I was part way through Krystyna Weinstein’s book ‘Action learning’, Harper Collins, 1995 when I met the author for the first time. We quickly identified a key issue we differed on namely what is action learning. Krystyna generously suggested I write on the topic from my perspective. This article puts forward my reasons for disagreeing with her viewpoint.

It is based on my experience of being in a set and facilitating sets. To give some context I was first introduced to action learning when fairly newly appointed as a manager in the senior management team of a local government department comprising about 220 people.

And so to the differences. Krystyna states that ‘When only one member (assuming six as the ideal) has time to tell their story, the others face a wait of up to five months before their turn. Strictly speaking this is not action learning: there is no action to be revisited and learnt from with the help of the set.’ (P109). Later she suggests that for real action learning to take place there needs to be a project to keep the action and the learning focused. (P129) I believe my experience contradicts these viewpoints.

Initially I was in a set of five or six people, from different local authorities and different services, with a facilitator. We met monthly and usually only one person had ‘space’, though sometimes there might be time for two. We were not project based. Each session we negotiated for the space and I seem to recall that one person did not present an issue in all of the two or three years we met.

Why do I therefore insist that my experience was action learning? I believe it was in several ways as follows:

Using the "Counselling Skills" required to be part of such a set. Because the group actively processed the session it was possible to give and receive feedback on what had been useful and what not. For example for me learning how to frame open questions and how to challenge has proved invaluable.

"Agreeing the boundaries". I had not appreciated until engaging in action learning the significance and potential of negotiating, agreeing and abiding by a contract such as confidentiality, using ‘I’ language, engaging in process.

"Negotiating space" for myself in the set. 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. I can vividly remember one set when I desperately wanted time and successfully negotiated it.

"How groups work". Our set actively processed not only what came up for each of us by hearing another's story but also how the set functioned. A powerful personal example was when I challenged the facilitator by saying I felt that I had not had a chance to help the issue holder because the facilitator was too active. The facilitator unhurriedly 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. It turned out to be a truth for me that was significant to learn.

"Who am I?" As the above suggests I learnt more about myself in certain situations. Two examples are how I relate to authority figures as for me represented by the set facilitator and how I behave in groups of this size. Both of which proved significant in my development as a manager (and as a person). The set I was in was one in which it was possible for me to expose my vulnerability and feel safe to admit my need for help. As a result often, usually (though not exclusively) when I was presenting an issue, I learnt things about myself at a much more profound level.

"Solving problems / exploring issues". In addition, by actually taking space, I usually moved on in my learning about particular issues or problems. My starting point 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’. The set did not next time check out at any length whether I had progressed, responsibility for my own learning rested with me, though I could negotiate with the set to work with me in this way if required. (In the context of the topic of this article, the action in relation to the problem usually took place outside of the set.)

I benefited from the experience brought by the others that became apparent from their pertinent questions. On relevant occasions techniques such as the ‘empty chair’ of Gestalt were effectively used. I recall exploring having a ‘conversation’ with a significant person in this way that lead to a new understanding. This felt like the ‘learning by doing’ Jean Lawrence describes. (Weinstein, p29)

"Process". Probably the most important learning for me was and is processing the experience of being in the set. Several examples have already been given above. One of a different nature occurred in the first set meeting I attended, in which another member took the space. Hearing their story I was in touch with powerful and previously unidentified feelings about a personal situation that I could directly relate to my behaviour at work. I had the opportunity to express these feelings during process time at the end of the set and began to fully recognise how I take all of me to work including my feelings. I believe I behave similarly in the set to other situations and therefore such learning from process is relevant to my work / being a person.

Summary

I have found it useful to reflect on my experiences. I am convinced I have been in an action learning set. Certainly I did a lot of learning in, and outside of, the set which it felt to me was directly linked with action.

Questions

However I have questions outstanding some of which are as follows. Has my experience of this type of action learning been such a positive one because of my preferences for learning? (I tend towards being a reflector / theorist (Honey & Mumford) and take a lot from process work, though I often find it uncomfortable.) Who has a need to use programmes using projects? (Managers / organisation to try to justify costs by showing a direct relevance to the work / keep some control?) Are issue rather than project based sets more suited to the senior executive or of use to anyone? Do issue based sets encourage the individual to take greater responsibility for her / his learning?

June Whetherly

14.8.95

Published in Action Learning News : the newsletter of the International Foundation for Action Learning, Vol 14, No 3, Sept 1995, 5-7