Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]On: 24 October 2014, At: 15:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Action Learning: Research and PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/calr20
Facilitating organizational developmentthrough action learning—some practicaland theoretical considerationsOtmar Donnenberg a & Ivo De Loo ba Dutch Action Learning Association , Zeist, The Netherlandsb Open University of the Netherlands , Heerlen, The NetherlandsPublished online: 19 Oct 2010.
To cite this article: Otmar Donnenberg & Ivo De Loo (2004) Facilitating organizational developmentthrough action learning—some practical and theoretical considerations, Action Learning: Researchand Practice, 1:2, 167-184, DOI: 10.1080/1476733042000264137
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1476733042000264137
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Facilitating organizational
development through action
learning—some practical and
theoretical considerations
Otmar Donnenberga and Ivo De Loob,�
aDutch Action Learning Association, Zeist, The Netherlands; bOpen University of the
Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands
Action learning programmes are supposed to result in both personal and organizational
development. However, organizational development can be negligible because, as the term
implies, a connection must be secured between what has been learned by action learning
participants and other members of an organization. Here, the facilitation and analysis of how to
institutionalise action learning principles is explored through a theoretical framework. This
framework is built around the following concepts: scripts, lean thinking and mindsets.
Thereafter, two case studies are offered that exemplify how organizations might operationalise
these concepts through action learning programmes that intend, from the outset, to foster
organizational development. The evidence suggests that success depends—among other
factors—upon the cognitively held beliefs of the set advisor and the prevailing organizational
culture.
Introduction
While visiting a large firm involved in action learning for nearly thirty years, one of
the authors was asked whether he regarded action learning as a method primarily
oriented towards organizational problem-solving or as a tool for managers to
undertake a learning experience. The response was that these two aspects of action
learning cannot be disentangled but that the focus is principally on organizational
problem-solving. However, this particular firm used action learning principally as a
learning tool to enlarge managers’ cognitively held principles and guides that steer
their behaviour—their mindsets—in ways that had been set out in advance by the
Action Learning: Research and Practice
Vol. 1, No. 2, September 2004
�Corresponding author. Open University of the Netherlands, School of Management, P.O. Box
2960, 6401 DL Heerlen, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1476-7333 (print)/ISSN 1476-7341 (online)/04/020167-18 # 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1476733042000264137
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
firm’s management. One may question whether this approach can be called action
learning.
Nevertheless, while the firm saw action learning as a learning tool to be used by or
for single managers for the improvement or acquisition of certain skills, and though it
continued to find the concept intuitively appealing, it could not determine whether, as
a whole, it benefited from the use of action learning. Therefore, although this firm
seemed to have gained some benefits from the application of action learning in
terms of personal development, it did not necessarily see or experience similar benefits
in terms of organizational development.1
That action learning seems to be applied, chiefly, for individual development and
not so much for organizational development was also concluded in a recent survey
among action learning practitioners conducted by Pedler et al. (2003). Smith’s
(1997) treatment of the question of whether action learning should lead to organiz-
ational development or not reminds us that:
. . . the development aims that Revans was striving for [with action learning] are essen-
tially the same as those most action learning practitioners claim to be aiming for, i.e.,
personal development as opposed to skill or technology, etc. (Smith, 1997, 366–367)
However, although Revans (1971) finds that action learning starts with individual
development, it is assumed that, under certain conditions, it has its effects on organ-
izational development too. Analyzing one of Revans’ most prominent action learning
programs, the Hospital Internal Communications Project (HIC) in the 1960s, the
evaluators (Wieland & Leigh, 1971) demonstrated that action learning itself, as
well as the actual program, was primarily about organizational change to be achieved
through personal change.
Why then has the focus of action learning programs tended to concentrate on indi-
vidual development and drift away from Revans’ classic principles? There are at least
two possible explanations. Firstly, that many action learning practitioners, finding it
too difficult, avoid the issue of organizational development, as exemplified by
O’Neil (1996):
Some advisers feel that the pressure to effect this [organizational] kind of change can
create obstacles to the group’s learning [and thus refrain from it] . . . (p. 44)
However, by dictating whether a program should aim at organizational develop-
ment or not, set advisors deprive action learning of one of its key features—for the
wrong reason. Practitioners may presume that organizational development will
come about as long as an action learning program runs smoothly and (top) manage-
ment participation is safeguarded. However, as Miller (2003) tells us:
It is clear that if action learning is to move to workplace learning and subsequently to a
learning organisation, it must involve more than action learning set members and even-
tually connect with a much wider body of organisational members. (p. 16)
The desire to understand how this connection process with other organizational
members takes place attracted a lot of attention in the 1960s (Argyris, 1964) but
168 O. Donnenberg and I. De Loo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
remains unresolved, being considered a more or less automatic process in parts of the
action learning literature (e.g. Garratt, 1983).
A presentation that the authors recently gave for an international gathering
of action learning practitioners illustrates the second possible explanation for
organizational development not being considered in action learning programs. Two
minutes into the presentation, several group members alleged that a discussion
would be fruitless for ‘we all know that organizations learn when individuals
learn’ and ‘talking about organizational development is unnecessarily complicating
action learning’. Group members seemed to be generally unwilling to
question their own thoughts about action learning, and thereby check their own
mindsets. The prevailing idea was that if an action learning program goes well, an
organization will naturally deem the program a success and ensure that it benefits
from what managers have learned. However, no two organizations are alike,
and the circumstances and motives for managers and firms to take part in an action
learning program can differ substantially. Not studying these circumstances and
examining how they may affect the implementation of an action learning program
can greatly diminish the effectiveness of the method. Again, the HIC-project is a
case in point. Several hospitals in the project found it a success (Revans, 1972),
and many of their employees who were involved in the sets thought the same.
Nevertheless, organizational development was negligible in every single hospital
(Wieland & Leigh, 1971). Why?
The final reason to put this question in the spotlight emerged from an action learning
meeting both authors attended recently. Because it is difficult to show the organizational
benefits stemming from a program, and since the ability to show these may be one of the
key preconditions for an organization to engage in action learning, many of the prac-
titioners present were asking themselves how action learning should be marketed.
Some practitioners had the feeling that one should not bother, for ‘we all know that
the method works’. Others felt that there was still much to explore in the action learning
literature in this respect, perhaps recalling Weinstein’s (1994) argument that, often,
learning programs do not seem to achieve their potential, however that may be assessed.
This paper is a tentative attempt to move organizational development back into the
centre of the action learning picture by considering both theoretical and practical
elements. Much of the arguments are made to spur on action learning practitioners
to think about and, perhaps, reconsider their own practices and to engage in scientific
research on the issues addressed.
In the next section, a series of theoretical concepts and frameworks are drawn out
and connected up to one another to offer an impression of how organizational devel-
opment can come about through action learning. Then, practical examples of these
concepts are presented within two case studies that directly involved one of the
authors. The final part summarizes our views about how organizational
development may be structurally approached in an action learning program, thus
hopefully stimulating more and more action learning practitioners to explore organ-
izational development in addition to the more easily obtainable individual
development.
Facilitating organizational development 169
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Action learning for organizational development: a cognitive systems
approach
Descriptions of action learning programs have traditionally focused on organizations
and set members that are open and willing to embrace the method. Hardly ever does
one find discussions of programs that failed, although this may be the only way that
action learning can learn from its own application (Bourner et al., 1996).
In the early days of action learning the focus on successful programs was understand-
able, as the method had to be accepted (Revans, 1976). Furthermore, organizational
culture was generally such that methods like action learning were easily embraced
and experimented with by firms (Donnenberg, 2003b). However, the organizational
climate of the 21st century has altered from that of the 1960s and 1970s, though this
does not seem to have been reflected in many action learning discussions (De Loo,
2003).
By focusing only on action learning programs with willing set members and organ-
izations, organizational dynamics are reasoned away almost entirely. Wieland and
Leigh (1971) argue that this limited view about organizational conduct in the action
learning literature may have come about due to Revans’ standpoint on how organiz-
ational development is to be achieved through action learning, which they find ‘tech-
nical’. In Revans’ alpha, beta and gamma system there is room for the personal
preferences of a manager in the decisions he takes (in system alpha), but it is also
assumed that he strives to reach the goals his organization has set, just like all other
managers (Revans, 1971). While Revans’ standpoint was, at that time, not atypical,
microeconomic theories had already surfaced (Cyert & March, 1963) emphasizing that
a firm may more realistically be viewed as a coalition of groups with conflicting interests
that may not be fully in line with organizational goals. This results in ‘satisficing beha-
viour’ that may be far removed from the organizational performance envisioned by the
management of the organization. Alas, this perspective had not really been included in
Revans’ action learning concept.
Brown’s (1960) distinction between the manifest, assumed, extant and requisite
organization sets the stage for our standpoint on organizational development
through action learning. The manifest organization is the organization that is formally
described and displayed on organizational charts. The assumed organization is the
organization that individuals perceive. There may or may not be consistency
between the assumed and manifest organization. The extant organization is the
organization that is revealed by systematic exploration and analysis, but which can
never be completely known. Finally, the requisite organization is the prototypical
organization, which functions exactly like it should when taking into account all the
environmental forces it faces. Brown describes an ideal situation in which the mani-
fest, assumed, extant and requisite organization are closely in line with one another,
but notes that at the same time:
The circumstances [surrounding an organization], of course, are always dynamic, so that
the tendency is of these four to move out of adjustment with each other. (Brown, 1960,
p. 24)
170 O. Donnenberg and I. De Loo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
In setting out how organizational development occurs, the point of view taken on
organizations in the action learning literature is mainly a requisite one (studying
highly ideal-like individuals, who form an organization in which everyone is intrinsi-
cally motivated to achieve organizational goals), while extant organizations are the
ones in which organizational development is to take place. After all, these are the
types of organizations with which practitioners will mostly be occupied. It is for this
reason that Donnenberg (2003a) defines the study of extant organizations as an increas-
ingly important factor in making action learning programs a success.
How then should we study extant organizations? It may be done by examining actual
employee behaviour on the work floor: this is a discriminating factor between organiz-
ations that may give us an idea how each of them actually functions and if action learning
can be a useful tool for personal and/or organizational development. Examining
employee behaviour can be accomplished by looking at so-called cognitive systems,
which steer ‘(. . .) the output of purposeful behavior’ by individuals (Lord & Kernan,
1987, pp. 265). The concept of scripts is particularly useful here.
Scripts
Institutions are defined as socially constructed templates for action (Burns & Scapens,
2000), for example, national culture and laws (existing outside organizations) and
past decisions and organizational culture (existing inside organizations). Many
operations involving institutions can be interpreted in terms of scripts (Lord &
Kernan, 1987) that entail the activities and behavioural patterns a person tends to use
in a particular setting (Gioia & Poole, 1984). When someone is involved in infrequent
but recurrent situations, script development is cued. Scripts can serve a number of
functions:
. Enabling someone to choose routine behaviour without thinking about every
decision that has to be made along the way (e.g. taking the same route from
home to work which, over time, becomes ingrained in the cognitive system that
can determine when full attention is absolutely necessary).
. Enabling communication through inference from one’s behaviour about what to
expect. For example, entering an interview room where the behaviour of the per-
sonnel officer informs the applicant what type of interview it is going to be (e.g.
inquisitive, aggressive) and creates the opportunity for the applicant to choose a
line of behaviour.
These behavioural patterns also hold for action learning participants. Mercer
(1990) distinguished six consecutive phases that all action learning participants had
to go through to reach a solution for the problems they had brought into the
program they also participated in:
. Make a review of one’s problem situation
. Present this review to the action learning group
. Propose an outline of the way one thinks a problem should be tackled
Facilitating organizational development 171
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
. Present this outline to the group
. Discussion
. Implement the resulting solution in one’s work setting
The more an organization has been confronted with the phases above through action
learning, the more they are likely to become institutionalized within both future action
learning programs and the daily organizational operations of the organization. This
may be a valuable interpretation of the term ‘organizational development’ that
covers more than increased organizational performance.
Gioia and Poole’s (1984) distinction between cognitive and behavioural scripts is
helpful in the remainder of this section. Whenever action learning participants
decide upon an action they perform a behavioural script. The scripts out of which
participants choose a particular behavioural script are called cognitive scripts.
Thus, behavioural scripts are observed cognitive scripts.
Barley and Tolbert (1997) identify several steps to the institutionalization of scripts:
. Encoding: the individual internalizes rules and their implementation becomes
common practice, turning Mercer’s (1990) phases into cognitive scripts.
. Enacting: the individual, consciously or not, shows a cognitive script previously
encoded, putting it into practice, thus creating a behavioural script.
. Revision/replication: actual behaviour modifies the scripts previously enacted to cir-
cumvent, e.g., resistance in the future: both the cognitive and behavioural scripts alter.
This step is rarely covered in discussions on learning organizations (Garvin, 1994).
. Objectification/externalization: scripts and behavioural patterns are no longer tied
to specific persons as they acquire a ‘factual’, normative quality. Gioia and Poole
(1984) call some of these scripts ‘protoscripts’ that can be transferred to more
situations than the one(s) in which they have originally been developed.
Figure 1. Representation of the institutionalization of scripts (Barley & Tolbert, 1997, p. 101)
172 O. Donnenberg and I. De Loo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Figure 1 shows the steps leading to the institutionalization of scripts.
West and Choueke (2003) argue that, through action learning, a person can learn
about a problem at hand, himself and the process and transfer of learning (called
‘learning to learn’). Looking at Figure 1, action learning begins with action (G),
when single set members learn about real-life problem(s) and discover new
problem solving strategies by leaving their comfort zones to engage in concrete,
problem solving activities. To strengthen organizational development, a connection
should be made between what has been learned by set members and the rest (or a
larger part) of an organization, as well as between the problem(s) a person has
faced in the action learning setting and those he will meet in the future (‘learning
to learn’). Where that persons’ attitudes, norms and behaviour have connected up
with ‘learning to learn’ and his problem-solving activities are scripted, these scripts
can become an institution (I) in an organization. If ‘learning to learn’ turns into a pro-
toscript, becoming transferable to more situations and independent of set members,
organizational development has been achieved, action learning is fulfilling its poten-
tial and ‘learning to learn’ is institutionalized (Revans, 1971). Here, encoding and
enacting jointly determine personal growth, and objectification is a signal for organ-
izational growth to occur. However, the revision/replication step and a person’s will-
ingness or unwillingness to put his new skills and attitude(s) to work is also important
for determining how far personal development will be transformed into organizational
development.
This modeling also points to some difficulties that may arise. For example, via an
action learning program the management of an organization (the institutional
realm) may try to ensure an a priori specific outcome for a problem, thereby pressur-
ising individual scripts. When action learning is being used to institutionalize conduct
that has nothing to do with ‘learning to learn’, action learning principles are unlikely
to become part of a protoscript and employees may simply hold on to previously held
habits (Cunningham, 1993).
Furthermore, the implementation of solutions stemming from an action learning
program may be delayed or prevented by elements of the established organizational
culture. According to Donnenberg (2003b), a lot of what seems untraceable in the
malfunctioning of organizations (like hidden conflicts and the reasons why people
fail repeatedly in various positions) may be investigated through constellation work
for organizations (Hellinger et al., 1998, von Kibed & Sparrer, 2002). Through this
holistic approach, which originates from analyses of the functioning of families in psy-
chotherapy and psychiatry, a constellation can be created. Images of the system
dynamics of an organization, using persons who represent for example departments,
policies, hidden goals, resources, (other) persons, pressure groups or situations that
influence the perception of a problem as seen by a problem-owner are set up.
People representing each of the dynamics are intuitively placed in a specific position
by the problem-owner. The constellation that is created comes in two forms: diagnos-
tically, showing malfunctions and blockages; and solution-based, offering leads for
the problem-owner. By studying these constellations and determining how to move
from the first situation to the second, it becomes possible to see if, how and how
Facilitating organizational development 173
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
far organizational development can be strengthened, and how far (proto)scripts can
play a role. However, constellation work is difficult or impossible when there is
more than one problem-owner involved in a problem; the problem remains ill-
defined and; the approach is rejected by organizational members as a useful
method of analysis.
The institutionalization of action learning principles can only start to flourish when
set members, as well as other organizational members, see this process as their per-
sonal mission: individual mindsets have to change. Therefore it is important that
action learning participants are proactive in gaining knowledge and taking initiatives.
How can participants generate a personal drive to sustain their ideas? Mindsets and
the behavioural patterns (scripts) connected with them are difficult to change. In
the absence of contextual change and the opportunity and courage to experiment,
it is likely that scripted behaviour is merely replicated (Burns & Scapens, 2000). If
a solution is found and implemented without follow up on the change in mindset
that has been witnessed, fall back into routine behaviour may occur. That is why
one action learning program is not sufficient to produce an organizational climate
in which organizational development may foster (Rol, 2003). Repetition is necessary.
This would imply, as stipulated by Figure 1, that an ongoing exchange of information
and insights is required between the organization and its surroundings, the
stakeholders who are involved in a certain problem, upper- and lower-level managers,
set members and other organizational members, etc. Ideally, this may induce
‘self transcending knowledge’, which encompasses not-yet-embodied, future-
oriented tacit knowledge that becomes embodied when organizational members
share ideas, insights and reflections with one another and form a so-called ‘shared
will’ (Scharmer, 2001).
Action learning basically involves a learning structure ‘(. . .) in which practitioners
reflect and learn from their experience on a regular and repetitive basis’ (Scharmer,
2001), which may ultimately lead to a ‘common intention’. However, since a
common intention that involves repetition and institutionalization, and thus organiz-
ational growth, is not person-specific, the formation hereof is not necessarily at the
heart of action learning applications. Furthermore, in an action learning program
one often learns through reflections on past decisions, while Scharmer explicitly
thinks one should also learn from the future (e.g. through scenario planning). A
focus on thought conditions that allow new processes of production or forms of
service to emerge may strengthen an organization’s self-transcending knowledge
and can create the ability to make use of emerging (business) opportunities, in
particular via what Scharmer calls ‘rapid prototyping’. Thus, competitive advantages
may be achieved.
Action learning protoscript
An organization may initiate an action learning program when faced with a new,
complex, and strategically founded problem that it does not know how to solve: it
cannot find (and may not have) the (proto)scripts to handle the problem. Through
174 O. Donnenberg and I. De Loo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
the formation of a set in which people from different backgrounds with different
scripts have to work together, it is hoped that new scripts will form, either by directly
absorbing the behavioural scripts witnessed from other set members or by engaging in
concrete experimentation. Through the institutionalization of these scripts, future
problems may be tackled as well.
Though it is difficult to pinpoint the scripts ruling an organization, research tech-
niques such as participant observation and direct questioning (via individual or
group interviews) may prove fruitful (Burns & Scapens, 2000; Gioia & Poole,
1984). If so, what could an ‘ideal’ action learning protoscript look like?
Once action learning principles are institutionalized in an organization, an action
learning protoscript can be jointly determined through the following:
. Problem sharing in a group of 5–8 people.
. Learning with other stakeholders with different scripts through ‘fresh’ questioning.
. Active, controlled experimentation over a longer period of time.
. Individual and group critical evaluation of, and reflection on, the progress made
and the results achieved.
. Set members and an organization’s top management allowing their mindsets to
change.
. Acceptance of views that are contrary to individual current beliefs and habits.
. Attempts to bring about change in an organization (where failure may create more
productive learning events than successes).
. Anticipation and orientation towards future business opportunities (by focusing on
customer needs), perhaps through communities of practice.
Several conditions have to be fulfilled for this protoscript to work. These include:
. Having real-life, complex and urgent problem(s) (O’Hara et al., 1997), with a clear
strategic dimension (Donnenberg, 2003b; De Loo, 2003; Rijnsburger, 2003; Rol,
2003).
. Avoiding any tendency to conform to group norms instead of ventilating critical
views when the group appears to have a consensus (Donnenberg, 2003b), a situ-
ation known as ‘groupthink’ (Janis, 1972). This could seriously damage the
outcome of an action learning program (De Loo & Verstegen, 2001). The careful
selection of set members on the basis of their inclination to take risks can redeem
groupthink (Siegel & Ramanauskas-Marconi, 1989), and this may be an important
role for the set advisor (Bourner & Weinstein, 1996; Donnenberg & Lazeron, 1999;
Donnenberg, 2003a).
. Active participation of an organization’s top management in an action learning
program. This stimulates institutional change and highlights the problems as rel-
evant and their solution as eminent.
. The participation of clients and sponsors to ensure that the different
viewpoints of stakeholders are taken into consideration. This embeds the
Facilitating organizational development 175
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
program further in an organization, and guarantees that the selected problems are
taken seriously.
. A manageable and controllable period of time within which a program is carried
out, so that balance may be achieved between a set member’s regular workload
and the activities required in the set. Weinstein (1999) and Donnenberg (2003b)
have found a period between six and nine months to be reasonable.
Lean thinking
Even if practitioners deem organizational development through action learning to be
relevant in their work, the method may sometimes be seen as a management fad. In
such cases, it may be advisable to introduce its principles via a more easily acceptable
‘portal’ like lean thinking (Donnenberg, 2003b). The ‘lean’ concept originates from a
1980s benchmarking study where Toyota’s production system was identified as the
most customer- and market-oriented with a high level of sales and R&D activities
(Wallace et al., 1990; Spear & Bowen, 1999). Womack and Jones (2003) developed
their notion of ‘lean thinking’ through their production system analysis of Toyota
that showed customer orders at the heart of the system, batch production, kaizen
(continuous improvement) being strived for, and organizational members trying to
enhance their work processes. In Western contexts this approach is often associated
with lay-off decisions and reorganizations (Halper, 1996). In Toyota however,
people would receive another job in the company based on their capacities and
aspirations.2
Lean thinking can be used in every type of organization. According to Seddon
(2003) and Womack and Jones (2003), lean thinking centers around the following
elements:
. Creation of customer value.
. Rearrangement of the entire value chain (and the corresponding work pro-
cesses).
. ‘Flow’ improvement, so that the goods moving through and the activities taking
place be coordinated such that as little interruption or delay as possible occurs.
. Production is only pulled by customer demands.
. Continuous improvement
When a set advisor enters an organization to design an action learning program,
each of these elements can become active through asking the following: ‘does a
certain design create value for the user (the organization?)’, ‘what is this value?’,
‘what are the organization’s goals with the action learning program?’, ‘are these in
line with the long-term goals the organization tries to achieve?’, ‘what must happen
for organizational growth to be realized?’, ‘how far do work processes have to be
reshaped to achieve this?’, ‘how can this be done as simple as possible, with little inter-
ruption?’, ‘can it be achieved through the personal initiatives of set members, spon-
sors, clients, top managers, etc. alone?’, ‘in what way will organizational members
176 O. Donnenberg and I. De Loo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
learn, both inside the action learning set and outside?’, ‘is action learning really the
most preferable method to use in this context?’, etc.
How many action learning practitioners actually ask themselves questions such as
these?
Donnenberg’s (2003b) preference for lean thinking has been determined by
the customer needs faced and his personal mindset. Different needs and a
different mindset may action a different ‘portal’. For example, Rijnsburger (2003)
conceptualizes the personal dilemmas of managers in order to attain, through
various steps, personal change. This may, following Wanrooij (2002) subsequently
lead to organizational change.
Example. Suppose an organization wants to strengthen its development by increas-
ing its learning potential. Lean thinking may then be the ‘portal’ to introduce action
learning. If script development is to be cued, more than one action learning program
has to be conducted. In this way, action learning principles may become entrenched in
an organization’s institutional realm and turn into a protoscript, thus stimulating
organizational learning and changes in personal mindsets. This can subsequently
pave the way for self-transcending knowledge, which may be spurred on by commu-
nities of practice. Ultimately, this may bring a firm a competitive advantage. Action
learning would thus fulfill a wider potential than the one evidenced by Pedler et al.
(2003) and Weinstein (1994).
So far, the discussion has concentrated on requisite organizations. Moving to extant
organization demands concrete action learning applications and engagement in case
research (Yin, 1989).
Organizational development and action learning practice
In this section two case studies in which one of us was the set advisor are used to
explore how the concepts scripts, mindsets and lean thinking have been operationa-
lised in an action learning program. The difficulties encountered demonstrate that
the data has not been fitted into the concepts.
Both case studies contain the combined insights of two stakeholders: the set advisor
and the sponsor of one program (the company director) in one case, and the set
advisor and one of the managers of a clinical laboratory (who actively participated
in a lean initiative) in the other. Both the set advisor, sponsor, and participants of
these programs may have had vested interests. Constructing more detailed case
studies may have purged more of these interests, however the researchers’ own
vested interests would still affect that purging process. As it is, by exploring more
than one opinion in each case, a more reliable picture of the actual events emerges.
Scripts: the planning and control cycle at Liftservice Nederland
Liftservice Nederland, a company located in the middle of the Netherlands, maintains
and installs elevators in residential buildings. In the planning and control cycle of the
Facilitating organizational development 177
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
company action learning principles play an important role. The company director,
who set up the company with the help of his brother, designed the planning and
control cycle following an MBA program where he got in touch with action learning.
His commitment seems to have ensured that action learning became an integral part
of the organization’s institutional realm. Many managers (and subordinates) have,
according to both of the stakeholders interviewed, experienced that the planning and
control cycle proposed by the company director is a valuable tool to keep the
company on track. This strengthens the view that top management participation is
crucial to the success of any action learning initiative (Donnenberg, 2003b; Rijnsburger,
2003; Rol, 2003).
The introduction of action learning was however not without its problems at Lift-
service. In the beginning managers, coming mostly from other companies, had been
afraid to make mistakes and knew little of each other’s business and ways of treating
problems. This created difficulties to ‘open up’ and share knowledge, information and
experiences in a set. Besides, the mere fact that a specific concept was introduced
(which some may have seen as a management fad), met with some resistance. By
having to engage in action learning again and again (as this was deemed necessary
by the company director), a gradual change in managerial behaviour could be wit-
nessed: open questioning was spurred on.
Liftservice now regularly organizes customer conferences in which representatives
from housing corporations, architects, engineering consultants, construction compa-
nies and suppliers participate. At these conferences, an exchange of experiences and
(new) ideas takes place. Thus, Liftservice’s managers may note what matters to their
stakeholders, which can affect the company’s strategy. This actually is the starting
point of lean thinking. Thereafter, managers and elevator specialists are periodically
assigned a budget according to company plans, which are partially based on the
results of the customer conferences. As soon as they see that a task or project con-
tained in these plans does not properly satisfy what is needed or desired by their cus-
tomers, and their budget is thus inappropriate or insufficient, they are entitled to apply
for a so-called ‘initiative’. Those whose initiatives are deemed useful by the manage-
ment team of the company undertake their ‘initiative’. They can start an action learn-
ing project, joining other project leaders for a series of set meetings, in which they can
ask for a (principally external) expert-coach to work on a solution for the project they
have formulated. No more than four such projects may run simultaneously, so that
regular work processes are not overly disrupted. The company director is the
sponsor of the project leaders. Within limits set out by Liftservice’s management
team, project leaders can ask other people in the company to contribute to the set pro-
ceedings, for example through feedback and know-how. What is learned by those
involved in the ‘initiatives’ may subsequently be absorbed in new routines. These
can replace previously developed rules in the organization. This is an example of (pro-
to)script formation. In fact, the company director asserts that through action learning
a common frame of reference has emerged in the organization, thus prohibiting
communication problems between managers, himself and other employees from
occurring (Donnenberg, 2004). This means that protoscripts that have either been
178 O. Donnenberg and I. De Loo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
developed or sustained by employees involved in the initiatives have become
entrenched in the organization’s institutional realm.
By integrating initiatives, sets of project leaders, and the facilitation of these sets
into the planning and control cycle, Liftservice may have created an environment
in which script development is cued and organizational development can foster.
According to the company director, because employee contribution to organizational
goals is now relatively more eminent, employee satisfaction has increased as
compared to the time before action learning principles had been introduced. Never-
theless, planning and controlling the initiatives can sometimes become a strenuous
task. Deadlines tend to be extended and managers who have been insufficiently
specific in setting up their project may run into difficulties when examining what
can be done to fulfill customer needs. The company director thus allows himself
to intervene in the initiatives to ensure that they stay within time and financial
limits and that regular work processes are not disrupted. He then decides what is to
be done next.
Lean thinking and continuous improvement: a hospital laboratory in the northeastern part
of the Netherlands
The merger of two Dutch hospitals triggered a variety of initiatives to enhance the
efficiency of the work processes in the resulting, joint, medical laboratory. A prior
wish to redesign its work processes combined with planning for the construction of
a new laboratory increased the number of initiatives. One of the laboratory managers
had prior experiences with lean thinking through a workshop in which the approach
was illustrated in a business game, and the laboratory therefore decided to give it a try.
In order to see what may be improved when lean principles are followed, and what the
improvements would look like, the steps and work processes involved in a frequently
executed blood test were analyzed. Two lean consultants helped the laboratory’s
middle management, together with the lab assistants who participated in the test,
to map the current state of how the blood test was run and how the test results
were delivered to the doctor(s) who had asked for the test to be conducted. The
mapping of the corresponding work processes, which had not previously been given
much systematic consideration by laboratory personnel, was realized through
action learning principles. The laboratory managers acted as sponsors of this action
learning exercise, for which lean thinking functioned as a ‘portal’. Before their engage-
ment in the program, the whole management team of the laboratory received training
on lean thinking (Donnenberg, 2004). This ensured, like the Liftservice example, that
a common frame of reference emerged in the lab.
At first, the sponsoring lab management tried to impose their own solutions on the
lab personnel through dictating how to restructure the work process. However, they
soon felt that they were losing the latter’s commitment and support. They also
became aware of their inclination to proceed too quickly, without reviewing and
reflecting on the steps they had undertaken or were about to undertake with other
stakeholders, most particularly their co-workers and the doctors who were their
Facilitating organizational development 179
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
major clients. Therefore, they were willing to support and adopt lean thinking, the
more since it appealed to their scientific mindset (Spear & Bowen, 1999). The result-
ing solution helped to reduce the number of steps in the analysis and reporting stages
of the blood test, and to cut out the batching, queuing and overproduction of test
results, thereby saving a lot of physical space in the lab.
In the beginning, almost all middle managers and lab assistants embodied the
solution that resulted. Nevertheless, difficulties were encountered soon after as
many blood analysts could not embrace the new routine necessary to execute
the blood test; they could not develop or exercise the scripts pinpointed by the lean
initiative. According to the impression of one of the laboratory managers, this
may have happened because lean thinking, under certain conditions, tends to
emphasize the technical side of work processes, perhaps at the expense of the
‘human factor’ that is involved (Donnenberg, 2004). Sometimes, certain systems or
checks have to be in place for personnel to feel secure in their work and function
well, e.g. a signaling system that could be set off when something went wrong with
a blood test, even though the application of lean principles would deem such
a system or check unnecessary. The laboratory merged with yet another
laboratory soon after these events and it was forced to use the latter’s information
system. Lean thinking was abandoned as a way to reshape work processes. As
a result, the laboratory now employs more people and needs more space than it
did after the lean initiative, even though it continues to do the same work.
Nevertheless, the laboratory manager has expressed his intention to continue using
lean thinking when the conditions allow, as long as there is room to deviate
from the results stemming from its application when he feels there is value added
for the laboratory in doing so.
Summary
The previous examples show that as soon as action learning programs are carried out
repeatedly in an organization, either implicitly or explicitly, and in combination with
lean thinking or without, the principles of the method can become ingrained in an
organization’s institutional realm. When this happens, an ‘embedded action learning
program’ can result (Donnenberg, 2003b) and organizational development can be
strengthened. However, in neither case was this a clear-cut process that could have
been fully predesigned. Many difficulties were encountered by the organizations
involved and even though one can see distinct elements of organizational develop-
ment, one may debate whether the ‘full potential’ of action learning (however that
may be assessed) has been tapped in either case.
Conclusions
Analyzing for whom action learning may work, O’Hara et al. (1997) state that:
Action learning is appropriate for people and organizations where change is sought.
Action learning seems most appropriate in circumstances and contexts of unclear
futures and choices of action. Where the path ahead is preordained or obvious or
180 O. Donnenberg and I. De Loo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
clear, there is little room in the process for action learning. Where times or individuals are
undergoing change and uncertainty then action learning can be a powerful tool. (p. 95)
Although the foregoing analysis indicates that individual involvement is certainly
necessary for organizational development to come about, the discussion on scripts
clearly demonstrates that is a far from automatic process, and thus simply cannot
be safely assumed. The fact that only successful programs are discussed from the
viewpoint of the set advisor in much of the action learning literature avoids the pro-
duction of so-called ‘rich’ case studies (Dyer & Wilkins, 1991) that may be more
insightful. In this respect, it may not be that much of a surprise that Pedler et al.
(2003) found that only personal development is at the heart of many a program
these days.
Conger and Toegel (2003) reason along the same lines when they present a critical
analysis of action learning in the context of leadership development. They state that a
fatal design flaw in action learning programs is that they are built around singular
learning experiences which, by themselves, are not sufficient to get to terms with
complex subject matters such as leading change and formulating a strategic vision.
Also the programs are characterized by a relatively poor follow-up on project out-
comes. As far as the latter aspect is concerned, they say:
. . . often when action-learning projects end, they quite literally end. There is an assump-
tion that sufficient learning has taken place during the programme itself and that it will be
self-sustaining. Nothing could be further from the truth. (p. 338)
This reaffirms our belief that studying action learning scripts offers valuable insights
into the ‘mechanisms to ensure the transfer of learning back into the workplace’.
However, do new scripts automatically arise in an action learning program? If so,
how are they subsequently exercised and aligned with the necessities of the
problem at hand? How can they be anchored in an organization thereafter? When
such scripts are known, and their relevance is assessed via for example constellation
work for organizations, it may be possible to devise action learning programs that
do strengthen leadership development, and that lead to organizational development
from the outset—certainly when practitioners’ mindsets are targeted towards ‘learn-
ing to learn’. This may ultimately cause self-transcending knowledge to emerge. Lean
thinking, which Donnenberg (2003b) has called ‘a deeply rooted way of continuous
improvement’, may be a useful ‘portal’ in developing such programs.
The foregoing analysis is not intended to be the ‘ultimate answer’. We certainly do
not want to persuade all action learning practitioners to follow our line of thinking
(which is based on our own mindset anyway and is, at points, purely speculative).
However, we do urge an opening up of the discussion about the involvement of set
and other organizational members in the creation of lasting learning effects. As
action learners ourselves, firmly held beliefs of over thirty years duration may be
seriously in need of reconsideration in the 21st century.
Notes
1. The terms ‘organizational development’, ‘organizational change’, ‘organizational learning’
and ‘organizational growth’ are used interchangeably throughout this paper.
Facilitating organizational development 181
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
2. In addition, it should be noted that lean thinking does not have to imply that a work force is as
small as possible. For example, many luxurious hotels have redundant staff walking around,
which adds to the sense of grandeur surrounding the hotel. This is something that the hotel
guests, being customers, like to see. Lean thinking would in such a case prescribe redundant
staff to be present.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Herman van den Bosch, Bernard Verstegen and especially two
anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions.
Notes on contributors
Otmar Donnenberg is an independent management consultant based in the
Netherlands. He mainly works in change projects with a focus on leadership
development. He does so in the field of industry, health care and professional
services, in the Netherlands, Germany and Austria. He founded the Dutch
Action Learning Association, has published in German a reader about Action
Learning, and is connected with Action Learning practitioners in German
speaking countries, Great Britain, Scandinavia, USA and in Russia. He lectures
regularly at the Business School Nederland and at various Dutch Fora about
change management.
Ivo De Loo is an associate professor in management accounting at the Open
University of the Netherlands. He is currently writing his Ph.D. thesis on the
relation between action learning and organizational development.
References
Argyris, C. (1964) Integrating the individual and the organization (New York, John Wiley & Sons).
Barley, S. R. & Tolbert, P. S. (1997) Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links
between action and institution, Organization Studies, 18, 93–118.
Brown, W. (1960) Exploration in management (London, Heinemann).
Bourner, T., Beaty, L., Lawson, J. & O’Hara, S. (1996) Action learning comes of age: questioning
action learning, Education & Training, 38, 32–35.
Bourner, T. & Weinstein, K. (1996) Just another talking shop? Some of the pitfalls of action learn-
ing, Employee Counselling Today, 8(6), 57–68.
Burns, J. & Scapens, R. W. (2000) Conceptualizing management accounting change: an insti-
tutional framework, Management Accounting Research, 11, 3–25.
Conger, J. & Toegel, G. (2003) Action learning and multi-rater feedback as leadership development
interventions: popular but poorly deployed, Journal of Change Management, 3, 332–348.
Cunningham, J. B. (1993) Action research and organizational development (Westport, CT, Praeger
Publishers).
Cyert, R. M. & March, J. G. (1963) A behavioural theory of the firm (Prentice Hall, NJ, Englewood
Cliffs).
De Loo, I. (2003) Organisatiegroei door action learning: minder vanzelfsprekend dan het lijkt,
Management & Organisatie, 57(4), 55–71 (in Dutch).
De Loo, I. & Verstegen, B. (2001) New thoughts on action learning, Journal of European Industrial
Training, 25, 195–204.
182 O. Donnenberg and I. De Loo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Donnenberg, O. (2003a) Coaching in action learning stijl, in: O. Donnenberg, L. Halbertsma &
F. Verhaaren (Eds.) Coaching als inspiratiebron (Doorn, StreamLinks), 13–19 (in Dutch).
Donnenberg, O. (2003b) Personal communication.
Donnenberg, O. (2004) Personal communication.
Donnenberg, O. & Lazeron, N. (1999) Wie organisiere und gestalte ich ein Action-Learning-
Programm? In: O. Donnenberg (Ed.) Action learning: ein handbuch (Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta),
108–145 (in German).
Dyer, W. G., Jr. & Wilkins, A. L. (1991) Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better
theory: a rejoinder to Eisenhardt, Academy of Management Review, 16, 613–619.
Garratt, B. (1983) The power of action learning, in: M. Pedler (Ed.) Action learning in practice
(Aldershot, Gower), 23–38.
Garvin, D. A. (1994) Building a learning organization, Business Credit, 96(1), 19–28.
Gioia, D. A. & Poole, P. P. (1984) Scripts in organizational behavior, Academy of Management
Review, 9, 449–459.
Halper, S. (1996) Book review: lean thinking, Sloan Management Review, 38, 114–116.
Hellinger, B., Weber, G. & Beaumont, H. (1998) Love’s hidden symmetry: what makes love work in
relationships (Phoenix, AZ, Zeig, Tucker & Theisen, Inc.).
Janis, I. L. (1972) Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes
(Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin).
von Kibed, M. V. & Sparrer, I. (2002) Ganz im Gegenteil: Tetralemmaarbeit und andere Grundformen
Systemischer Strukturaufstellungen (3rd edn) (Heidelberg, Carl-Auer-Systeme Verlag) (in
German).
Lord, R. G. & Kernan, M. C. (1987) Scripts as determinants of purposive behavior in organizations,
Academy of Management Review, 12, 265–277.
Mercer, J. R. (1990) Action learning: a student’s perspective, Industrial and Commercial Training, 22,
3–8.
Miller, P. (2003) Workplace learning by action learning: a practical example, Journal of Workplace
Learning, 15, 14–23.
O’Hara, S., Beaty, L., Lawson, J. & Bourner, T. (1997) Action learning comes of age—part 2: action
learning for whom? Education & Training, 39, 91–95.
O’Neil, J. (1996) A study of the role of learning advisers in action learning, Employee Counselling
Today, 8(6), 42–47.
Pedler, M., Brook, C. and Burgoyne, J. (2003) ‘Action learning—are Reg Revans’ teachings being
practiced?’, People Management, 9, 40–45 (no. 8).
Revans, R. W. (1971) Developing effective managers (New York, Praeger Publishers Inc.).
Revans, R. W. (Ed.) (1972) Hospitals: communication, choice and change (London, Tavistock).
Revans, R. W. (1976) Action learning in hospitals: diagnosis and therapy (Maidenhead, McGraw-Hill).
Rijnsburger, E. (2003) Personal communication.
Rol, M. (2003) Personal communication.
Scharmer, C. O. (2001) Self-transcending knowledge: sensing and organizing around emerging
opportunities, Journal of Knowledge Management, 5, 137–150.
Seddon, J. (2003) Freedom from command and control: a better way to make work work (Buckingham,
Vanguard Education).
Siegel, G. & Ramanauskas-Marconi, H. (1989) Behavioral accounting (Cincinnati, OH, South-
Western Publishing Company).
Smith, P. A. C. (1997) Q’ing action learning: more on minding our Ps and Qs, Management Decision,
35, 365–372.
Spear, S. & Bowen, N. K. (1999) Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system, Harvard
Business Review, 77(5), 96–106.
Wanrooij, W. (2002) Corporate change: de weg naar topprestaties (Schiedam, Scriptum).
Weinstein, K. (1999) Action learning: a practical guide (2nd edn) (Aldershot, Gower).
Facilitating organizational development 183
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
Weinstein, K. (1994) Experiences of action learning: a dialogue with participants, Management
Bibliographies & Reviews, 20, 17–40.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. M. (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to
managing knowledge (Cambridge, MA, Harvard Business School Press).
West, P. & Choueke, W. (2003) The alchemy of action learning, Education &Training, 45, 215–225.
Wieland, G. F. & Leigh, H. (Eds) (1971) Changing hospitals: a report on the Hospital Communications
project (London, Tavistock).
Womack, J. P. & Jones, D. T. (2003) Lean thinking: banish waste and create wealth in your corporation
(2nd edn) (New York, Free Press).
184 O. Donnenberg and I. De Loo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
itat P
olitè
cnic
a de
Val
ènci
a] a
t 15:
12 2
4 O
ctob
er 2
014
