senior managers, though they may come from different organisations and departments.

The problem to be tackled will depend on the type of set. Members of some sets will have negotiated with their organisation/manager a specific project to bring, others will have a group project to work on though the work undertaken in the set will be specific to each individuals contribution to the project. Some will place an emphasis on a task, others on personal reflection.

My experience has been using the counselling model. As a set member my starting point when taking the space has varied. Sometimes it was ‘this happened, I am not happy, what went on?, other times ‘this is scheduled to happen, I feel uneasy, can I explore and work out what I want to do?’ and occasionally ‘I feel confused though I’m not sure what the problem is’. I benefited from the experience brought by the others that became apparent from their pertinent questions and generally came away with insight as to how to move forward with a problem.

When the trust develops within a set it becomes possible to safely admit need (4). This can result in members having courage to confront real or underlying issues at work. As hinted at above, the presenter may become aware of their contribution to the problem.

To give a couple of personal examples, I learnt how I often held back from putting my views in case ‘I hadn’t got it right’ and I became aware of how (and probably why) I behaved differently with men and with women and how this was affecting how I worked with colleagues.

For an action learning set to work successfully it is likely that the set will engage in process comment and feedback. When process (that is the feelings, interactions, relationships, unvoiced assumptions) is addressed, the group is probably more likely to experience trust and mutual support.

I have learnt much from working with group process. Feedback from others enabled me to take back into the workplace insight which I could readily apply e.g. improving how I chaired a regular staff meeting

Action learning encourages the use of counselling skills: active listening, empathy, challenging etc. The counselling model places a particular emphasis on their value, enabling participants to practise, and where necessary learn these skills. For many people, especially senior staff who are constantly asked for advice and direction, this is not always easy.

For me the value and power of these skills was highlighted in the set. For example learning how to frame open questions and how to challenge others in a constructive manner. The use of such skills proved invaluable e.g. when managing staff.

When there is a facilitator, their role is to secure an agreed contract and groundrules between set members, model (initially) counselling skills and manage the group process. The set facilitator does not bring their own problems to the set.

As stated above, my experience is of the counselling model of action learning. Writing this article has lead me to more consciously think through how it differs from other models.

I think for me there are several significant characteristics of this model as I have experience of it. One is that the time available to the set is not divided up between all the set members equally. At the beginning bids for space were invited. I learnt that I am not always comfortable negotiating for my needs to be met and began to improve by having to negotiate in the set if I was to have space.

Generally the sets, I have been a member of both facilitated and self facilitating sets, met for a half day of 2 to 3 hours. This meant that there was the potential for one person to look at an issue in considerable depth, though only ever to the level which the presenter was comfortable with.

Another characteristic is the importance placed on group process work, during or at the end of the meeting. The following two examples are offered to try to clarify what I mean.

The first relates to a developmental experience in a set. At the end of one set meeting we had some process time. The facilitator invited us to say what we felt we had contributed to assist the presenter. I challenged the facilitator by saying I felt that I had not had a chance to help the presenter because the facilitator was too active in making interventions. The facilitator considered my statement and disagreed. At first I was taken aback then realised that was the truth. I had lacked courage because I was not sure I would ask the ‘right’ question. A truth for me that was significant to learn.

The other example is of a different nature. Hearing the story of the presenter I was in touch with powerful feelings about a personal situation that I could directly relate to my behaviour at work. I had the opportunity to express these feelings during the process time and began to recognise how I take all of me to work including my feelings.

I think process work is probably enabled by having a facilitator. In this model an additional role of the facilitator, is to contain the level of uncertainty and anxiety which is likely to be present as the group works in a way which seems unfamiliar.

A further characteristic is the nature of the issues brought. Generally they will be a work situation or problem held by one member of the set. However it could be that it is something from the personal agenda of a set member. The silence at the beginning of a set when bids for space are invited enable reflection. "Do I have an issue I need to discuss?"

It will be apparent from the above that action learning helps personal and management development. Action learning programmes are also used in many organisations to assist organisational development. Organisations staffed by people who are able to take responsibility for their own learning and to work to resolve issues / problems are more likely to successfully achieve useful change.

I offered to write this article because I am an enthusiast for this method of problem solving and development. I should like more people to know about it and have the opportunity to try it out.

I see it as having potential to be useful for anyone who works with people, especially those who supervise or manage others. However it is not the place to take problems which are purely task based e.g. the best method of keeping financial accounts - a puzzle rather than a problem. It should be noted that some people do not find membership of an action learning set suits them.

I am also be interested to learn from your experiences of other types of action learning.

I was introduced to action learning by the late Roger Gaunt who was then the Management Development Officer for GLES now the Greater London Employers Association. Parts of this article draws on an unpublished paper written by him.

1. McGill, Ian & Beaty, Liz Action learning: a guide for professional, management and educational development, 2nd ed., Kogan Page, 1995

2. Weinstein, Krystyna Action learning: a journey in discovery and development, Harper Collins, 1995

3. Kolb, David Experiential learning, Prentice Hall, 1984

4. Gaunt, Roger Personal and group development for managers: an integrated approach through action learning, Longman, 1991

June Whetherly

Reprinted in Action Learning News, Vol 21, No1, January 2002 (Journal of International Foundation for Action Learning