This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]On: 16 November 2014, At: 03:58Publisher: 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

Solving wicked problems throughaction learningLiselore Crulaa Virginia Water, UKPublished online: 21 May 2014.

To cite this article: Liselore Crul (2014) Solving wicked problems through action learning, ActionLearning: Research and Practice, 11:2, 215-224, DOI: 10.1080/14767333.2014.909185

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2014.909185

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 whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout 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

ACCOUNT OF PRACTICE

Solving wicked problems through action learning

Liselore Crul∗

Virginia Water, UK

(Received 8 January 2014; accepted 7 March 2014)

This account of practice outlines the Oxyme Action Learning Programwhich was conducted as part of the Management Challenge in my finalyear of the MSc in Coaching and Behavioral Change at Henley BusinessSchool. The central research questions were: (1) how action learning canhelp to solve wicked problems and (2) what the effect of an action learningprogram is on the individual set members, the set and the organization as awhole. This paper also describes my personal development as a facilitator ofchange and ends with key learnings and recommendations for future actionlearning programs.

Keywords: wicked problems; action learning; facilitation; organizationallearning

Introduction

After more than a decade in marketing in a wide range of roles and contexts, Idecided in 2010 to pursue a long-standing interest and to enroll in the MSc inCoaching and Behavioral Change at Henley Business School. This is a three-year part-time program that aims to develop its students into ‘bullet-proof’executive coaches. The final and third year of the program consists of a Man-agement Challenge which is ‘a major research-based project, which investigatesa significant management or organizational problem or issue and leads toactionable recommendations’. The issue I was and still am interested in ishow I as a coach can help organizations in their struggle with finding solutionsto today’s often wicked problems. A wicked problem is:

complex, rather than just complicated, it is often intractable, there is no unilinearsolution, moreover, there is no stopping point, it is novel, an apparent solutionsoften generates other problems, and there is no right or wrong answer, butthere are better or worse alternatives. (Grint 2005, 1473)

As complexity increases, more wicked problems have come to the surface, andso has the need for organizations to deal with those problems more effectively.

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

∗Email: liselore.crul@gmail.com

Action Learning: Research and Practice, 2014Vol. 11, No. 2, 215–224, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2014.909185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:58

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Both in popular business learning and in academic papers, this need is thoughtto be best met through better group or team work (see, e.g. Baghai and Qugley2011; Ryde 2007). Since I also wanted to develop my coaching from one-to-onecoaching only to one-to-one and group coaching, the Management Challengeprovided a perfect opportunity to marry my interest in wicked problems withthe desire to experience working with groups. One specific form of groupwork is action learning, which according to Pedler (2011) is a particularlyuseful process to solve wicked issues. Consequently, action learning appearedto be an appropriate vehicle to start my quest into how to be useful as a coach tocompanies that face wicked problems. The quest is still ongoing: I plan to doadditional research on how another type of group work (i.e. systemic coachingand facilitation), can be useful to solving organizational wicked problems.

The most accessible candidate for the research and action learning programwas Oxyme, the company that I co-founded in 2006 and was partner of until2009. Oxyme (www.oxyme.com) is a Dutch marketing-analytics companythat enables its clients to take better marketing decisions through an insightinto what consumers really think. Since its beginning in 2006, it has grownto a company with 15 employees and more than 150 freelance analysts whoanalyze and categorize online consumer behavior all over the world. Its custo-mer base consists of international clients such as Philips and Masco, andnational clients such as the Dutch Football Association (KNVB) and DutchRailways (NS). The need within Oxyme to improve organizational learningbecame apparent in a first meeting with the managing partners in October2012, in which we explored possibilities for an action learning program.More specifically, they perceived the issue of how to motivate people in theorganization to learn with and from each other and to take more responsibilitiesfor solving problems in their daily operations as most urgent and important forthe future success of the company. Typically, people would rather work aloneon a project than together, would use their own approach rather than a proposedstandardized one, and cooperation and consultation between the different func-tions (consultants, operations and IT) were rare which led to frustration, reworkand complexity in their daily work. Consequently, the potential of Oxymeemployees as a whole was underutilized and the solutions sold to clients sub-optimal. From our discussions, we agreed that the objective of the OxymeAction Learning Program (OALP) was to improve organizational learningwithin Oxyme. We further agreed that all full-time employees would participateand that the program would start as soon as possible because I was on a tightacademic schedule toward graduation in 2013.

The overall aims of the Management Challenge project were threefold: (1) toexplore if and how action learning can help a group to solve wicked problems,(2) to help Oxyme improve its problem solving and learning skills, and (3) tobuild expertise in facilitating change within groups and/or teams, and particu-larly, facilitating action learning sets. All together, the setup of the projectwas challenging because I had never done group work and/or an action learning

216 L. Crul

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:58

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

program. I was determined, however, to use the Management Challenge as anopportunity to do and learn, and do and learn (in line with the action learningphilosophy), in an area of great interest to me: wicked problems and groupcoaching.

The outline of this paper is as follows: I first describe what the OALPentailed, I then continue with a description of the experiences and outcomesof the program with the three aims of the project in mind. I end this accountof practice with a reflection on what the key learnings from the action learningprogram are and with some recommendations that might be useful to other(aspiring) practitioners.

The Oxyme Action Learning Program

The OALP ran from 22 November 2012 until 1 March 2013. Eleven Oxymeemployees participated: the managing partners did not as I wanted to keep the‘comrades in adversity’ or ‘peers’ element of Revans’ action learning philosophyintact. The OALP was developed with the support of action learning, leadershipdevelopment and change experts and an in-depth understanding of the literature,and consisted of one organization-wide kick-off event, twenty-six 30-minuteSkype calls, six action learning sessions (three for each set), two closing sessions(one for each set), and one organization-wide closing event was held (see Figure1 for an overview). Each event is now briefly explained further.

The objective of the kick-off was to create energy for the OALP withinOxyme. It was an opportunity to introduce myself as the researcher/facilitatorand the action learning approach to the organization, and invited thecompany to practice some action learning skills (such as listening and askingquestions) in small groups. In between the kick-off on 22 November and thefirst action learning session on 19 December, 30-minute Skype calls were

Figure 1. The Oxyme Action Learning Program.

Action Learning: Research and Practice 217

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:58

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

held with each of the 11 participants of the OALP and the two managing part-ners to start building some rapport and to ask about their current role withinOxyme, how problems usually were solved within Oxyme and what theirexpectations were of the OALP. Then, three action learning sessions per setwith three- to four-week intervals took place: one in December, one inJanuary and one in February. The first action learning session took a wholeday where the morning was used to get to know each other better and establishground rules for working together. The other two sessions were half-day ses-sions. One set consisted of five members and one of six.

Each set member brought their own issue to be solved to the set, tried to pro-gress their thinking on it with the help of questions and suggestions from theother set members, and decided on what action to take in the next weeks bythe end of their 30-minute time slot (see Table 1 for an overview of theissues). In fairness, not all issues brought to the set were wicked issues asdefined in the introduction: some of them were very personal with few stake-holder complications that would make it difficult to get to a single outcome.In hindsight, I could have challenged the set members more to use the actionlearning program to face their most wicked problems.

To note, in some action learning programs, sets work on a joint problemrather than individual problems. In the OALP, the decision was taken tofocus on individual problems because (1) the motivation to learn and do some-thing is highest when it concerns a personal problem, (2) the literature on actionlearning mostly describes how to structure an action learning set that focuses onindividual rather than joint issues (e.g. Pedler 2008), (3) within organizationallearning personal mastery is a key building block (Senge 1990), and (4) it wasmy first action learning program and I wanted to keep the program simple andthe personal problem approach appeared more doable to me.

Table 1. Overview of the issues.

Name Issue

Susan Time management: how to find a better work–life balanceLuke How to regain motivation? How to structure my daily work in a way that is

less frustratingMarc How to open up and engage people in the development and implementation

of work processesPeter How to attribute value to the knowledge created within the companyLisa How to learn and share more among the consultantsRick How to improve cooperation between operations and consultantsSam How to learn to speak up and set boundariesCatherine How to claim space for my ambition to become a community managerCarl How to move from doing to leading. And, how to make time for reflection in

this processPatty How to be in control without being controllingJane How to open up and engage people more in my daily work

218 L. Crul

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:58

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The closing session within each set consisted of a group discussion aboutwhat the OALP had taught them and resulted in an individual pledge onwhat they promised to continue to work on. In the closing session with thewhole of Oxyme, each OALP participant read out their pledge and thecompany decided together what actions need to be taken to continue learningwithin the company.

As the OALP was part of a research project, I made use of a few differentmethods within the action research methodology to measure the outcome of theprogram and to evaluate my facilitator’s skills. More specifically, Pedler’s(2008) Organizational Readiness for Action Learning Questionnaire (ORALQ)was used at the first day of the OALP during the kick-off and at the last day ofthe OALP after the organization-wide closing event. As indicated earlier, a 30-minute Skype interview was done at the beginning of the OALP with each setmember to assess the current situation, and a 30-minute Skype interview was con-ducted five to six weeks after the OALP was finished to assess the OALP’s impactat that point of time on the individual and the organization. The closing sessionwithin the sets also included a focus group discussion to assess the OALP’simpact on the problem, the individual, the set, and the organization. Finally,after each action learning session, all set members were asked to fill in a feedbackform to assess the impact of the session on the problem, the individual and the set,and to evaluate the role of the facilitator.

Experiences and outcomes

On the whole, the experience of the OALP was a positive one, both for the setmembers who greatly enjoyed spending time together on a regular basis tohelp each other solving problems, and feeling more empowered to take actionin the work place; and for myself as I noticed I really took pleasure in facilitatingchange in a group setting and running an action learning program. In essence, theimpact of action learning can be measured along two criteria: (1) Has the issuemoved in a positive direction? and (2) Has learning occurred (Pedler 2008;Revans 2011)? For the most part, the answer to these questions is ‘yes’.

I now refer to the overall aims of the project to discuss the experiences andoutcomes in a more structural way. The overall aims of the Management Chal-lenge project were threefold: (1) to explore if and how action learning can helpa group to solve wicked problems, (2) to help Oxyme improve its problemsolving and learning skills, and (3) to build expertise in facilitating changewithin groups and/or teams, and particularly, facilitating action learning sets. Idiscuss the experiences and outcomes related to each objective separately below.

The impact of action learning on solving wicked problems

Each set member reported progress on their issue during the program andbeyond. The degree of progress differed per person: at one end of the spectrum,

Action Learning: Research and Practice 219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:58

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

there was an increased awareness about the issue, at the other end, an activeinvolvement in moving the issue forwards and solving it.

The set members mentioned numerous drivers of this progress which canroughly be categorized into four different themes: (1) cognitive processessuch as focused attention, receiving and giving feedback, and increased aware-ness of the issue and possible ways to solve it, (2) group dynamics such as peerpressure to show progress in each session, obtaining new perspectives and chal-lenging assumptions, and feelings of connection and support (‘you are not alonein this’), (3) empowerment issues such as gaining strength to take responsibilityand action, and to overcome obstacles, and (4) elements inherent to the struc-ture of an action learning program such as having equal voices (everybody getstime to discuss their issue), meeting regularly, keeping track of what has beenlearned and done, and using questioning insight and questions to discover whatis possible instead of giving advice.

The impact of the OALP on organizational learning within Oxyme

It is safe to say that most development and learning has taken place on the indi-vidual set member level, not so much at the organizational level. Set membershave become more aware of how their own thoughts and behaviors can help andhinder solving their issues. For example:

The most important thing I have learned about myself is that if I want things tochange, I have to start with myself and changing my own behavior and seewhat I can do.

The most important thing I have learned is that is it OK to get out of my comfortzone and try out things differently. This can be quite empowering and rewarding.

The impact of the program on the learning of the action learning set as a wholeis less evident. In hindsight, not enough time was spent at the end of eachsession to reflect on how effective the group behavior had been to foster learn-ing within the set. In addition, three action learning sessions might have been abit short to really develop as a set. Some signs of more effective group function-ing were manifesting themselves. For example:

The quality of the group problem solving has improved since I see that people becomemore involved over time and helpful with the questions and suggestions they give.

The impact on the organization as a whole seems to be minimal, as Oxyme as acollective entity is not consistently doing things differently as a result of theOALP. For example:

I think the company is in the same situation. The learning, the information doesnot flow. There are still structural problems that will hinder the improvement.

220 L. Crul

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:58

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Everybody really wants to do something, but I don’t always see this reflected inactual behavior.

Most room for improvement is therefore in the integration of the OALP into thewider organization and to find ways to instill the learning and developmenttaking place in the action learning sets into Oxyme as a whole.

The impact of the project on my expertise in facilitating change in groups

The Management Challenge project has further developed my confidence andcompetence in helping people to make better informed decisions on whatthey want to achieve, how they are going to do that, and in increasing thechances that they indeed take action. More specifically:

I have become aware that the basic stance I have had as a one-to-one coach isappropriate as an action learning facilitator as well: they reinforce each other.As a coach, I believe that my clients are the experts about themselves, notme. I believe they have the answers available to them: they just need good ques-tions, no judgment, support and time to see what is possible. I also believe that itis important that my clients decide what action to take and that they can seethemselves doing it, not me. This basic stance or philosophy resonates withRevans’ approach to action learning. When facilitating the sets during theOALP, I tried to use the same stance. I was not attached to a particularoutcome other than to learn with and from each other and I trusted that fromthat place the participants would start to become aware of the options availableto them to address their issues and to take action. Most of the time (not all thetime, see below), I was able to find the right balance between asking questionsand sharing observations, between intervening and letting something unfold,and between being supportive and being challenging. It felt natural to me andthe comments I received after each session confirmed this: I was able tocreate an environment where it was safe to share and learn (e.g. ‘She makessure that we keep on track and enable an environment in which everyone canshare and learn.’).

The OALP has certainly influenced my coaching practice: it has taught methe value of the process elements of action learning and how to use those effec-tively when coaching. For example, I use even more questions to stimulate myclients to think for themselves, I urge them to find ways in their daily (working)life to start doing things differently and experiment, and then reflect on thesechanges in the next session. I also stimulate my clients to ask more questionsthemselves when interacting with other people and to take time to reflectwith others on how meetings, projects, and calls went and what could beimproved next time (the ‘learning and doing’ principle).

My learning edge continues to do less instead of more as a coach and facil-itator – even though I have made good progress in this area. I did not receiveany comments from the set members on this, but I have a sense that I sometimes

Action Learning: Research and Practice 221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:58

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

could have left more room for the set to take responsibility for their own learn-ing. From time to time (particularly during the first sessions), I found it difficultto let the process of learning unfold itself and let set members discover thelearning instead of me pointing it out to them. This might have slowed the learn-ing process down. I am sure that in my next (and second) action learningprogram, I will be able to let go more easily as I now have a bit more experiencewith facilitating an action learning program.

Key learnings and recommendations

In this final section of this account of practice, I discuss the key learnings fromthe OALP and recommend actions that I take into account when designing mynext action learning program and that may be useful to other practitioners whendesigning theirs. The most important learnings and recommendations relate tothe design of the action learning program: some of them were positive, otherless effective. I start with the latter. The OALP demonstrated that learninghas taken place on the individual level, but less so on the level of the actionlearning set and Oxyme as a whole. In hindsight, I probably should havechosen other design elements to solve wicked problems on a group or organiz-ational level. For example:

. I would allow for more action learning sessions per set: most action learn-ing programs take six months or longer (Pedler 2008), which allows for atleast six action learning sessions. When set members become more com-fortable with learning within the set, it becomes more likely that they willtransfer these learning skills to their everyday working life outside the set.This then benefits the organization as a whole. To note: it was not possibleto run a longer program as I had to meet the deadline set by the universityto hand in my Management Challenge report.

. To stimulate learning on the set (group) level, I would take more time aftereach session to reflect on the effectiveness of the set as a whole in learningfrom and with each other: what went well and what needs to improve nexttime?

. To stimulate organizational learning beyond the action learning programitself, it is necessary to take responsibility as a facilitator to support theorganization with developing and implementing ways to continue thelearning when the formal, facilitated program stops. I think about thisas an after-sales service and part of our duty of care as facilitators. Thefour themes that have emerged as beneficial in stimulating learning anddevelopment (cognitive processes, group dynamics, empowerment andelements inherent to the structure of an action learning program) eachprovide information on how to do this.

. It is important to find ways to involve the wider organization in the actionlearning program to foster learning and development beyond the set. One

222 L. Crul

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:58

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

way of doing this is to make it a responsibility of the set to think of ways toinform and engage those not part of the program.

. Dilworth (2010, 271) argues that one of the principal components ofaction learning is ‘to shift to teams that are given a joint problem tosolve’. He continues: ‘action learning teams in business where eachteam member brings a separate problem to the table tend to be dysfunc-tional’. Others (e.g. Pedler 2008) say the opposite. It would be interestingto design an action learning program that focuses on a group or organiz-ational wicked issue and compares its effectiveness in solving organiz-ational wicked problems with the approach I have taken here.

What went well in the design of the program were the structure and thefacilitation of the sessions itself. For example:

. Each set established clear ground rules on how to work and learn togetherduring the first session which helped each member to feel safe and be inthe right mindset to learn.

. The structure of each session was designed to stimulate optimal learningin the group. The book ‘Action Learning for Managers’ by Pedler (2008)proved to be a valuable source in how to do this. For example, the bookprovides useful questions that set members can ask each other when think-ing about an issue. It also gives guidance on the ground rules for actionlearning. The structure of each of the three sessions was the samewhich further fostered an effective learning environment as setmembers did not have to worry about the process and could focus onthinking creatively and helping each other’s learning.

. As a facilitator, I was able to make sure the ground rules and importantelements of the structure of each session were uphold by all of us. Iwas capable of ‘holding the space’ for everyone to learn and move theirissues forward.

Conclusion

The OALP has given me a better understanding of what is needed to be usefulas a coach to help organizations deal with complexity and solve wicked pro-blems. It has also provided the opportunity to experience action learning andits powerful approach to empowering people to think and act for themselves.This has certainly strengthened my coaching practice in multiple ways. The par-ticipants of the OALP have increased their awareness of how to solve problemsmore effectively and the usefulness of doing this together. New questions havearisen for everyone involved which stimulate further exploration and learning.For me, it represents the beginning of finding appropriate ways to help peopleworking together to solve the wicked problems we face in the world around us.It has reinforced my intention to build a coaching practice in service of this goal:this program has helped me to believe that I can.

Action Learning: Research and Practice 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:58

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Notes on contributorLiselore Crul is an independent systemic coach and facilitator and an aspiring writer,who lives and works in the London area. Her main interest is in helping her clients(both in groups, teams and one-to-one) to solve their wicked issues in a way that is sus-tainable and empowering. She finished her MSc in Coaching and Behavioral Change atHenley Business School in 2013. Before that she was a brand manager at Procter &Gamble, a PhD researcher in marketing and corporate social responsibility, and co-founder and partner at marketing-analytics company Oxyme.

References

Baghai, M., and J. Quigley. 2011. As One: Individual Action, Collective Power.London: The Penguin Group.

Dilworth, R. L. 2010. “Looking to the Future of Action Learning.” In Action Learningand Its Applications, edited by R. Dilworth and Y. Boshyk, 256–275. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.

Grint, K. 2005. “Problems, Problems, Problems: The Social Construction of‘Leadership’.” Human Relations 58 (11): 1467–1494.

Pedler, M. 2008. Action Learning for Managers. Farnham: Gower.Pedler, M. 2011. “The State of the Art.” In Action Learning in Practice, 4th ed., edited

by M. Pedler, xxi–xxvii. Farnham: Gower.Revans, R. 2011. “Action Learning: Its Origins and Nature.” In Action Learning in

Practice, 4th ed., edited by M. Pedler, 6–13. Farnham: Gower.Ryde, R. 2007. Thought Leadership: Moving Hearts and Minds. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning

Organization. New York: Doubleday.

224 L. Crul

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

3:58

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14