IX Coach

Coaching approaches

Action learning

Action learning coaching brings a small group together around a real problem that one person faces, and works through it with questions rather than advice. Reg Revans developed the approach and set out his account in The ABC of Action Learning (1998). It is used in leadership development and organizational change. The outcome research this review could read is limited to one peer-reviewed evaluation, read at the level of its title, so the approach is graded as a practitioner tradition with thin outcome research.

What it is

A learning set is a small group that meets regularly. One member brings a real problem from work. The others ask questions to help that person understand the problem and decide what to do, and the person reports back on what they did before the next meeting.

Action learning treats the questions and the group's reflection as part of the learning, not only the eventual solution. Marsick and O'Neil (1999) distinguish three schools of practice in action learning: scientific, experiential and critical reflection.

Where it comes from

Reg Revans developed the approach and set out his account in The ABC of Action Learning (1998).

Michael Marquardt and colleagues later wrote about action learning for leadership development and organizational change, in a book of principles, strategies and cases (Marquardt and colleagues, 2009). Marsick and O'Neil's 1999 article classified the approaches that had developed by then.

The principles underneath

Real problems, not case studies

The problem brought to the group is one the person must act on, so the learning is tied to a result they care about.

Questions before answers

Group members ask questions to help the person clarify the problem. Advice is held back until the person has thought it through.

Action between meetings

The person tries something between sessions and reports back, so the group learns from what actually happened.

Reflection on the process

The group looks at how it is working together as well as at the problem, which is where the three schools of practice differ most.

How a session runs

  1. The group agrees to meet regularly and to work on problems members bring from their own work.
  2. One member describes a live problem: what is happening, what they have tried, and what they need to decide.
  3. The others ask open questions to help the person see the problem more clearly, without giving advice at first.
  4. The person chooses one action to take before the next meeting, and the group agrees how they will know whether it helped.
  5. At the next meeting the person reports what they did and what happened, and the group reflects on the outcome and on what it learned about how it worked.

When it tends to fit

  • You face a problem at work that has no obvious answer, and you want it worked through by people who face similar pressures.
  • A team keeps solving the same problem in different ways and wants a shared way to learn from what each member tries.
  • You are running a leadership development program and want participants to apply what they learn to real problems.

What the research shows

Evidence: Practitioner tradition — little or no outcome research

This review found one peer-reviewed evaluation of an action learning program, read at the level of its title only: Aspinwall, Pedler and Radcliff (2018) evaluated leadership development through virtual action learning. No controlled trial of action learning as a coaching form turned up. The source read in abstract, Marsick and O'Neil (1999), is a conceptual review of schools of practice, not an outcome study. Marquardt and colleagues (2009) describe practice in a book. The approach's claims therefore rest mostly on practice and on a small evaluation literature that this review could not read in full.

Where the evidence is thin: The tier is P because the outcome research this review could read was limited. A broader search of action learning evaluations may find more studies, and that would be the basis for raising the tier.

Sources

  1. Revans, R. W. (1998). ABC of action learning. Lemos & Crane.
  2. Marsick, V. J., & O'Neil, J. (1999). The Many Faces of Action Learning. Management Learning, 30(2), 159–176.
  3. Marquardt, M. J., Leonard, H. S., Freedman, A. M., & Hill, C. C. (2009). Action learning for developing leaders and organizations: Principles, strategies, and cases. American Psychological Association.
  4. Aspinwall, K., Pedler, M., & Radcliff, P. (2018). Leadership development through virtual action learning: an evaluation. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 15(1), 40–51.

Where it stops

Action learning is built around a live problem at work and is not a route for personal distress. If a group drifts into therapy, or a member is in distress, a qualified practitioner is the better support.

The approach depends on a facilitator and a group that trusts each other. Where those are missing, or where a power imbalance keeps members from speaking honestly, the process can reinforce the problem instead of helping solve it.

Practices for this approach

Practice this with IX Coach

Try this practice