An Executive Action Learning Program (SEAL) for Professional Development and Higher Degrees
1. Introduction
Management education in universities, including graduate schools of management, has long been criticized for being too theoretical and irrelevant to the needs of industry, especially at the MBA, DBA and PhD levels (see for example the special issue of the Harvard Business Review, November-December 1992; Karpin Report 1995). In recent years, attempts to resolve this dilemma by forging closer links between higher education institutions and industry have identified a key source of the problem: failure to distinguish between two different types of learners who have different learning needs and capacities. One type are managers in or preparing for executive positions and the other are those preparing for academic positions in higher education.
This distinction forces recognition of the need for two different education pro- grams, each with their own aims, teaching and assessment methods, learning out- comes, and contributions to knowledge by graduates. Aspiring academics in de- partments or (graduate) schools of management need to acquire and contribute mainly to propositional or theoretical knowledge of 'grand theory', while practising managers/executives need to develop and explicate mainly 'grounded theory', that is theory grounded in data, based on practical experience and yielded to improve practice. Therefore, there must be a difference in the kind of thesis produced by the candidates in (1) Research Masters and PhD programs for future academics, and (2) MBA, DBA and other professional doctoral programs for executives and senior managers. The former thesis needs to demonstrate a contribution to grand theory, while the latter thesis must make a contribution to both grounded theory and improved practice. This difference needs to be clearly understood by the can- didates, teaching academics and thesis examiners.
The first kind of program - academic and theoretical - has been widely established and accepted in universities, but the second type - professional and practical - is still struggling to be recognized as being of equal value and merit. This paper aims to
contribute to a better understanding of the issues related to the necessity, relevance, appropriateness, validity and quality of a professional higher degrees program for senior managers and executives.
The main message of this paper is based on my research, my reflective practice and established theories in the literature, such as theories on adult learning, experiential learning, action learning, the learning organization, grounded theory and personal construct theory. I argue in this paper that:
– Many senior managers and executives in leadership positions have unique knowledge and insights grounded in their experience accumulated over the years and worth making public (Glaser/Strauss 1967).
– This personal knowledge is often tacit and needs to be made conscious and explicit (Polanyi 1958).
– Explicating knowledge from practical experience (Kolb 1984) can be aided strategically in an action learning program that facilitates reflective practice (Schön 1983) and 'questioning insight' (Revans 1982; 1991) in small action learning groups or 'sets' of like-minded colleagues (called 'associates' rather than 'students') who have the same vision, aims and objectives to learn, theorize, make a significant contribution to their learning organization, and produce their life work as a monograph or thesis for a professional Masters or Doctoral de- gree (Zuber-Skerritt/Perry 2002).
– Institutions of postgraduate education (universities and business schools) need to extend their teaching and supervision from theses by research for academic Masters and PhD degrees to include alternative routes to higher degrees for practising senior managers through action learning, action research and other methods of reflective practice, appreciative inquiry and social construction (Perry/Zuber-Skerritt 1994).
This paper presents an example of such a program called Senior Executive Action Learning (SEAL) Program leading to a professional Masters or Doctoral degree that I designed with my associates in the International Management Centres Asso- ciation (IMCA) for professional development and accreditation.
The unique features of the SEAL Program relate to the combination of methods used to facilitate the associates' reflection on their practice, theory/model building, and writing an explication of their previously published work. The paper is of spe- cial interest to experienced executives and management practitioners seeking sys- tematic opportunities to develop and make explicit their tacit professional knowl- edge of innovative organizational management and leadership, to develop their ideas in practical dialogue with fellow executives in small groups, to write a thesis by explication of their 'public work' (i.e. previously written work made public, such as management documents, reports, and other publications) and to receive a Mas- ters or Doctoral award in recognition of their work.
By way of definition, action learning means learning from and with each other by discussing what is not going well in one's work with people who are in a similar 'mess' and whom Revans (1982) calls 'comrades in adversity'. Explication means explaining and interpreting one's written work and developing new concepts, prin- ciples, theories or models.
The structure of this paper is as follows. It starts with some background informa- tion and outlines the SEAL Program, including its goals, benefits, structure, activi- ties, requirements, quality assurance, accreditation and limitations. It then discusses the issue of knowledge development through reflection on management practice and the methods used to facilitate the associates' knowledge development. Next, the paper deals with the associates' ultimate task of writing an explication of their personal theory, based on their previously published work, reflection on this work, and conceptualizing the results. Their aim is to make a significant contribution to their 'learning organization' and to 'grounded theory' in their particular field.
Finally, the paper develops a model of knowledge explication. This model is of interest to both innovative management educators in the new paradigm of knowl- edge development and experienced practitioners/executives who seek to use an action learning group/program and reflective practice to produce a book, mono- graph or thesis, as the culmination of their career.
2. Background
Problems have arisen when individual academics or a whole department in a uni- versity have resisted change: from the traditional, academic, mainly theoretical ap- proach to management education in the last century, to a more customer-oriented, learner-centred, practical problem-based approach needed in this century. Although academic resistance to change can at times still be fierce and stifling, an increasing number of positive and innovative private business schools, such as the Interna- tional Management Centres Association (IMCA) and the Business School Nether- lands (BSN), now operate in many countries.
These institutions use action learning, action research and process management approaches to executive development and management education. A number of progressive, innovative academics in university institutes have followed, using ac- tion learning and action research, such as:
– The Revans Institute for Action Learning and Research, University of Salford (UK)
– SCIAR - the Southern Cross University Institute of Action Research (Australia) – SOLAR - the Social and Organizational Learning as Action Research team,
University of the West of England, Bristol (UK)
– SOL - Society for Organizational Learning, based at Cornell University (USA)
– Department of Management and Leadership Learning, University of Lancaster (UK)
– ARP - Action Research Program, Institute for Social Research, Swinburne Uni- versity of Technology, Melbourne (Australia)
– ICMOE - International Centre for Management and Organizational Effective- ness, University of South Australia, Adelaide
– School of Management, University of Bath (UK)
However, there is still powerful resistance from university academics to a practical work-based, life-long learning approach to higher degree programs in management.
What could be the reasons? A typical example might throw light on this question.
When invited by the Dean of a Graduate School of Management (GSM) in an Australian university in 1995, I presented the rationale and design of an innovative MBA (Executive) program by action learning. All relevant committees in the GSM, as well as the University's Education Committee and Academic Board formally approved my program submission. However, when the Dean (who had supported the idea of an action learning MBA) became ill and retired, he was replaced by a traditional academic (economist and positivist) who did everything in his power to oppose the implementation of the program. When I left, too, to accept a chair in another university, the program died a natural death, but my related published pa- per (Zuber-Skerritt 1995a) has stimulated others to implement action learning in MBA programs, as Chris Riley's (2005) PhD thesis shows.
This experience has motivated me to present in this paper another example of an action learning program, this time at the Doctoral level (also available at the Mas- ter's level). The program is called 'Senior Executive Action Learning' or SEAL Program as outlined below.
3. The SEAL Program
The Senior Executive Action Learning Program is a forum for leadership, vision and networking, a forum for those at the top of their game who want to continue to learn and make a significant contribution to their field. Participants learn from the forum's collective expertise and bring to fruition innovations through their business or organization and at the end gain a professional doctoral degree from the IMCA, the world's foremost action learning association. The first set (or group) of 14 associates started the SEAL Program in the UK in 2003, to be followed by further sets in Europe, Australia and South Africa.
3.1. Goals
The SEAL Program is designed for a select group of executives working in a vari- ety of industries, private and public sector organizations, small and medium size businesses. The group's goal is to share knowledge in its members' fields of en-
deavour and to have a major positive impact on knowledge development in their organizations and industries or communities. At the end of the program, individual group members will have gained:
– Recognition for their previous work achievements and as self-managed leaders – Improved profitability, effectiveness and learning capacity of their organization – Knowledge explication for an accelerated, professional higher degree: DPhil
(Doctor of Philosophy, but not PhD), or DMgt (Doctor of Management), or DLitt (Doctor of Letters).
Self-managed or self-organizing leadership is a new kind of leadership that com- plements and supports strategic and operational leadership, but not from an out- side perspective (to study, manipulate and control the organization as if it were a machine). Instead, the leader sees the organization from within and with character- istics of a living system, where people are actively involved in discussions, negotia- tions and agreements, sharing information and working coherently, energetically, and effectively (Knowles 2001).
This kind of leadership goes beyond the leadership concept developed by Dubrin/
Dalgish (2003) on the basis of the voluminous research literature about leadership (with examples of effective leadership in action and skill development guidelines).
For their framework they used the simple formula: L=f (l, gm, s) - that is, the lead- ership process is a function of the leader, group members (as followers), and other situational variables. This is based on the theory that leadership effectiveness de- pends on four sets of variables: Leader characteristics and traits, leader behavior and style, group member characteristics, and the internal and external environment.
While self-managed leadership might benefit from knowledge of the research litera- ture, an important additional requirement for a self-organizing leader is the ability to use processes and methods of guiding and transforming organizations into learn- ing organizations, as defined by Senge (1990). The goals of the SEAL Program (and the aims of this paper) are to present a model of these processes and methods.
3.2. Benefits
The SEAL Program provides associates with an opportunity to work explicitly on enhancing their own personal development and their management and self- organizing leadership skills as defined by Knowles (2001) above.
Specific benefits to participants in the Program include:
– Gaining personal recognition as a leader in their field
– Gaining institutional recognition of their organization as a learning organization – Membership of IMCA, a worldwide professional association, and access to over
1600 full-text, on-line management journals (e.g. Harvard Business Review; The Learning Organization; Journal of Workplace Learning; Journal of Knowledge Management;
etc.)
– Help with Action Learning Publishing
– Access to global electronic discussion lists on Action Research (ARLIST) and Action Learning (ACTLIST) and to a course on Action Research and Evalua- tion Online (AREOL)
– Internationalization: Opportunities to work with associates from other countries who have similar interests, providing potential to enhance understanding and develop wider international perspectives on significant issues. Participants can maintain contact and discussion via a meeting place on the Internet.
3.3. The Program Structure
The Program is structured over a minimum period of two years. Individuals may decide the length of the program best suited to their own arrangements. The Pro- gram has the following elements:
– Introductory information
– Start-up processes providing a structure and future direction, vision and team building, examples and evidence of successful action learning programs, a common understanding of the principles of effective learning, knowledge crea- tion, leadership, action research, and organizational transformation
– Access to specialist resources through IMCA's web-based Master's and Doc- toral courseware
– Opportunity to participate in public workshops sharing and comparing strategy with those facing similar business challenges
– Sub-group meetings with and without mentor (self-organized)
– Individual or team projects, each resulting in a book, monograph or written paper
– Public presentation of project results
– Personal mentoring and supervision of written work by qualified faculty staff – Publication of written work
– Awards and celebration. IMCA graduation ceremonies are held in a different location each year, e.g. Amsterdam in 2000, Colorado in 2001, Edinburgh in 2002, Helsinki in 2003, and Cape Town in 2004.
These activities are designed and facilitated to assist associates in:
– Using action learning principles to gain insights into their own and each other's experiences and achievements, recognizing all processes and outcomes, whether successful or otherwise, as valuable learning opportunities
– Discussing their most significant workplace challenges, tasks, problems, issues or concerns. Participants draw from these discussions to determine the content of their projects, the topics they will select, and the help they need to complete their thesis
– Developing their capacity for constructive reflection
– Learning how to write for a particular readership, using precise, concise and clear language to present a cogent thesis by explication
– Producing publishable work under strong guidance and mentoring from recog- nized, highly qualified specialists in action learning and action research.
3.4. Requirements
Entry requirements for the SEAL Program are:
– Master's level award or its demonstrated equivalent – Three referees' reports
– At least eight years' managerial experience
– Commitment to a roughly 24-month action learning program that requires asso- ciates to participate actively in workshops, learning group discussions and regu- lar communication with their mentor (supervisor) and fellow set members by e- mail, telephone, or face-to-face (where possible). To this effect, associates must sign a 'Personal Agreement' form (see www.g-a-r-c.org/seal/).
Prior to commencing the Program, each associate must submit a written account of about 3,000 words on the role and purpose of their organization, explaining their current job description and its significance. This account (entitled OOM - Own Organization Monograph) is for sharing with fellow associates in their set.
With guidance and support, over the period of candidacy, associates are required to submit:
1. Their selected previously published works and management documents (accred- ited for up to one third of the degree). These may include management reports, planning documents (marketing and business plans), training and development resources, refereed publications, such as articles and conference papers, that demonstrate and explore common themes; together with a proposal for their explication
2. An explication in at least 10,000 words of the key issues involved in their work at (a) above (assessment is based on quality rather than length of explication) 3. A published monograph of at least 4,000 words on the basis of their explication
at (b) above.
Alternatively, they may choose to publish a book in lieu of an explication. They also have to offer a public workshop in their chosen field and attend a Viva Voce (oral explanation/presentation and debate).
All these requirements are published by the Global Action Research Centre (GARC), a dedicated Web-based resource for doctoral associates. IMCA/GARC uses the Internet for all its global activities and puts associates, graduates and fac- ulty in direct contact with one another to share challenges and receive advice and comment.
3.5. Quality Assurance in the SEAL Program
Here I explain how quality in the SEAL Program is assured through:
– High quality, experienced staff
– Limiting admission to the Program to associates who have a high level of work experience, knowledge and skills
– Assessment and examination procedures, including peer-reviewed publications of international standing.
Qualified staff
All faculty staff in IMCA who teach in the SEAL Program are highly qualified. For example, the inaugural International Director of Studies has over 25 years experi- ence in academic staff development; postgraduate research training and supervi- sion; course design, development and evaluation; and quality assurance as a mem- ber of higher education R&D units and of various Program and Education Com- mittees at several universities. She has obtained three doctoral degrees (2 PhDs, 1 DLitt) in different fields and has published widely. She has trained more than 500 academics and senior administrators in action learning and action research and an equal number in postgraduate supervision. She is, therefore, familiar with and able to enhance the professional competence of mentors for the participants in this SEAL Program and to provide overall quality assurance.
The present UK Program Director and Set Advisor spent the first part of her ca- reer in senior line management in the public sector, in the Prison and Social Ser- vices. She has worked with the IMCA since its foundation in 1983 and developed her understanding of Action Learning working with its founder, Reg Revans. Her major area of expertise is the design and architecture of action learning programs designed to achieve maximum return on investment and increased personal and professional effectiveness. Her clients include Shell, Du Pont, Westpac Banking Corporation, Bank of Australia, Bekaert, BUPA, Fina, and Swan Hunter Ship Builders. She was IMCA's first Senior Tutor, responsible for the development of IMCA faculty worldwide and she is now Professor of Managerial Communications in IMCA. She has a Certificate in Education from the University of Birmingham, an MBA from Cranfield and a DPhil from IMCA.
The participants themselves are experts and leaders in professional and organizational development, learning with and from each other in the Program.
Assessment and examination
The Explication and Viva Voce are assessed by supervisors and external examiners who are experienced in supervision and examination of professional doctoral the- ses, as well as in action learning, action research and knowledge explication. Quality is assured through publication, a requirement not enforced by universities. IMCA's
emphasis is on quality, not quantity of words. Quality standards are comparable with those of a higher degree program in a traditional university (Zuber-Skerritt/
Howell 1993), but the aims and criteria are different. As mentioned earlier, a uni- versity PhD is required to be more academic/theoretical, while a professional doc- torate is required to be more scholarly/practical in outcome and approach.
Table 1 presents an overview of the SEAL Program.
1/3 Recognition of Prior
Learning/Public Work
2/3
Personal Explication of Public Work Viva Voce
Publications
• Management reports
• Annual reports
• Strategic busi- ness plans
• Keynote addresses
• Conference papers
• Training and development couses/manu- als
• Board propo- sals
• Client/stake- holder reports/
evaluations
• Co-authorship or supervised work etc.
Meetings
• 4 days of work- shops (inclu- ding Start-up)
• Individual mentoring
• Sub-set dis- cussions (self- organized)
• International meetings with other sets (op- tional)
Support network for concept de- velopment, wri- ting and publi- shing
Public Workshop
To be conducted on associate’s own topic and assessed by mentor, peers, audience and self
Trial and presen- tation of ideas
Explication
Of publishable standard >10,000 words examined by mentor and second (external) examiner
Published Monograph
>4,000 words
Quality assured
Defense of Explication
Oral examina- tion and debate with at least two examiners
Evidence of own work
Table 1: Overview of the Senior Executive Action Learning Program
Accrediation
The International Management Centres Association (IMCA) is dedicated to career development through action learning and has run programs for more than 30,000
managers in five languages in over 40 countries in the past two decades. The or- ganization provides programs from Certificate to Doctoral level, through both face-to-face and Internet communication.
IMCA in England is an accredited institution of the British Accreditation Council (BAC) for Independent Further and Higher Education, which gives IMCA the endorsement of the British Council. IMCA's newly established University of Action Learning (UAL) with its headquarters in Boulder, Colorado, USA, is listed and approved by the State of Colorado Commission on Higher Education. It is also independently accredited by the Washington-based Distance Education Training Council (DETC). DETC is recognized by the US Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) as a national accrediting agency in the USA.
Limitations
The above accreditations are generally not recognized by traditional universities.
This should not matter, but it does. Most associates and/or their sponsoring or- ganizations generally prefer accreditation to a traditional university, rather than to the institutions identified above. Yet, our associates would not enrol in a manage- ment education degree in a traditional university. They are interested in learning and developing only the professional knowledge and skills that are generic and transferable to totally different situations and problems, and in publishing a book or monograph as a result of this learning and knowledge creation. In sum, they want to have the learning cake and to eat it, too.
Therefore, IMCA has adjusted to learner needs and entered into agreements with several universities in the UK and Australia so that these universities will validate or accredit IMCA's degree programs. In my view, however, these agreements have been problematic because there are still many academics who are ignorant of, or feel threatened by, the paradigm of experiential learning and knowledge creation/
explication in postgraduate management education. Problems have arisen because of this. For example, there have been cases involving inappropriate examiners who used the criteria for an academic PhD thesis to assess a professional doctoral thesis.
On the other hand, in an evaluation study (Zuber-Skerritt/Howell 1993), the exter- nal examiners from universities, who had taught in IMCA programs part-time and understood the criteria for assessment, testified in their examiners' reports and interviews that in their view the theses by Masters and Doctoral candidates in IMCA over five years were of the same quality as university theses, or better.
In this paper I can present only a written, static description of the SEAL Program.
In actual life, the SEAL experience is dynamic, energizing and life changing. Rec- ognizing the richness of this experience is necessary to fully understand the SEAL Program's unique advantages, to be able to become a self-organizing leader in a
learning organization, and to develop the skills, motivation and energy for knowl- edge creation, development, and explication in written form.
4. Knowledge Development Through Reflection on Management Practice Why is an emphasis on reflection necessary? We all use reflection in our everyday lives, but unless we consciously apply and facilitate this reflection, we lose out on much of its potentially effective results. Over the past three decades, the traditional division between theory (created by theorists) and practice (by practitioners who apply the theory) has been revolutionized by the concept of 'grounded theory' (Glaser/Strauss 1967; Strauss/Corbin 1990), i.e. theory grounded in qualitative data. Such theory can be created by practitioners on the basis of their concrete experience by reflecting critically on this experience and formulating general con- cepts that need to be tested in new situations and lead to a new cycle of concrete experience, reflection, conceptualization and testing (Kolb 1984).
Meanwhile, it has been widely accepted that there is not only one type of knowl- edge - scientific or prepositional or theoretical knowledge produced by scientists, researchers and theorists in laboratories and universities. There is also practical knowledge produced by practitioners, and experiential or existential knowledge produced by action researchers as 'reflective practitioners' (Schön 1983).
It has also been accepted that professional practice can be explored, developed and better understood through reflection on this professional practice. But there is little known about how to facilitate reflection in an effective and systematic way so that it results in better understanding of one's practice, how to develop it further, how to articulate the positive and negative factors affecting the quality of work, and how to identify and conceptualize the underlying principles. This paper suggests a num- ber of opportunities and methods for senior executives to use in order to reflect on and distil the essence of their contribution to their professional field and work- place.
In recent years, many works have been published on postgraduate thesis writing and research methods, including action research. However, the literature on profes- sional doctoral thesis by explication is almost non-existent. The present paper takes up the challenge to contribute to knowledge in this new field of higher education by discussing:
– The concept of reflection
– Selected methods for facilitating reflection, conceptualization and theory/model building and
– Writing an explication of previously published work First we consider the concept of reflection.
4.1. The Concept of Reflection
The word 'reflection' - of Latin origin reflectere: to bend or turn back, to bring back - is defined by the New Macquarie Dictionary (1981, 1453) as: "… (1) the act of reflect- ing; (2) the state of being reflected; (3) an image; representation; counterpart; (4) a fixing of the thoughts on something; careful consideration; (5) a thought occurring in consideration or meditation …".
Applied to the SEAL Program, associates need to turn back their thoughts to bring back memories of past work experience. They need to be actively involved in (1) the act of reflecting and (4) fixing their thoughts on their thesis during the whole program so that their explication becomes (2) a reflection and (3) representation of their previous achievements in relation to their public work which are the very basis and raw data of their thesis by explication. The associates' final results and contribution to knowledge concern (5) a thought that can be expressed in one sentence that is their 'thesis'.
We distinguish between individual and collective reflection. Reflection can be aided by asking and responding to questions, and certain systematic methods and proc- esses can be used effectively to make tacit knowledge explicit, for example, in indi- vidual interviews and group meetings.
Being a member of an action learning 'set' or action research group allows our associates in the IMCA as 'reflective practitioners' to focus their reflection in a more systematic way, to set aside time for professional development and to be open to further development of their ideas in theory and practice. The set/group provides a 'reflective space'.
Reflective space involves associates creating the opportunity, the time and place for reflecting on management practice with others and with themselves. In our experi- ence, reflective space does not happen by chance, it needs to be designed, facili- tated and monitored by professional development agents, if such a space or spaces are to lead to successful and sustainable development of reflective thinking, analysis and synthesis.
The idea of an action learning set is to provide participants with the opportunity to work in pairs as well as in small groups. For the purpose of an explication, an ac- tion learning set is guided by a 'set advisor' who facilitates the processes of learning, research and writing. The first step is for each individual set member to identify the area and theme(s) they would like to explore in their professional practice and the new knowledge and insights they would like to gain. We may term these the 'learn- ing target' or 'expected learning outcome', which can be achieved by using various methods to facilitate the process.
4.2. Methods of Facilitating Reflection and Theory Building
Once the expected learning outcomes have been clearly identified, reflection on professional practice and theory building may be facilitated by the following meth- ods and techniques:
– Individual coaching – Collegial interviews – Reflection journals
– Action learning 'set' meetings – Model building
Individual coaching
A crucial step towards an explication is defining the topic and focal question(s) and the significance of the work, that is, why it is worth explicating, how it is new, original and unique and for whom it yields benefit (target audience).
Since it is ultimately the associates themselves who must determine the focus and scope of their individual work and original contribution to knowledge in their field, they need help in the beginning to make their personal, tacit knowledge explicit, first orally and then in writing their proposal. This is best achieved through the method of coaching and asking probing questions. The best coaches are people with a sound professional knowledge of:
– Research and thesis writing in general; and explication writing in particular
– The difference between a PhD and a Professional Doctorate (DPhil or DMgt by explication)
– How to help the associates to select their best and most suitable published or public work as the basis and raw data for their explication
– Action learning and action research
– Qualitative research methods in the social sciences – Postgraduate supervision.
People, who can successfully fulfil the role of individual coaching, may be in posi- tions like Director of Studies, supervisor, set advisor and/or external consultant. It is important to point out here that the coach must be familiar with the concepts, processes and methods of coaching. To elicit the associates' tacit, implicit knowl- edge of what they want to reflect on, work out and write up, the coach needs to adopt a Socratic approach. The Greek philosopher, Socrates (circa 470-399 BC), taught his disciples by asking probing questions. A coach, too, needs to ask ques- tions instead of giving advice, so that the answers are always generated and formu- lated by the associates themselves. Knowledge is literally pulled out of their minds - making mostly unconscious knowledge into conscious knowledge. However, the associates' own ideas, reflections, intentions and motivations should be the result of the coaching sessions, not those of the coach. In this way, associates will gain a better understanding and more energy and enthusiasm for their explication and
thus, a higher chance of completing the explication successfully and swiftly. This 'questioning insight' (Revans 1991) can then be further developed in collegial inter- views, reflection journals, workshops and action learning set meetings.
Collegial interviews
Collegial interviews conducted in pairs provide a strong framework for individual reflection and learning. In each pair associates take turns in playing the part of interviewer and interviewee. Questions relating to the interviewee's learning target may be asked in semi-structured interviews, designed by the interviewer, then nego- tiated and agreed upon, and possibly tape-recorded for later recall and reflection.
These semi-structured interviews are conversational in style and encourage an ap- proach to learning through reflection on practice and, immediately after the inter- view, through writing and describing their world in their own terms.
On average each pair might meet about six times per year. After each meeting, the interviewer writes a brief 'pen portrait' of and for his/her partner who will receive a mirror image of him/herself from a different perspective. All set members then present their brief pen portraits to the whole action learning set to improve under- standing, communication and networking among themselves.
Reflection journals
Reflection journals or diaries or logbooks are also very strong heuristic tools, for reflection as well as for formulating the essence of this reflection in written form.
Without a journal, reflection is often transitory and vanishes in the sub-conscious mind where it becomes part of our tacit knowledge. A systematic diary writing process facilitates the construction or creation of new knowledge and enables asso- ciates to make their tacit knowledge more explicit.
In IMCA, associates learn how to keep a systematic journal. That is how to record a significant event or events in their journal; how to reflect on these events and on their learning and write down both their reflections and the actions they plan to take as a result of their reflection and learning. They can then tick off the actions when they have completed them, or when action is no longer necessary.
It is recommended that associates review their journal entries weekly. The impor- tant records need to be kept and the rest trashed, but trashed items should be set aside in a folder in case they need to be recovered later. A similar culling process should also be conducted monthly. In this way, the data in the reflection journal is continuously reduced and therefore more manageable.
Other benefits of keeping a reflection diary in such a systematic manner are the associates' learning from experience (Kolb 1984), becoming more effective and reflective practitioners (Schön 1983), developing learning principles and personal theories (Kelly
1955; 1963), and taking appropriate action. The diagram in Figure 1 is a model of a systematic diary reflection process.
Figure 1: The process of keeping a reflection journal
Goodnough (2003, 43) has used the reflection journal with science teachers in Canada to maintain a log of events and to record personal thoughts, ideas and observations of events:
The journal writing encouraged us to make our thinking explicit, thus providing a fo- rum for 'reflection-on-action', a conscious and deliberate form of thinking, feeling and talking that occurs after events have occurred or before events may occur (Schön 1983). Thoughts and ideas recorded in the journals were shared at action research meetings, another forum for critical reflection and discourse. My journal was a place for me to reflect on the evolution of the action research process, as well as on how I could best support the research participants.
Although reflection journals and other reflection tools are for individual reflection, they contain notes of set meetings and can be used in subsequent meetings.
Action learning set meetings
The frequency of set meetings can be negotiated with the associates. Generally, they are held at least six times per year and are of half-day to two-day duration.
They provide space for both individual and collective reflection. It is important to Significant Events
(recorded) Action
(planned & ticked off) Reflection (on events & learning) Weekly Review
Monthly Review
Outcomes
•
Learning from experience (Kolb 1984)•
Taking appropriate action•
Developing learning principles•
Being a more effective and reflective practi- tioner (Schön 1983)Trash
Trash
note that there are two essential factors affecting the success or failure of set meet- ings with busy people: early planning and commitment.
It is the program director/facilitator's task to negotiate and schedule the meetings and have them recorded in the associates' diaries at the very beginning of the action learning program and to ensure that these meetings are regarded as professional obligations rather than 'add-ons' or private indulgencies. It is also important that all associates have the opportunity to identify and share their learning target and ex- pected learning outcomes with the group and to make a commitment to themselves and other set members to attend all meetings. In most cases, it is worthwhile hav- ing team building exercises at the beginning of the program to establish mutual trust and an atmosphere in which everyone can be at ease with their colleagues, free to 'think aloud', willing to share problems and 'what is not going well' in their work as 'comrades in adversity' (Revans 1982) and to comfortably accept periods of si- lence.
The agenda for group meetings can be very broad. Associates may decide on the purpose, theme(s) and learning targets for each meeting, i.e. at the end of one meet- ing they decide on the agenda for the next meeting. However, enough space should be left for raising current issues within each associate's practice for professional dialogue within the set and for sharing useful resources, such as books and articles that are of interest to all associates. Writing and presenting the final draft of the 'Explication' is a topic that needs to be discussed at least once and, if not before, then in the final meeting.
Model building
Mental models - both theoretical and process models - can also be very useful for reflection on practice. Most action research theses aim to improve practice and to develop theories or models for professional and/or organizational development and change. In an earlier book chapter (Zuber-Skerritt 1995b), I presented 30 mod- els for:
– Learning and knowledge creation – Action learning
– Action research
– Organizational change and development and – Thesis research and writing
These were models that my associates and I found useful in our research, teaching, supervision and consultancy. Since this book is out of print, I repeat some of my ideas here about developing models that I define as simplified, but useful representations of complex concepts or systems in two- or three-dimensional diagrams.
The process of model building is important, especially for research students and associates who can adapt existing models and create their own mental models on the basis of their research. All associates at doctoral level - whether PhD or Profes-
sional Doctorates - are required to make an original contribution to knowledge in the field. Abstract concepts and generalizations are often easier to represent in the form of a graphic design (e.g. flow-charts, diagrams).
Model building is a selective process of establishing concept patterns and relation- ships and of gradually arriving at a simple representation of concept maps. This process of model building involves the following activities:
– Identifying core categories, issues or problems (and sub-categories) – Patterning the relationships between (sub-)categories
– Drawing various shapes (e.g. circles, spirals, square or round boxes)
– Indicating linkages and influences by drawing lines and arrows between con- cepts and labelling the relationships
– Experimenting, soliciting feedback from others, and revising the model until the best way of representing the data, results or conclusions is achieved
The representation should be as clear to others as it is to the researcher who con- structed it. Our associates - and reflective practitioners in general - are well advised to create their own representations of both their existing ideas and the concepts, theories and philosophies they seek to develop.
Useful references to model building, including concept mapping or mind mapping, grounded theory building and qualitative data interpretation, can be found in Chenitz/Swanson (1986), Novak/Gowin (1984), Riley (1990), Rafferty/Fletcher (1993) and on the Internet: www.mindmanager.ch/.
We now turn to writing and publishing the explication of published work.
5. Explication of Published Work
Reflecting here on my experience of writing and publishing an explication of my published work (Zuber-Skerritt 1993), I realize that I could have learned and achieved much more, had I had the opportunity of being a member of an action learning set with all the advantages of 'reflective space', interaction with other re- flective practitioners, and with the systematic facilitation of reflection. Instead, I was on my own, analyzing and 'thinking' more than reflecting. What helped me most was the 'Snake Technique' I used when reflecting on my professional career path, using each turn/bend of the snake as a milestone in my career, both positive and negative events. It was from failures much more than from successes in my professional life that I learned and grew most.
I now understand that I was awarded my DLitt degree on the basis of the strength of my publications, rather than on my explication. In those pioneering days, few examiners themselves knew how to write and examine an explication. Times have changed. Now guidelines for associates are published on the Global Action Re- search Centre (GARC) Website (www.g-a-r-c.org/imcass/VUs/garc/frame.htm).
However, I have further advice for associates, namely to:
– Attend all scheduled meetings, because here they learn more than they realize, not only for their explication, but also for their professional life
– Use a biographical database for references (e.g. 'Endnote' available for both IBM and Macintosh) - you save a lot of time!
– Write a detailed proposal and seek feedback before starting to write the explica- tion
– Keep a reflection diary and keep writing regularly from the very start to avoid writers' block
– Find 'critical friends' with whom to conduct collegial interviews or discuss any issues or concerns
– Keep focused and complete the first draft of the explication quickly without attending to the niceties of the language; get feedback; then revise and complete the final draft.
6. Conclusions
To conclude, the SEAL Program can be summarized in a diagrammatical model of knowledge explication. I have developed this model in relation to the Program's three main concepts and goals that can be achieved through action learning and reflection on practice: 'self-managed leadership' and 'knowledge explication' in and for the 'learning organization', as shown in the upper half of Figure 2.
Concepts
Activities SEAL
Program Concepts
Activities Selection of Own Documents
(Public Work)
Public Workshop Presentation
Thesis by
Explication Viva-Voce
DPhil or DMgt Award Self-managed
Leadership
The Learning
Organization Knowledge Re-creation &
Explication
Figure 2: A conceptual model of the SEAL Program
First, the SEAL Program promotes self-managed leadership required in the 21st century for a fast changing, global world. While self-managed or self-organizing leadership (Knowles 2001) might benefit from knowledge of the research literature, such as the theories, examples and guidelines presented by Dubrin/Dalgish (2003), an important additional requirement is the ability to use processes and methods of guiding and transforming organizations and their leaders, so that they are able to self-organize or self-manage when faced with sudden and totally new challenges or problems that have never been researched. Action learning, as practised in the SEAL Program, is one effective methodology, as Dotlich/Noel (1998) and others have demonstrated convincingly.
Second, the SEAL Program fosters knowledge (re-)creation and explication by facilitating the associates' reflection on their practice and previous public work.
Processes through which associates make their implicit knowledge explicit result in their development of 'questioning insight' and life-long learning. Methods include individual coaching, collegial interviews, reflection journals, action learning set meetings, and model building.
Third, the above two concepts are essential for developing and maintaining a 'Learning Organization' in the sense of Senge's (1990) five disciplines:
– Systems Thinking – Personal Mastery – Mental Models
– Building Shared Vision – Team Learning
Systems thinking integrates the remaining four components and underpins the idea of the Learning Organization. In this paper I have shown how the SEAL Program focuses on all five disciplines of the learning organization. Associates acquire per- sonal mastery of both the knowledge and skills they need to develop and sustain a learning organization, not only as self-managed leaders themselves, but also as facilitators of processes that develop other leaders' learning capability to become action learners, reflective practitioners, knowledge creators (not just 'knowledge workers') and self-organized managers and leaders.
Upon successful completion of the SEAL Program, associates are able to perform the tasks of top management in a learning organization: inducing and promoting the action learning processes and methods of relevant parts and key personnel in the organization who will then filter this learning throughout all levels and depart- ments. They are masters of building mental models, a shared vision and team learn- ing.
In sum, Figure 2 shows how the main concepts of self-managed leadership, knowl- edge (re-)creation and explication in the new learning organization are realized in the SEAL Program through the main activities outlined in this paper, summarized
in Table 1, and culminating in a thesis by knowledge explication for a doctoral award.
It will be the purpose of another paper we will prepare in about a year's time to evaluate the Programme and to discuss to what extent the associates will actually have become better and more effective executives and their companies better learn- ing organizations as a result of their participation in the SEAL Programme.
I finish with a comment of a former CEO (chief executive officer) and associate in the SEAL Programme, Bob Mackenzie, who critiqued the first draft of this paper:
"Thank you for the opportunity to read and comment on your paper. It's been a great help in crystallising some of my own reflections about the programme, about its potential, about its challenges for me, and about its - and my - future. I think that your paper will be of great help to those who are contemplating joining a future co- hort of the SEAL programme, as well as to thoughtful and innovative members of the academy. It's certainly a great contribution to extending the boundaries of think- ing within management and organisational discourse" (Email 22/5/4).
References
Chenitz, W. C./Swanson, J. M. (1986): From Practice to Grounded Theory: Qualitative Data in Nursing. Menlo Park, California.
Dotlich, D. L./Noel, J. L. (1998): Action Learning: How the World's Top Companies Are Re- creating Their Leaders and Themselves. San Francisco.
Dubrin, A. J./Dalgish, C. (2003): Leadership: An Australasian Focus. Brisbane.
Glaser, B./Strauss, B. (1967): The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York.
Goodnough, K. (2003): Facilitating action research in the context of science education: Reflec- tions of a university researcher. In: Educational Action Research 11 (1), 41-63.
Karpin, D. (1995): Enterprising Nation: Renewing Australia's Managers to Meet the Challenges of the Asia-Pacific Century. Report of the Industry Task Force on Leadership and Manage- ment Skills. Canberra.
Kelly, G. A. (1955): The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York.
Kelly, G. A. (1963): A Theory of Personality. New York.
Knowles, R. (2001): Self-organizing leadership: A way of seeing what is happening in organiza- tions and a pathway to coherence. In: Emergence 3 (4), 112-27.
Kolb, D. A. (1984): Experiencial Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Develop- ment. Englewood Cliffs.
Novak, J. D./Gowin, D. B. (1984): Learning to Learn. Cambridge.
Perry, C./Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1994): Doctorates by action research for senior practising managers.
In: Management Learning 1 (1), 341-364.
Polanyi, M. (1958): Personal Knowledge. London.
Rafferty, C. D./Fletcher, L. K. (1993): Concept mapping: a viable alternative to objective essay exams. In: Reading Research and Instruction 32 (3), 25-34.
Revans, R. (1982): The Origins and Growth of Action Learning. Bromley.
Revans, R. (1991): Reg Revans Speaks about Action Learning. Video program (now on DVD) produced by Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt. Video Vision, ITS. University of Queensland. Brisbane (44 minutes).
Riley, C. (2005): An Analysis of the Rationale for Incorporating Action Learning into Australian MBA Programs. PhD thesis. Adelaide (in progress).
Riley, J. (1990): Getting the Most of Your Data: A Handbook of Practical Ideas on How to Analyse Qualitative Data. Bristol, UK.
Schön, D. (1983): The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London.
Senge, P. (1990): The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York.
Strauss, A./Corbin, J. (1990): Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory, Procedure and Techniques. London.
The New Macquary Dictionary (1981). Sydney.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1993): Research and Development in Management and Higher Education: A Personal Explication. Occasional Paper No 2. The Tertiary Education Institute, The Univer- sity of Queensland. Brisbane.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1995a): Developing a learning organization through management education by action learning. In: The Learning Organization 2 (2), 37-47.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1995b): Models for action research. In: Pinchen, S./Passfield, R. (Eds.): Mov- ing On: Creative Applications of Action Learning and Action Research. Brisbane, 3-29.
Zuber-Skerritt, O./Howell, F. (1993): Evaluation of MBA and Doctoral Programs Conducted by the International Management Centre, Pacific Region. A Report. Brisbane.
Zuber-Skerritt, O./Perry, C. (2002): Action research within organizations and university thesis writing. In: The Learning Organization 9 (4), 171-179.
Autorin:
Prof. Ortrun Zuber-Skeritt, emeritierte Professorin an der Griffith Universität in Brisbane, seit 1995 jedes Jahr als Gastprofessorin am Institut für Organisation und Lernen, Universität Innsbruck
Arbeitsschwerpunkte: professional and organisational development in higher education, industry, government and communities through action learning, action research and process management; postgraduate research training and supervision;
university teaching methodology and academic staff development; knowledge management in the learning organisation
