Hi Jean,
It is good to hear of your experience and interest in action learning.
Since my response to your LO479, there has been a number of response to me
for more information about action learning too.
You have rightly observed that action learning seems to be more a North
European concept and is more favored by people not in North America. this
observation stands true to the differences to social sciences traditions
in Europe that more cognitive and psychoanalytic approaches are more
prevalent in Europe rather than in North America which favour more "doing
orientation" and therefore "behavioralism". Similarly, research methods
like that of Personal Construct Theory are more valued in Europe which has
a different social sciences tradition.
Will the differences in social sciences tradition inhibit the application
management development approaches? This is the question I raise both to
Reg Revans and Max Boisot when they visited Hong Kong some years ago when
I worked there. Reg stayed with me for more than a week and we had really
good discussion on the point of cultural differences in applying the
concept of action learning in difference countries. He had then written a
Hand Book on International Perspectives in Action Learning published by
the IDPM of Manchester University. I may not totally agree with all his
views but I have since then reduced some of my hesitation in applying
action learning in the Chinese culture. Max Boisot has not rejected the
particular difficulty posed when applying action learning in a more
individualized and abstract learning tradition such as that of a system
like that in China. However, it does not mean it can not work. My
assumption tend to be a need for expansion of learning repertoire for any
adult learner despite of the difficulty. Managers tend to be activity
oriented and less reflective. When we train operational managers to become
strategist, we wish their competency in abstract conceptualization to be
developed and expand beyond the "doing" orientation. Culture or tradition
do set the learning preference which make a particular approach popular or
otherwise. However, I subscribe to the idea that I take an approach which
is more appropriate and will take long term effect. I concern less for
popularity in consulting and less creation of dramatic effect which most
trainees may like to feel - excitement and enjoyment may not always lead
to deep learning. A social and psychological process of realising strategy
formulation always involoves ambiguity, chaos... (which you probably know
very well) may best be felt in real in action learning. What I concerned
is that such an attribute not developed or acquired as one of the
competency area for the strategist learner will end up in having them
without properly grounded in good foundation. We cannot have bopth ends
met. If a company prefers a quick fix which reflects the same
organizational culture as well, then we may have to go along but may
suffer from the end result of not making the development for the
strategist effective. Hence, as a believer in this approach, I do point
out to the management for their choice if they wish to adopt other
approaches. In my experience, some come back to me when the other methods
may do not get the outcome for management development.
In putting forward the above, it always run the risk of saying that
"action learning" is the only approach which Reg Revans really believes
so. I do not hold the same idea although I have faith in it. Actually, the
more experiential and workshop type of activity can bring about other sets
of learning but may not be the ambiguity tolerance, hueristic abilty, and
other competency area as requiried by strategist whose job may bear
similar resemblance to the process of action learning.
Actually, some organizations have used similar approaches for developing
their managers. I recalled that Susan Wright at Ontario Hyrdo and another
lady from Northern Telecome have talked about action learning which may
more be influenced by Eric Trist at York University. The approach may be
slight different yet the core idea may not so differ. I have a brief
mentioning of this approach at OISE when Professor John Bourgoyne visited
Toronto and we had a "Learning Organization" Conference. Action learning
may not be known by many participants as compared to approaches such as
quality circle and other approaches. Some approaches are popular but may
not stay long. Some creates a euphoria effect but may not promote
effectiveness in the long run.
I am glad that you have the experience and have written paper on action
learning. It may be time to see the revival of interest in a particular
approach. For instance, I do see the trend of Personal Construct theory is
gaining some more attention lately in this part of the world. I would have
thought action learning aims equally at developing a learning organization
and making managers who have critical insight to ask the right question
and not use yesterdays answer to tomorrow's problem. I am sure strategist
need that perspective to face the change of environment and strategy have
to answer tomorrow's problem is change so quickly at our turbulent
environement. We as learning specialist have to help them ready with the
approach we faith. I do not rule out other approaches as faith is a
subjective thing which can be, using your nice word "religious".
Answer to your last point. I have to apologize for not introducing myself
after having joined this listserver for less than a fortnight. I have
immigrated to Canada from Hong Kong two years ago and have been running my
own organizational and management development office known as
APA(International). Fax: (905) 881 7275 Tel:(905) 881 6143. I was
principal lecturer at the City University of Hong Kong and is still its
Principal Consultant in Management Development. My academic specialization
is in OD and OB. But my experience were mostly in development of managers
as I was head of ICAC training and the Chairman of the HK Society for
Training and Development. These are history now and I am spending time in
cross cultural difference in OB research with the SSHRC support.
Hope to know of your work as well. We may for a link to share "Pitfalls
and Possibilities " of "Action Learning" in the American Culture. I am
sure there are many others who have more experience and idea than I do in
the north American context. To follow the "Dialogue" rule, I shall suspend
my assumption and open my mind (Chinese should say open my heart) to take
in the fresh insight from others.
I trust that our discussion may be of interest to others and I hope you
would not mind me relating this to the list server.
Hope to be in touch and benefit from your precious experience. May I know
more about your project ?
Aaron PUN (DPhil)
IN%"APUN@OISE.ON.CA"
On Tue, 21 Mar 1995, Jean-Marie Bonthous wrote:
> Replying to LO479 --
>
> Dear Aaron:
>
> Thank you very much for your kind reply regarding how to grow
> strategists./ I am familiar with ACtion Learning and have read Reg Revans.
> I have had experience leading sets and just completed an article on Action
> Laerning. I truly believe it is the most effective process for growing
> strategists. However, for some reason, it does not sit well with teh
> American mind. Maybe it is too slow, maybe it is not enough a "religious"
> experience, like workshops can be.
>
> It is intersting to see tha Action Learning has mostly cuahgt up in
> countreis of NOrthern Europe, which have a cultural bias towards teamwork,
> and consensus.
>
> Individualistic countries like the US find it in my opinion more
> difficult. It is significant to see that there are 20 books on Action
> Learning liste in "British Books in Print" and only 1 or 2 in US books in
> print. None of these books is even to be found at UCLA or USC, or NYU
> universities, in the university libraries......
>
> I have been experimenting with other formats, which even though they
> compromise a little bit, can be helpful:one-day workshops, with custom
> designed business case, combining facts and inferences, forcing
> particpants to lookat realities from multiple perspectives, susp[end
> judgement, develop multiple scenarios, etc...I am exploring right now the
> use of tools to expose participants to the relativity iof their
> perceptions and to invite them to think deeper.
>
> Your work sounds interesting.
>
> It may interest you to knownthat in the Journal of Management Development,
> 6,2, an article was published called "Chinese boxes and learning cubes:
> action learning in a cross cultural context, by Max Boisot and Michel
> Fiol. Boisot was with the EEC management Programme in Beijing.
>
> Glad to talk to you. Are you active in consulting/action learning? What
> does your company do?
>
> Regards
> Jean MArie Bonthous
>
> From: jmb@panix.com (Jean-Marie Bonthous)
>