Creating a transformatory learning process: The …portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/ppme/NEW APLP Creating a... · Web viewLearning needs to take place/ be linked to the workplace experiences

Creating a transformatory learning process: The struggle between Dream and Reality

SNV Advisory Practice Leadership Programme methodology development

Hettie WaltersLead coach APLP

Wageningen International

Table of ContentsTable of Contents 2

Introduction 3

The structure of this paper 3

SNV Netherlands Development Organisation 3Learning mission 4APLP and the learning mission 4

The APLP programme 5The theory on learning informing the programme 5The conceptual framework of the APLP 5Methodology in practice 7Coaching and reflection 8Face to Face workshops 9

Reality check 10Coaches and coaching 10

Coherence in vision, understanding and expectations 11Role of coaches in the programme 12How learning was going to take place 13Performance of LS and interventions by coaches 13Contracting process during the first face to face session 15

Participation in the programme 16Availability and presence 16Connectivity 17Understanding the vision of the programme and using its potential 17Openness and trust for writing 17

Embedding APLP in the organisation 18

Community of learning of coaches 19

The struggle between dream and reality: 19

The consolidation and evaluation of the APLP process and outcomes 21Concluding words 22

APLP methodology, Hettie Walters,5/6/2023 2

Introduction

This paper discusses the methodology1 that was developed in and for the Advisiory Practice and Leadership Programme (APLP) of SNV Dutch Development Organisation. However as the title indicates there were quite some difficulties in the confrontation between the dream: the vision that informed the programme, the manner in which it was translated into the design of the programme, and the reality of its execution. Participants, coaches and the wider organisation found it difficult to use and shape the programme in such a manner that it corresponded to the dream and could realise its objectives. The intention of this paper is to analyse what happened when dream met reality and to draw out some lessons for future organizational learning programmes that intend to promote true and deep learning by participants through reflection and action learning so that they become better at doing their job.

The structure of this paperThis paper will first introduce you to SNV Netherlands Development Organisation for the reader to be able to place the experience in the organizational context.Then the conceptual background, the theories on learning and the vision informing the programme will be discussed (the methodology). How these ideas where translated in the actual design of the programme will then be presented. In a following part of this paper some of the main tensions in the programme will be analysed for the effect they had on the shaping and implementation of the methodology. In a last chapter lessons learned will be drawn out for future methodology development and learning programme implementation.

SNV Netherlands Development Organisation

The mission of SNV Netherlands Development Organisation is the following: “SNV is dedicated to a society where all people enjoy the freedom to pursue their own sustainable development. Advisors contribute to this by strengthening the capacities of local organisations.”

“The fight against poverty needs strong organisations that serve the interests of the poor and are able to change the structures that sustain poverty. SNV works with organisations that operate at district and provincial level and function as linking pins between national policies and frameworks and the people living in towns and communities. Its clients include private, governmental and civil society organisations.”

These organisations are served by locally present teams of national and international experts. The added value is that the experts combine their thematic expertise with skills organisational development, partnership building and institutional strengthening.

1 Methodology: A comprehensive vision and theory of how to carry out research or capacity building programmes or achieve a common purpose often using several methods coherent with the vision and theory..? Based on David A. Kolb, Experiential Learning, Experiences as the Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1984.


To give greater focus to its capacity development support, SNV has identified practice areas. These practice areas are regional in scope, transcend the country level, and allow SNV to have an impact in countries where it does not run a country programme. Practice areas are not static. They are regularly being re-evaluated in light of their contribution to, for example, the Millennium Development Goals.

In most regions SNV has activities in the following practice areas: Market Access for the Poor Responsive and Accountable Local Government Collaborative Forest Management Sustainable Tourism

Other practice areas are specific to a single region including Biogas in Asia Water Management in Latin America Gender in West and Central Africa Dry-land Management in West and Central Africa

SNV works in 30 countries and has a professional staff of advisors and management of of 800 +SNV has adopted a regional approach to its operations in Asia, the Balkans, Latin America, West Africa, and East and Southern Africa. Advisors work with added opportunities for cross border economies of scale, synergy and connection as poverty has no respect for historical boundaries.The approach to capacity development is that initiatives should be rooted in the local society. Local organisations own and lead the processes; SNV is challenging, advising, coaching, facilitating and supporting.

Learning missionSNV has defined the following learning mission: “To become a responsive, productive and flexible organisation, we will establish a culture of individual and collaborative learning that continuously nurtures and makes full use of SNV’s potential”.

APLP and the learning missionIn the spirit of this mission, the Advisory Practice Leadership Programme was designed to help Advisors and Portfolio Coordinators from all over the world learn effectively from and with each other and truly make a difference to clients. It is one of many initiatives that will contribute to SNV’s learning mission over the next few years.

The objective of the programme was that participants would be leaders of advisory practice and learning processes in their work teams, with clients and colleagues in the wider development context. They would develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes (mindsets) required for excellence in practice and for promoting learning by those with whom they work and hope to influence in the fight against poverty.

APLP was a programme which intended contributing to the quality of the services SNV is providing to its clients and to improving the quality and learning capacity of its own organisation. In this learning programme 30 advisors and 30 Portfolio Coordinators take part.


SNV’s experience before the start of the APLP programme had led to the following considerations:

Learning is a crucial challenge in an organisation that is reinventing itself Learning is different from training Learning needs to take place/ be linked to the workplace experiences Learning results in different behaviour, relations and actions Learning is a self-led process by learners

These considerations informed the way the APLP methodology took shape over time. There were of course also other considerations that shaped some of the very important choices that were made for the programme.The most important one being that the programme would be a blended learning programme lasting one year, that would combine using an on-line learning platform ( campus) to facilitate the learning set’s action learning and coaching with the availability of some online, off the shelf learning modules. This virtual environment would be completed by two face two face meetings. Financial considerations did inform the choice for the blended learning programme but also the possibility that a wider group of non-direct participants could benefit from the some of the learning tools and products.

The APLP programmeThe APLP was a programme that intended to improve the quality of senior and medium level advisors and of a group of portfolio coordinators who play medium level management and leadership roles.

The programme had from the early days of its conception a vision that for SNV staff to become better advisors, and leaders of capacity building programmes SNV staff need to learn in their action and from their action by becoming experienced ‘reflectors’ able to question their :

Assumptions ( mindsets) Attitudes Behaviour And consequently change their behaviour, actions, relationships and

assumptions

The theory on learning informing the programmeThe conceptual understanding of learning that underpinned the APLP was inspired by Kolb2 and Mumford’s thoughts on adult’s learning mainly from experiences through a reflective process in which ‘new’ theory is generated,

The conceptual framework of the APLP

First of all the programme’s conceptual framework was informed by ideas of how learning takes place by adults and how adults learn in order to become better performing in their jobs and how they can consequently help the organisation in which they are 2 For literature reference see bibliography at the end of this paper.


working to improve learning. This implies contributing to learning by colleagues, teams and partners.

The APLP methodology is grounded in the theories of learning of several authors and researchers: Kolb 3 postulates that adults learn best when the learning experience is based on concrete experiences they have in their personal and professional lives. They should be able to translate these experiences through reflection and analysis into more abstract and generalised conclusions which can then become the basis for translated proposals for change through experimentation. Schön, Argyris, Marsick and Senge’s ideas on how learning happens in organisations and by individuals through a reflection process on espoused theories and theories in action. These authors distinguish several layers of learning like single, double and triple loop learning. Using reflection to question the premises behind the actions and behaviour is critical in these types of learning.

Revans in his work on Action Learning represented learning in an equation. Knowledge which already exists, which is already written down in books, theories and concepts with which students can, if you like, be "programmed" and on which much of the learning in traditional education focuses Reg Revans called this"P", for programmed knowledge. Revans accepts that "P" is an essential ingredient of learning, but feels it to be insufficient. He believes that there is an equally important component, one which has tended to be squeezed out by traditional educational methods. This he calls "Q" for Questioning Insight. If learning is represented by "L", this gives the equation L = P + Q Concepts and theory are important, but in Action Learning the emphasis is on applying them. And so it is on "Q" that Revans focuses - on the questions which need to be asked and the experience which is waiting to be acquired. For Revans, the ability to ask the right questions at the right time and take action is at the heart of Action Learning.

For learning to happen many authors point to the importance of developing reflection skills:“A crucial element in applying higher-order thinking skills is the use of reflection on what’s being learned—how it matches previous experience, what’s unique or unusual, how it fits into the bigger picture, and why it’s important. The development of the ability to ask not just the what questions, but also the how and why and why-does-it-matter questions is the purpose of critical reflection. Instructors who regularly make their thinking visible, consistently ask the how, why and so what questions, and then challenge their students to generate these questions themselves are providing the scaffolding to aid students in developing their critical reflection abilities. Critical reflection is also a core element in significant individual and organizational learning, and plays a crucial role in personal or professional change and growth.”4

Daudelin5 provides a definition of reflection that explicitly captures its relation to learning, "Reflection is the process of stepping back from an experience to ponder, carefully and persistently, its meaning to the self through the development of inferences; learning is the creation of meaning from past or current events that serves as a guide for future behaviour."

3 Based on David A. Kolb, Experiential Learning, Experiences as the Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1984.4 Stephen D. Brookfield, Developing Critical Thinkers 5 Daudelin, M. W. 1996. Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational Dynamics 24(3): 36-48, pg 39.


This definition suggests that reflection is integral to learning, when learning is defined as making sense of past experience in order to affect and understand future experience.

Reflective practice as a way of doing critical reflection was another key methodological building block Peter Jackson’s6 article gave an orientation on the existing linkages between views on reflection, reflective practice and coaching: “Reflective observation is the most important part of the process from a learning perspective” Reflecting on experience through feedback “leads to making sense of that experience in a new way, leading to deeper understanding”. “A constructivist approach that “nurture(s) professionals through reflection, enquiry and creative action”.

Notions developed by Schön7 and Argyris8 see reflection on action and reflection in action and model one and model two learning as the foundation of promoting reflective practice as an important cornerstone in any professional learning process.

The methodology of the programme intended to engage participants in a process in which they were given the opportunity to learn to reflect on their work experiences and on their thoughts and feelings in and about these experiences in order to be able to. For this the programme methodology used three elements: reflection, action learning and coaching. Coaching is intended to help the participants in their reflection process through Reflecting back, Reframing and Questioning. Action Learning was the approach to be used by participants defining their learning needs, trying out or applying new behaviour and then sharing the experiences and the insights gained with the Learning set participants and receiving their feedback.The learning process should be embedded in a continuous reflection on and in the action, by reflective journaling, writing, and preparing and contributing to discussions

Methodology in practice The above mentioned conceptual sources of inspiration informed the methodology that was developed before but mainly during the execution of the APLP. The main idea being: Learning of adults takes place by reflection on experiences for which through an action learning approach conditions are created. Action Learning will allow participants to:

define their learning needs, create experimental situations in which they can try out new behaviour, actions and

relationships which is also orientated by new knowledge (P) and through (peer) coaching and reflective writing strengthen their reflection skills enabling

them to ultimately review assumptions, behaviour, actions and relations.

6 Peter Jackson, Understanding the experience of experience: a practical model of reflective practice for Coaching, International Journal for Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, Volume 2, No. 1, spring 20047 Donald A. Schön, Educating the Reflective Practitioner,Jossey-Bass, 1987, San Francisco8 Liana Anderson,


The Action learning approach implied that participants were grouped in so-called Learning Sets9 of 6 participants each. These sets were constituted in as diverse range of participants as possible. The only restriction was linked to the time zones, no more than three time zones were possible ( including the location of the coach) in order for synchronous communication (chats) to be possible.

Learning Sets were crucial in the concept of Action Learning and reflective practice. The LS are the, in this case mainly virtual, community of learners. The role of the community of learners is to become mentors to each other, learning with and through each other. The Learning Sets all had their own space on a learning campus10 including discussion space, library/resources, chat, archive, pinboard, messages etc. Each LS was facilitated and coached by an action learning coach.

The role of the action learning coach is to facilitate the work of the LS by supporting the group to define learning objectives at the individual and the LS

level support the group in setting the ‘rules of the game’ supporting the group in using and navigating the campus enabling the group to reflect on group processes creating safety for individual members to explore sensitive issues taking the group beyond superficial analysis keeping the group focused on the individual presenter enabling the group to draw out general lessons 11

Coaches had several other roles next to the learning set facilitation like: facilitating and design of f2f meetings, coaching individuals, searching adequate knowledge inputs, and in some cases counseling.

Coaching and reflectionThrough coaching of individuals and facilitation of learning sets, coaches would introduce participants to some basic inquiry methods at the personal reflection level as well as in their organizational practice12. It was intended that participants gain skills in reflection in the action as well as on the action. Reflecting in action means to have the ability to reflect “in the action” on what is happening, why it is happening, how does it relate to my espoused theory to what I believed the situation and my behaviour to be. Action learning in the programme did not only envisage participants to identify learning situations, experiment with new behaviour, search for new sources of information relevant to the learning challenge, reflect on it afterwards using some reflective questions but also to learn and strengthen the capacity to reflect “in action” To develop a continuous meta level reflection process.

Strengthening the reflective practice skills of participants was promoted by introducing reflective questions like:9 The term Learning Set is closely linked to the work of Reg Revans who developed Action Learning . He recognized through his work in companies ( Coal board and Health Institutions) that managers learn from each other if enabled to share their experiences, and are able to solve organizational problems if brought together with a group of people with diverse experience and backgrounds.10 INWENT Global Campus 11 Based on http://www.actionlearningassociates.co.uk/sets.html12 See annex 1


What happened? Why has it happened? What have I done? What where my assumptions? What has changed? What went well, not so well and why?

Participants reflective capacity was also supported by the introduction of peer coaching methods13.

Face to Face workshopsIn the programme which mainly used virtual spaces, two face to face meetings were planned, one at the start and one in the middle of the process. The face to face meetings were first and foremost seen as moments in the process where a global learning community, with a shared “learning language and vision” could be created. It intended to facilitate exchange of experiences, insights, valuable tools and instruments and policy information across the continents and regions. The objectives of the face to face workshops were globally:First face to face

Introduce participants to the methodology of the programme, its approach, the work processes, and methods and tools

Create the learning sets and assign coaches to each learning set Introduce some essential methods that would be helpful in the programme Introduce and familiarise participants with campus

Second face to face: Reflection on the process so far Explore good practices and seek inspiration to re-engage with the action

learning-reflection process Re-energise and motivate the Learning Sets processes Create space for exchange between Learning Sets on topics of interest. Offer some knowledge on approaches that are important for SNV ( Human

Development Approach) Review Outcome Mapping and use of Campus: effectiveness, use, problems,

improvements

Each of the meetings was intended to last 5 days but the second face to face meeting also used the Sunday as a preparatory day. A consolidation workshop at the end of the programme with a selected group of participants as representatives was also foreseen.The first face to face (f2f) meeting had a complicated programme. It envisaged to introduce the participants to all the basic elements of the APLP approach: reflection, action learning, coaching. At the end of the first f2f the Learning Sets had to be established and contractualisation had to have started, learning objectives needed to have been identified, some group familiarisation work needed to be done etc. Furthermore participants and coaches needed familiarisation with the campus, which was to be the main medium in which the learning activities were embedded. The big paradox being that through a workshop that would look to participants very much like a ‘training setting’ we needed to introduce and motivate participants to the APLP ‘learning

13 See annex 2


approach’. That this was not without difficulties is evident. The coaches also played the role of facilitators of the f2f which had the risk of them being seen first of all as trainers and only later on as coaches with a coaching approach. The Learning Sets that were established, were intentionally very diverse. The idea being that forming groups that were too homogeneous in thematic/ practice area focus or regional constitution would make them to be ‘more of the same’ in terms of already existing groups in SNV. This would have the risk of the participants not being able to acquire new learning practices and develop reflective and action learning practices. The Learning Sets were constituted with participants from three ‘time zones’14because otherwise communication across time zones would be too difficult, and a great variety of practice areas and languages.The integration of French and Portuguese speaking participants in English speaking Learning Sets was a problem that caused communication and participation problems, often hindering their effective participation in the programme.The main result of the first face to face workshop was as some participants said:

“I now understand that I am in a learning programme and not a training! John Mlay Songtaba

“Upon reflection I realise that during the first face-to-face meeting in Bad Honnef, my learning questions became clearer and sharper, deeper and more focused, thanks to the coaching conversations with Ingrid, my coach”. Phomolo Akpapo

“At the end of this session, I was conscious that it is the beginning of new experience, and I was aware that English can be a high limit. My participation was so less during the session, I concentred my efforts on listened and understand and I spoke mainly within subgroup and when each participant must say something” Faoussatou , Freedom

Reality checkIn this paragraph of the paper the reality of the execution of the programme will be compared with the intentions which shaped its methodology and particularly how reality interfered with the dream as of course could have been expected.

Coaches and coachingCrucial in the implementation of this learning programme were the coaches. The programme had been envisaged and designed by a group small group of people but giving the programme hart and soul by creating the action learning process and stimulation of reflective practice depended on the coaches. Coaches were selected through a selection process that started too late. A set of criteria was established and through different channels CV’s of possible coaches were collected. At the moment of selection there was no coach who replied to all the criteria that were mentioned in the list of criteria.

Therefore a combination of competencies in the group of coaches became important. These were:

14 Asia, East Africa and the Balkans, West Africa, Latin America and the USA


o Experience in one or more of the Practice Areas. These could be Organisational Change and Development, Decentralisation/ Local Government, Private Sector Development, Natural Resource Management, Gender or combinations of these

o Experience in Leadership development programmeso Experience in Coaching preferably having used e- coachingo Have an active consultancy practice themselveso Have a practice or affiliation to reflective practice, action learning o Having gone through shifts in professional and/ or personal life

We found no coaches that had on-line coaching experience and most of the coaches fulfil 3 to 4 of the above mentioned criteria. In the group of coaches selected all the criteria but the e-coaching were represented. All continents were also represented, though it must be noted that American and German nationals are most represented. There are three coaches and the lead coach with experience of SNV as consultant in SNV capacity –building. After the initial selection we were still some coaches short so some more cv’s were collected and finally the group of 10 coaches was complete.The first coaches workshop we missed 3 coaches and although these coaches were later briefed in separate sessions this did not fill the gap of having everybody informed and starting to design the programme with the same level of knowledge and information.

Coherence in vision, understanding and expectations In hindsight an important shortcoming of the coaches preparatory workshop was that we did not pay sufficient attention to the understanding (based on experiences) that everybody in the group of coaches had of Action Learning, Reflective practice, Coaching and Peer coaching ( not talked about at all). These issues were discussed but rather superficially and later in the process it turned out that everybody did have different experiences, interpretations, expectations linked to an understanding of Action Learning and of coaching. The main difference between coaches was that some understood AL as a well defined method of organisational learning within a context of organisational sponsorship based on Reg Revans’ model while others were not familiar with this method and brought in experiences of participatory research and participatory training methodology and based their work with the LS on these experiences. A consequence was that it took the whole team of coaches quite some time to come to a common understanding about what Action Learning and coaching meant in the context of the APLP programme. The review meeting showed that in coaching certain communication styles/ patters have emerged like: challenging, probing, comforting, encouraging, structuring, caring, looking at perceptions and underlying assumptions, structuring, being a sounding board etc.At the same time participants do ask for certain types of communication that coaches did not feel comfortable with in the context of this programme and their understanding of what coaching does or does not involve: advice giving, giving assignments, giving people feedback as in appreciation have I done this right or not. The coaches experience some tensions around these requests.Some problems that came up due to this diverse understanding were related to:


Role of coaches in the programme In a paper15 Ingrid Richter one of the coaches wrote for the coaches review meeting she refers to the schools of thought on Action Learning, and links the understanding of and developing manner of playing the role as coaches to different roles to be played by coaches in relation to these schools of Action Learning. Most coaches were consciously or not shifting position between the experiential school16 in which coaches use questions to drive learning, but they also place more emphasis on personal development and on strategies for reflection in order to draw out lessons learned and the Scientific School which tends towards emphasizing the ability of peers to learn on their own without much help or intervention from learning coaches. This is grounded in the belief that learning coaches inevitably either “teach” too much or otherwise induce dependence. This school leads to a rather ‘hands of’ approach by coaches in the LS activities. A last school being the critical reflection school where coaches focus on asking questions and challenge individual, organisational and societal assumptions. The schools lead to different ‘roles/ tasks’ for coaches. Ingrid distinguishes a managerial role, a coaching role, a communication role and a process role. She also describes the shifting (“wavering”) she experienced herself between these roles. A process that was very recognizable for all the coaches. While developing the methodology we had not made our understanding of coaching and action learning very explicit, or well (narrowly) defined, this meant that there was ample room for wavering.

Key Roles Examples of Tasks

Managerial RoleThis role involves managing and organizing key activities of the team

The facilitator might: Arrange meeting times and venues Coordinate timeframes and schedules Promote flow of information between

team meetings Manage the time of the team Suggest resources which might be used

to assist team members to use in completing their projects

Coaching RoleThis role involves assisting teams to use their experiences to learn: primarily through prompting teams to reflect.

The facilitator might: Encourage participants to analyse their

experiences rather than to simply describe them

Prompt participants to reflect on their experiences by asking probing questions

Promote a positive attitude to learning and self-directed inquiry

Attempt to develop a challenging learning environment in which team members are encouraged to ask questions of others, and justify their

15 Ingrid Richter. Riding the Action Learning See Saw:Early Reflections on Coaching in SNV’s APLP Programme, April 2005

16 See annex for an overview of the approaches in Action Learning


own personal perspectives and approaches.

Communication RoleThis role involves encouraging team members to interact in effective ways taking particular account of the various stages of the team’s development.

The facilitator might: Encourage social interaction within the

team and build team member motivation

Develop specific strategies to promote effective interaction based on the team’s stage of development

Facilitate team building and manage conflict as it occurs within the group

Encourage the team to develop strategies for dealing with conflict.

Process RoleThis role involves assisting team to understand and appreciate the action learning process.

The facilitator might: “workshop” the action learning process build understanding of the action

learning process, and the sources of information and evidence which might be used

help the team to monitor its progress clarify process and procedures

associated with each “player” in the action learning process (facilitator, team member, partner, sponsor).

How learning was going to take place There was some confusion about the role of action learning, campus use and coaching as methods in the learning process. At first there was a tendency to expect everything in terms of learning from the coaching sessions ( individually as well as in the LS), then from the use of the campus tools (discussion, resources, chats) and only later came the awareness that the actual learning experiences stem from experimenting in ‘the real world’ with colleagues, and clients and through doing research, testing, looking for information from resource persons etc. upon which reflection can take place in the Learning Set and in individual coaching. The campus can then be used by the LS as the vehicle for the sharing, giving feedback, questioning of the experiences and the formulation of further issues for learning.

Performance of LS and interventions by coaches The first months of the programme after the first f2f we (coaches and participants) encountered many constraints which will be discussed in more detail below. A consequence of these constraints was that there were hardly any LS meetings (synchronous) where more than 50% of the group was present. This was very detrimental to the learning process in the community of learning. The a-synchronous activities that depended on writing also did not develop well. Coaches started becoming very anxious about the quality of the learning process and tried out stimulating the LS


and individual participants in various manners in which their roles shifted between process support, managerial, coaching and communication as indicated in the table above by Ingrid Richter.

The coaches review meeting (April 2005) clearly established that the programme faced different initial difficulties and constraints The not so smooth process in the learning sets had led to a situation in which the discussions in the learning sets were even after some months still mainly on the definition of learning objectives (outcome challenges) and the finalization of the outcome mapping logic we used for monitoring the learning process. It became like a tunnel vision and divorced from the reality of their work situations. From the notes of this meeting:

Reflection as a core process can be deepened. There seems to be quite some “chatting” taking place, an exchange on the practical level. Coaches can start to work with participants on deepening the reflection process, to explicitise the “method” of reflection in and on action as a main method in creating a true learning process. A method for reflection was used during the Königswinter and Bad Honnef meetings that can be introduced again in the LS processes. This offers the opportunity to create some rigour in the reflection process, because it implies returning to the same questions, and participants can then come to notice/ become conscious of their patters, and patterns of their co-learners. Coaches making the reflection method more explicit will also help participants in becoming more “capable” learners. It is part of the learning to learn aim of the programme.”17

Strengthening the action learning reflection cycle was also necessary. After the review meeting all coaches reconnected with their learning sets and discussed how participants saw the possibility of working more “in reality” on their learning issues. Reflective questions that can be helpful to participants in order to strengthen their reflective practice were formulated and shared by the coaches with their LS.Some coaches contacted participants more directly by phone or through Skype communication, trying to motivate participants to become more involved in the LS activities.

The upcoming second face to face (2f2f) meeting also engendered a level of awareness in participants that the process was not going well. Coaches discussed how to prepare for the 2f2f . It was decided that participants would need to play a more important role in deciding upon the content and the process of the 2f2f and that everybody needed to prepare a learning journey, preferably in the form of a drawing, that would be the basis for the dialogue in the LS and the two larger groups. The drawing needed to express where the APLP and the individual within it was, how it had arrived at that point (the journey), what were its results, its problems, bottlenecks, insights and new ‘behaviour gained etc.

The difficulties and constraints that participants and coaches encountered were linked to very different issues and some characteristics of SNV. These will now be further discussed.

SNV learning culture and advisory practice

17 Notes of Review meeting by Hettie Walters


One of the stronger statements in the learning strategy of SNV reads: “Learning is not something confined to the courses we attend; it is a question of realising what we have at our fingertips already and sharing it”18. Joint learning on the job, in teams and networks is important for SNV.SNV is an organisation where “being an advisor” is core of the organizational identity. SNV as an organisation as well as many staff members in the organisation have an espoused theory19 of a good advisor as somebody who co-creates empowering client relationships, in which clients have ownership over the advisory relation and the products. The reality however is that many advisors have a theory in use that is that clients are not able to decide on what they need, can’t do a proper problem analysis and will not ask for the service they really need. There is no “equal relationship” and advisors often “tell” their clients what they need. This theory in use is still a remnant from the former “specialist/ expert” role that SNV staff played and the way in which in many countries “Experts” are expected to work and show that they are worth their money. Being able as Edgar Schein20 describes it: To create an advisory/ consultancy relationship as a helping relationship is not yet achieved by many in the organisation.Although the Learning Strategy states otherwise, SNV like many organisations also has a strong mindset that learning means doing a training away from the workplace, or that learning is related to P (programmed) knowledge like in academic studies. New learning initiatives have been set-up in the organisation like the knowledge networks using Dgroups but these do focus very much on the knowledge content ( what in learning) or on making information available (P) to people working in the same knowledge realm. The questioning of practice, behaviour and attitudes as an important basis of learning is not as yet sufficiently embedded in learning practices. This work and learning culture in SNV has had implications for the way participants perceived the programme, how they perceived what and how they were going learn and how ready they were to ‘put themselves’ into question. The expectations of the participants and the coaches of what this programme was going to be about needed harmonization. This harmonization and clarification started during the contracting process in LS in the first face to face meeting, but continued nearly until the end of the programme. SNV’s work and learning culture is also linked to another issue that was important in the APLP programme namely the organizational ownership and anchoring of APLP in SNV . This will be discussed further in a later paragraph.

Contracting process during the first face to face sessionMuch attention was accorded to the process of contractualisation in the learning set questions like the following were asked and discussed:

o Which are our individual learning objectives and learning issues as a set. o How are we going to work together?o How will the learning set coaching and the one on one coaching take place?o How will we shape and use outcome mapping for monitoring and evaluation of

our learning process?o Which are the roles to be played in the learning set?o Which are the responsibilities in the learning set?

Participants really took this process of contractualisation very seriously and one can say that through the contractualisation process participants sharpened their understanding of

18 “SNV, The Learning Strategy, 200519 Donald Schön , Reflective practitioner and Chris Argyris 20 Edgar Schein,


what the APLP really intends to be and how it will shape their learning process. A good part of the participants came with an expectation of a more ‘traditional training programmes with pre-designed deliverables and outcomes’. This perception changed slowly in the course of this first week.The contractualisation process also gave coaches an opportunity to better define for themselves and for their participants what would be their role and how they would interact with the groups and the individual.Some observations from participants about the first face to face and the outcome of the contractualisation are:: “It is only after the first coaching/ contracting session that I understand how little time we have with our coach and that this has as consequence that we are really as a group responsible for our learning process, we will together have to make this learning process work” “The choice and consensus beforehand of the approach to use in learning gave SONGTABA a compass to guide them periodically. The mere fact we had something to check progress against was helpful.” Songtaba LS LH“The clear insight I gained in the first meeting was that nothing in this journey through the jungle of Action Learning and the path called Reflective Practice is clear” Rainbow LS LHBut to show how much of an ongoing process it was:“At some point, almost 4 months from the first F2F meeting, I felt lost. I began to get agitated within myself, that may be I would ‘learn how to learn’ and never know what I learned! I became so worried about the content issues and our lack of focus on these as a learning set, that at some point I lost the vigor with which I started.” Rainbow LS LH

Participation in the programmeAfter the first face to face session the programme and its participants faced several constraints which hindered the effective enfolding and implementation of the programme.

1. Availability and presence2. Connectivity3. Understanding the vision of the programme and using its potential4. Openness and trust when writing5. Effect on LS and role of the coach

Availability and presenceParticipants coming back to their respective work places , were confronted with the existing work load in SNV and work and learning culture. This meant that they themselves needed to be highly motivated and fully understanding the approach to learning in the programme in order to claim and gain time, space, recognition, trust and feedback from their colleagues. This was very often not the case. SNV work often takes the advisors away from the office where they have the connection to their LS. This is sometimes for extended periods of several weeks or for the full week leaving only the weekend for communication with the LS and the coach. SNV’s work culture places absolute priority on answering demands by clients. This often led to participants missing pre-arranged meeting times even with their coaches.


“To make a learning process a success, you need to involve really engaged advisors who meet at least the following criteria; a few years of advisory experience, to create some space at side of their daily work for learning purposes, having an attitude to document their activities and experiences and with an open and critical attitude to question themselves continuously. Within our LS, some of the members where not meeting these standards and this had a negative influence on the functioning of the whole LS. The coach can try to stimulate participation by raising questions, clarifying the principles of APLP and what it means to create a learning attitude. The experience of our LS has shown that the role of the coach is limited.”. Peter, Freedom

ConnectivityConnectivity was a severe problem for a number of the participants who could not establish an internet connection when needed from their office or only through an internet café. In many cases the connectivity speed was so slow that to use the different options in the menu, downloading and uploading documents, looking for new messages etc was a very slow and therefore demotivating process. Some participants faced meeting times well before or after office hours when the offices where not accessible to them outside office hours

“Come back to realities. I met many problems in participating in the different chat meeting because we had no Internet connection in Gao. We had to run after the manager of the only cyber space and I admit that I have tried several times to leave everything had it not been the understanding of the team and of other colleagues/coordinator in Gao.” Simbo, Lead Connection

Understanding the vision of the programme and using its potentialParticipants who were not used to this self-driven and self-governed way of learning did not participate optimally in the programme. Participants did not have a very good understanding of what the programme could offer them in terms of learning opportunities, but also did not understand the full extent of their own responsibilities in shaping their learning process in the first half year of the programme. Every LS did initially have some participants who started reflective writing, working on their outcome mapping and writing contributions to discussions. When they did not receive any or very few reactions to their contributions they stopped.

Openness and trust for writingAn issue that was maybe undervalued in the design of the programme was the difficulty that many of SNV staff have in (reflective) writing. Writing project reports, analyses and such is very difficult but writing a reflective piece and maybe even more importantly be open about yourself in your writing to others, is nearly impossible. The level of vulnerability incurred in such actions is very high and the culture of trust in SNV not high enough. But some did manage and express how important reflective writing became for them:

“One of the most effective techniques which I was able to take with me from APLP is keeping a personal diary and reflecting on it. Although the diary is all tattered and torn


and is filled with all sorts of excerpts (relevant as well as no relevant stuff) both in English and in Nepali, mostly all mixed up,” Sirjana, Lead Connection

The importance of documenting our reflections as a way of reflection and learning; how writing reflections is a great way of looking back on various situations to gain comfort from the successes and wisdom from the failures. Songtaba LS LH

Embedding APLP in the organisationOne of the most important difficulties APLP faced was that it was not anchored or embedded well in the learning and work practices at the ‘field’ level.Organisational sponsorship existed at the global level in the organisation but hardly any director or Regional HR officer was well informed about the programme. They mostly did not understand the learning approach of the programme and they were in general so ‘unaware’ about the different approach taken by the programme that they judged it based on their perceptions of a training approach. This meant that participants as was described before did not feel supported in their learning process, did not think they could take time ‘of work’ for participation in LS activities and also did not feel they received recognition for being a participant in this programme. At field level it was clearly not sexy or not status increasing to be in APLP, as some other knowledge development activities clearly are.APLP was also not well linked to the other activities and initiatives as became very clear in the presentation of the learning journey by the Lasians LS during the second face to face.

“The APLP was not integrated as an instrument of Strategic Label – in others words: the National Director or Regional Director or MT seem not to consider APLP as an important route to follow. When has your National Director asked you about it? Are there any concerns for it? Some of MT asked you about what is new of PC practice after you participated in this Learning opportunity?” Lasians LS LH

“In the first half a year of APLP there had been quite some discussions on the impact of the program. May be there was some impact on individual level but this was not always easy to see and the benefits to portfolio and clients was not seen at all. Several team members considered this lack of visible results as a threat. During the second half of the journey the benefits slowly became more visible. For some advisors the answer was in introducing ‘APLP techniques’ to the portfolio and other boundary partners. Others started to acknowledge that they were growing as an individual person and as an advisor. This recognition of ‘what APLP is about’ increased motivation and the number of chatting and coaching sessions increased substantially for a couple of months. Knowing each other better and recognizing that the learning set was indeed a safe haven also increased frequent use of the facilities.”Rainbow LS LH

We tried to remedy this situation at first by inviting the directors and Regional HR staff to the coaches review meeting, where we gave information about the methodology, its approach, implications for participant involvement etc. Some directors and regional directors came to the consolidation workshop where they experienced APLPs approach to learning in a much more direct manner. This was necessary to create a new basis of understanding for ensuing programmes. Ownership by field level managers of learning programmes has proven crucial for good anchoring of the participants learning


processes in the reality of day to day working and learning. Linking the APLP programme and participants learning objectives to the Personal Results and Development Plans is also very important and needs to be taken up in the selection and contractualisation process. Participation needs to be based on a clear understanding of and agreement about learning objectives of participants by line manager, personnel staff and ideally colleagues in the teams.

Community of learning of coachesFrom the onset of the programme and the first preparatory meeting of coaches it was intended that coaches would not engage with the programme as coaches on their own but as part of a community of learners of coaches. There were two groups of coaches formed based on their involvement in either the Advisors programme or the Leadership (Portfolio coordinators) group. These groups were coached as a group and also individually by the lead coach but they also used the campus to promote learning with and from each other. In the periods before the face to face meetings contacts between coaches were mainly linked to preparation of the programme, defining its objectives, designing programmes, choosing methods and division of responsibilities. In between these sessions coaches supported each other, discussed progress and problems encountered, gave each other peer coaching. One of the insights of the coaches review meeting (4 months after the first face to face) was that the two communities were growing slightly apart, and that it was not easy to communicate across the groups. We then started a system of buddies of coaches across the two groups and had chats in which all coaches participated. This worked well but only to a certain degree. For some coaches the investment in the learning community of coaches became too much time investment. It has to be recognised that all coaches already were investing much more time in the programme than they were being paid for. So some coaches choose to use their time mainly with their learning set and for individual coaching. During the face to face meetings coaches organised reflective session’s everyday before or immediately after the programme. In these meetings the cooperation and mutual support was discussed, how everybody was feeling, which important insights or experiences the day had brought. These meetings were not always easy to organise due to time pressure but working with colleague coaches in this manner strengthened group cohesion and supported the individual coaches when they were having problems or were insecure. The coherence of the approach in the programme as well as the remaining diversity in approaches was the result of these coaches meetings in real life situations as well as on campus and through the reflective writing that coaches also did.

The struggle between dream and reality: APLP during and after the second face to face meetingThe struggle between dream and reality came to a head during the second APLP. This meeting was really a crucial point and a decision making moment: Is APLP worthwhile continuing? Is the methodology combining Reflective Practice, and Action Learning supported by coaching in a blended learning environment feasible? Can this methodology work in the context of SNV work and learning culture, can participants be able to truly lead their own learning processes, can we establish effective LS practices that will promote learning, reflection, peer coaching by all its members? These were but some of the questions we coaches and the programme officer responsible for APLP asked ourselves. The main emphasis in the 2f2f was on reflecting individually and in the


LSs on what had happened, why was the APLP not running well? Was it possible to improve it, was it considered worthwhile to continue, did participants and coaches see rays of hope in making the methodology work? Were there sufficient worthwhile experiences by participants in their workplaces that merit the conclusion that APLP was contributing to their development as Advisors and Portfolio Coordinators. After deep and challenging conversations in the Learning Sets and later in the complete groups, the participants and coaches decided that they did want to continue.The main engagements that participants and coaches took were:

Personal and LS learning objectives need to be linked more clearly and directly to what is actually happening there.

All participants would identify at least one issue that they would like to work on by creating an experimental situation, do reflective writing on, discuss with colleagues/ clients in the workplace and bring in in the Learning Sets

Peer coaching methods were to be used in several learning sets as well as a buddy system in the LS and in some case with participants from other LS working on the same issues.

The emphasis in the learning process would be on the content issues e.g.: what are conflict management techniques? As well as on the process/ how in the learning process: How have I used a method for conflict management in my situation with a client, what have I learned from it?

Participants were expected to claim time, space for participation in the portfolio teams of which they were part.

Participants were also to inform their portfolio teams and line managers more about what they were working on in the APLP.

Participation in the LS activities needed to improve considerably for which all took responsibility ( but only after the holiday period!!).

The Action Learning period of the programme was extended to 15 December after which the consolidation process would start, to allow participants sufficient time to reinvigorate and be involved in learning activities.

The ideas for the consolidation process and the participants tasks involved were discussed so participants new what was expected of them in the last months of the programme, to which they agreed.

With these engagements taken we hoped that the process of learning in APLP would be taking off. This was the case for most LS but in many cases only after a very long summer break period because different participants took holidays early or late in the summer which hindered LS convening again. This is another lesson learned that in SNV for a group to be able to work effectively together it is better to distinguish high and low level activity periods. This to forestall demotivation by participants and coaches about absence from the LS activities by other participants.

The period from September to December turned out to be the most effective in the APLP programme. LSs convened, undertook activities and shared in peer coaching sessions or in self led discussions. Action learning linked to planned activities (experiments) and reflection really started taking place as well as reflective writing.Participants started using certain APLP methods with clients or in their teams and feedback was being given and asked for from clients and colleagues.

However it was also becoming apparent that some participants had dropped out of the process. It was not clear if they were still undertaking learning activities on their own, because the contact had been broken.


The consolidation and evaluation of the APLP process and outcomes

From 15 December onwards participants and coaches had to develop a learning case describing one particular learning experience and their individual learning histories describing the full process, for which some guidelines were provided:

The questions:

The ‘how’ of learning How have I progressed towards the outcomes that I have defined for my own

learning? What has enabled me to learn and progress towards my outcomes? What has hindered my learning and progress towards my outcomes? In case you have diverted from your learning objectives, why and how has this

happened Have the activities undertaken ( face to face, chats, assignments, documents,

action learning and reflection, journaling , individual coaching etc) contributed to the realisation of my learning outcomes.

The ‘what’ of learning On which issues have I gained conceptual understanding and knowledge. Why is this so, what is the importance for my performance as Advisor or Portfolio

Coordinator, why did I learn on these particular issues. Has the increased conceptual understanding and knowledge effectively

influenced how I do things as an advisor or portfolio coordinator? Please give examples.

The underlying methodology Has the underlying methodological and organisational set-up of the APLP i.c.:

blended learning, coaching, action learning and reflective practice in Learning Sets contributed to the realisation of my learning and the learning in my Learning Set if yes why, if not why not?

The future How has or can my experience contribute to the learning of the APLP community

and wider SNV community and my boundary partners? What is my perspective on an ongoing learning process of myself and as an ambassador for ‘APLP style learning’ in SNV?

At the end of the programme participants were asked to discuss their leaning results with some boundary partners. The Learning Sets had to develop a general Learning Set story, which would be the basis of the presentations by ambassadors in the consolidation workshop.

Some quotes from the consolidation pieces show the final results of APLP for participants and the manner in which some methodological elements were important in their learning process:


“In order to achieve a greater awareness of ourselves, our personal development has been a point of attention too. Although we should meet SNV’s expectations with respect to enhancing our leadership and management qualities, we consider that we are developing as “whole persons” (not only in function of SNV leadership requirements). As such, we have to find a balance between our own development challenges, the leader that we want (“called”) to be and the compliance with the norms and guidelines, our organization is providing us.” Lasians LS LH

“The one to one coaching helped me examine and try out what I know, become more critical thinking in processing information and meeting obligations. My first assumption was that consensus and agreement are precondition for learning. It isn’t. But sufficient trust is.

“The LS strength then, which later contributed to its challenges, was the diverse nature of the group. With members who were experienced professionals, and also leaders in their respective teams (with numerous other competing responsibilities) who came from four continents and a number of regions, countries across various time zones, spoke different languages and operated from and on vastly different contexts. This set-up created a wonderful opportunity and milieu for real learning to takes place owing to the pooling and harvest of an assortment of experiences brought in by members. In a way this set up also demanded that the group takes sufficient time to build a strong foundation to work together, especially given the fact that the team would be a virtual, with limited face-to-face meetings.” Phomolo Akpapo

“…. learning doesn’t always have to be separated from our work, and we all definitely found that when our learning was very closely and concretely tied into our work goals and client activities, the goals were not only achieved more easily, but the sense of achievement was much more rewarding. This included linking learning with other SNV learning processes, such as D-Groups, practice area networks, and in-country initiatives.” Kwiga Neza LS LH

“It showed the importance of documenting our reflections as a way of reflection and learning; how writing reflections is a great way of looking back on various situations to gain comfort from the successes and wisdom from the failures. Songtaba LS LH

Concluding wordsThis paper does not give any final conclusions about what does or does not make a methodology successful. What this paper has tried to show it that when the dream, as it is formulated in the methodology, meets the reality all kinds of unintended and unexpected as well as expected influencing processes start. It examined more closely what these influencing factors were in the particular context of the SNV APLP programme and how they affected the effective implementation of the methodology and which interventions, measures where taken to overcome the experienced constraints. Some general lessons learned have been drawn from the programmes’ struggles between methodology and reality that will hopefully inform future programmes are:

Organise Learning sets on a regional basis. Too much diversity hinders learning processes.

Integrate regional and country management and leadership right from the start in the programme and particularly in the definition of a learning contract on a tripartite basis: participant, director, regional HRM officer.


Create a stronger organisational sponsorship role through involvement from the first selection of participants.

Pay more attention to the exchange of information about each others work spaces, settings, problems and issues to enable

Peer coaching as an in built element in the Learning Set processes Set-out clear expectations about involvement, time spent, contributions to the

process right from the start. Create more opportunities for the programme to become demand driven from the

regions although LLP remains a corporate ( financed) programme Improve the campus to address better the needs for online learning processes. Pay more attention to content based ( P) learning through the development of

modules that are tailor made to the needs of participants.


Annex 1: Grow model21

EVERYDAY COACHING CONVERSATIONS:The GROW Model

The coaching conversation is designed to help a manager when a breakdown is evident and there is an opening to coach. It can occur over several conversations, sometimes the situation can be resolved in one session.

The core of working with a coaching conversation is to ask questions with the intent to make the breakdown or issue clear to the coachee and then find ways to move to action to fulfill the commitment.

GROW questions are familiar to most of us as open, exploratory and non-directive ways to enable the coachee to see the situation through new eyes without falling into giving advice.

As the coachee responds to the questions, their world view becomes clear to you as coach and you can make the distinctions necessary for the coachee to see the situation differently. The coach’s role is to work with distinctions so the coachee can take new actions that will resolve the situation and leave them more competent should similar circumstances arise again.

Feedback may be incorporated into the conversation if the coachee is way off track in their thinking but looping back to GROW often is the more powerful way of supporting them to shift.

GROW Coaching may take as little as 10-20 minutes or may need longer or several conversations to resolve. The key is to stay in the coaching role and not give advice.

The questions below should be considered “bare bones” examples, indicating the areas to be explored at each phase of the coaching process. Each question should be ‘framed’ in the context of the specific situation.

GETTING STARTED: WHAT IS THE COACHING FOCUS?

o What would you like to focus on?o What would you like some coaching on?o What concerns you?o What would you like to resolve?

Questions that will make the conversation go deeper at this stage:

o Why is this important to you?o What will resolving this do for you?o What will be better or different when this is changed?o What will you have that you do not have now?

21 Contributed by Ingrid Richter, January 2005


STEP ONE: “G” FOR “GOALS”

a. Agree to GOALS for this conversation

o What would make this a useful conversation for you?o What would you like to get out of the time that we spend talking now?o What would make this next half hour/hour useful for you?

b. What are the GOALS the person is aiming for in the situation?

o You said you want to focus on ….., what will be different when you have achieved this goal/change?

o What is it that you wish would be different?o What isn’t working? What leads you to conclude this is not working?o What will you start to see happening when steps are being taken toward

achieving this goal?o How will you know that things have changed for the better?


o Has this or anything like this ever happened before?o Might there be a pattern?o What would tell you or indicate that movement is happening?o What indicators would you see (and hear) that would tell you that the change you

want has happened?o What are your beliefs about the people involved?o What would you be able to do if this was not there?

STEP TWO: “R” FOR “REALITY”

Determine what’s going on for the person right now. What have they been doing, and what are the results?

o What have you already tried to do about this situation?o Help me understand what you and others did when you tried this.o What happened when you did this?o What obstacles do you see in the way of making change here?o What will happen if you do nothing?


o When you chose to do what you did, why did you chose that?o Did you consider any other options? What led you to discard them?o How do you interpret what happened?o Is there any other way you might interpret this?


o Is there any other way others might see or interpret this?o What data or perspectives might be missing?

STEP THREE: “O” FOR “OPTIONS”

Generate options and possibilities. The general principle is to help the person gain greater access to their innate abilities.

o What options are you thinking of trying?o Which of these seem more possible for you?o What else might you do?o What are other ways you might achieve your goals?o Who or what supports are available to you to help you to achieve the goal

you want?


o Does this option relate to your goals?o What do you think would happen if you did this?o What else might happen if you did this?

STEP FOUR: “W” FOR “WHAT NEXT?”

Help The person identify what they have the energy and will to do. Plan the specifics.

o Of all the possibilities generated which ones have enough potential for you to pursue?

o What support would you require?o What would be your first steps?o Would you involve anyone else? How?o What resources do you need to get started?o When will you start?

CLOSURE: REFLECTING ON HOW THE CONVERSATION WENT



o What is it that makes this a good time to start?o Is there any way that you might get in your own way?o How will you check that things are happening as you want them to?

What in this conversation has been useful to how you are thinking about the situation and your goals? What did I do (or not do) that might have been helpful to you in this conversation?


Annex 2: Peer Coaching ( Version 2006)22

Peer Coaching - extended overview

Introduction:

This document is meant as a support in preparing and conducting peer coaching sessions which will take place as telephone collective calls or using the chat function on Campus. We will be able to make most of our virtual meetings if they are well prepared.

The following is an outline of steps in the peer coaching process, based on the adapted GROW model. The questions should be considered as “bare bones” examples, they need to be adapted to the context of the specific situation in each coaching session.

Before the LS meeting - Getting Started

During the week before our LS meeting

1. Issue holder prepares and shares a short introduction of her issue.

The colleague who wants to receive peer coaching writes down a short introduction on her issue and share it with the leaning set in time before the meeting by posting it on Campus in the discussion space, starting a new thread. This introduction shouldn’t go beyond a half page.

Elements of the introduction:Brief facts of the case, background, why is this important now. What are key events which led to the current situation?

How do I feel about that situation, what am I angry/disappointed about? What is my own analysis of the situation, how do I interpret it? What have I already tried to do about this situation? What do I want to resolve? What is my key question /my line of enquiry?

Step 2 for Reality

2. Peer coaches read the document before the session and formulate questions on the context starting with “when”, “what” and how” and “who else”

When did you become aware of this problem? Who is affected by this problem and how? What were the effects of your previous actions to solve your problem? How did you interpret these effects?

3. Issue holder responds to these questions on Campus

22 Contributed by Stefanie Schaefer, June 2006


In the LS meeting Step 3 for Goals 20 minutes

4. Coaches help the issue holder in clarifying her key question [Often, this is an important step because issue holders may not be very clear on this and often they need to specify what exactly they are looking for themselves]

What do you want to happen? What would be an ideal situation in future? What would you see, feel and hear when that situation is achieved?

5. Exploring the meaning behind the issue[This step means to go deeper and look at the ultimate goals of the issue holder]

What do you want to happen eventually? What would that mean to you?

6. Issue owner articulates where they are after theses questions Where have the questions led me? What has become clearer? What have I realized more, discovered about myself? Does the key question still feel right? In the light of my discoveries, what would I

like to get coaching on?

7. Coaches help clarifying the request for coaching What do you wish to get out of this coaching session?

Step 4 for Options 15 minutes

8. (Developing Hypotheses) this step may be useful, but let’s consider it as an option 9. Exploring options

What options / choices do you have? What would other people propose you tried out? What would you do if you could not fail? What would happen, if you tried x,y,z…? (this way, ideas for options from the

coaches can be brought in as a proposal)

Step 5 for What next? 5 minutes

10. Choices on next steps and commitmentThe issue holder shares with the group where he/ she has arrived at:

Which of the options appeals most to me and why? What I will try out and report back to the LS in the next session?


Step 6 Reflection on the peer coaching session 15 minutes

[This part is important for added learning both on content and process. It could also be done after our meeting on Campus if we have time constraints.]

Coaches share: In which way do I recognize this issue from my own practice? What inspirations for my own practice have I gained in this session?

Feedback from the issue holder: How was this for me, what did I appreciate? What would I find useful in addition to this?

All: How did we manage the process of this session? Which ideas do we have for improvement?


Annex 3: Schools of Action Learning and role of coaches 23

Focus Approach in doing A.L Role of a action learning coach

Scientific school (p8). Reg Revans

Solving an organisational problem through a collective learning effort. Learning = programmed knowledge + using questioning insight.

The approach is on defining the problem, identifying the possible solutions, try-out phase, experimenting, evaluation in a action learning group which comprises people from a diversity of positions: diversity of solutions.Learning is also acquiring new interpretations of the experiences. An approach mostly directly informed by the work of Reg Revans which places much emphasis on the need for organizational sponsorship of a problem that needs to be solved by a community of people united in a learning set. In this approach people come from different “parts or specialties” in the organisation each contributing from their own background and experiences.

Peer coaching ( comrades in adversity) are more important than learning coach because of greater focus on problem solving than on learning and personal competency development.

Experiential school (p.9) Kolb , Mumford

Solving a problem through intentional reflection individual and as a group throughout the experiential process. Personal development outcomes are explicit objective

Importance of intentional, explicit reflection throughout the process. Problem reframing and problem solving though experiential and situational learning. This (second) approach also has organisational sponsor-ship but places the problem that the people in the learning set are working on at the individual level. The sponsorship is for the learning process not as much the problem.

Coaches role is to help participants in the experiential learning cycle, the coach actively designs practices to this end.

Critical reflection school (p10

Focus on the above start from the theories of learning

Reflection is used to reach deeper level of understanding of the premises in thinking ( mental

Coaches role is on promoting the reflection on the

23Yorks L., O’Neil J., Marsick V. (eds) Action Learning. Successful Strategies for Individual, Team and Organisational Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources , No. 2, 1999. Baton Rouge: Academy of Human Resource Development, 1999


Senge, Marsick, Mezirow, Schön, Argyris)

based on experiencebut take learning and reflection to deeper levels of understanding, mindsets, premises. Goal is personal as well as organisatio-nal transformation

models)The third approach is not so much an action learning method but envisages to help partici-pants to become reflective practitioners, able to solve and overcome difficulties in the organisation through their increased ability to reflect on and in action.

level of mental models, in order to change patterns of behaviour at the personal and organisational level

Tacit / incidental learning school (p.12) Marsick, Schön, Argyris

Change Project planning is central, under certain conditions learning will follow but is not planned

Some structured (P) learning is offered on project execution skills. During the AL no learning support only logistical support, focus is on problem solving.

none


Documents

Creating a transformatory learning process: The …portals.wi.wur.nl/files/docs/ppme/NEW APLP Creating a... · Web viewLearning needs to take place/ be linked to the workplace experiences