IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/alresp/v14y2017i2p185-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Safe or unsafe? The paradox of action learning

Author

Listed:
  • Jane Robertson
  • Diane Bell

Abstract

Business Driven Action Learning (BDAL), as a learning philosophy that attempts to create real value for business is often used by executive education providers in their management development programmes. As the action learning facilitator, I found that the learning that took place during such a management development programme resulted in participants experiencing stress, anxiety and high levels of frustration, which threatened the learning process. The resulting paradox in the learning environment is that the same anxiety that is necessary to ensure that learning took place has the propensity, if too high to hamper learning. Utilising the findings from this research, this account of practice makes recommendations for the action learning facilitator to consider while guiding action learning sets (groups). The facilitator can alleviate many of the fears by emphasising that anxiety is necessary in the learning process. The facilitator can mediate the learning relationship between the individual participant and the learning environment as depicted in the model at the end of the article.

Suggested Citation

  • Jane Robertson & Diane Bell, 2017. "Safe or unsafe? The paradox of action learning," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 185-196, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:alresp:v:14:y:2017:i:2:p:185-196
    DOI: 10.1080/14767333.2017.1310691
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14767333.2017.1310691
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14767333.2017.1310691?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lotte Svalgaard, 2016. "Staying mindful in action: the challenge of ‘double awareness’ on task and process in an Action Lab," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 50-59, March.
    2. Joe Raelin & Kiran Trehan, 2015. "Action learning and the new leadership as a practice," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 127-130, July.
    3. David Coghlan & Mike Pedler, 2006. "Action learning dissertations: structure, supervision and examination," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 127-139, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edwina Dunne & Felicity Kelliher, 2013. "Learning in action: creating a community of inquiry in a healthcare organisation," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 148-157, July.
    2. Pete Mann & Davina Clarke, 2007. "Writing it down—writing it out—writing it up: researching our practice through action learning," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 153-171.
    3. Lehtonen, Salla & Seeck, Hannele, 2022. "Multilevel and multisite leadership development from a leadership-as-practice perspective: an integrative literature review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118462, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Greta Hofman, 2018. "A new facilitator in action and on action," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 52-60, January.
    5. Kaklauskas, A. & Bardauskiene, D. & Cerkauskiene, R. & Ubarte, I. & Raslanas, S. & Radvile, E. & Kaklauskaite, U. & Kaklauskiene, L., 2021. "Emotions analysis in public spaces for urban planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:alresp:v:14:y:2017:i:2:p:185-196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CALR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.