|
The Help Desk
Action Learning in Action: Variation on a
Theme
Action learning is a concept originated by Reg
Revens; it incorporates tenets of learning while
doing real work in the organization. It combines
myriad theories associated with education, teaming,
problem solving, etc. It has a proven track record as
a tool for performance improvement as demonstrated by
Noel Tichy and the GE Crotonville experience. Users
such as Michael Marquardt also have organized it as a
disciplined body of knowledge.
In practice, I find that although a facilitator
may want to use action learning in its pure form,
that generally does not happen; however, parts of the
concept are adaptable in most every situation where
teams are resolving issues, analyzing problems,
developing strategies, etc. It becomes a valuable
tool for getting to a solution and promotes deep
learning.
While assessing the strategic planning process at
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (see
the article, “Using the Baldrige to Assess
Strategic Planning: A Case Study,” in the
Summer 2003 issue of The Journal for Quality and
Participation), we did a variation on the theme of
action learning. Several action learning components
and tools were used in PBGC’s process, and some
of them are described in more detail in this
article.
 Key for action learning is that the
learning must be as important as the solution. In the
case of PBGC, the members wanted to learn about the
Baldrige criteria, but their actual goal was to
assess their strategic development and deployment
system.
 Using real work:
We designed the 15-week, four-hours per week working
sessions around the “real work.” Instead
of learning about the Baldrige with lectures, etc.,
we just plunged into the assessment after a quick
overview of the criteria.
Doing and then reflecting on the
learning:
At the end of each session, however, we linked the
learnings from that experience to Baldrige. About
four weeks into the work we had a mini-lecture,
Baldrige 101, and the members were given samples of
Baldrige applications.
Ah-ha’s:
The highlight was hearing and seeing the
ah-ha’s, another action learning component such
as, “Ah, that’s the difference between
approach and deployment!” We used the David
Langford version of the “Ah-Ha Sheet”
from his book, The Tool Time Handbook (see Figure 1). It has a place for capturing
the bright idea or blinding glimpse of the obvious,
but more important, it also notes the “so
what” part of an idea—a place to write
what actually will be done with the idea.
Baldrige capability matrix:
PBGC also used the Baldrige capability matrix, based
on Langford’s work. Figure
2 shows the complete matrix. This self-assessment
can be taken at the beginning of a work session and
at the end. It can be used during the session to
reflect on one’s understanding, know-how, and
wisdom of any given topic.
Learning logs:
We generally opened the work sessions by recording
notes in learning logs, such as the one shown in
Figure 3. These contained three
or four guided questions that direct thinking about
the content topic and the learning. They helped
transition from individual daily work into teamwork
on the Baldrige assessment. A key to learning logs is
that they are written by individuals without
discussion or talking. The goal is to write for the
entire time (we started at about four minutes and
went to about 10 minutes). The actual logs are
designed with an “add-to” or comment
section for continued reflections as the day or weeks
progressed.
 One-minute assessments:
This technique asks what works and what needs
improvement. It also asks participants to write down
three questions that they still have in their minds.
The skills of inquiry and asking good questions are
the heart of action learning. Two possible questions
used might be, “What was the most important
thing you learned during…?” and
“What important questions remain
unanswered?”
One-on-one taped interviews:
Interviews taped in a studio environment unexpectedly
turned out to be a tool ideally suited for the
reflective mode of action learning. The original
purpose of this activity was for each person to
summarize the project in terms of what went well,
what had been learned, what should be done
differently in the future, etc., for conference
presentation. The interviews actually helped
synthesize and crystallize the thinking and behaviors
of the team members.
 Other action learning tools
include pop quizzes and storyboarding (see a sample
in Figure 4). Additionally, PBGC used detailed
summary reports for its work sessions and established
a “parking lot” to ensure that all issues
were addressed without getting the group off
schedule.
From PBGC’s experience, it’s clear
that action learning tools can transform a work
experience, taking it beyond the completion of a
series of tasks and accomplishment of an outcome to a
lifelong learning experience.
 MARY-JO HALL is a
professor at Defense Acquisition University, where
she addresses the human side of program management,
individual development, teaming, leadership, and
organizational performance/ results. She also directs
work force development and guides the human capital
strategies. Hall has served as an examiner, senior
examiner, and alumni examiner for the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award program. She can be
reached at 703-805-4943.
|
