Action Reflection Learning: Tales of Two Journeys

In this chapter, the authors recount stories of how they came to value the interactive role of reflection and action so much that they — and colleagues at sister organizations the MiL Institute in Sweden (MiL) and Leadership in International Management (LIM) in the United States — coined the term “action reflection learning” (ARL) for the work that they do. In action reflection learning, the role of the set advisor, as laid out by Revans, is modified in that this person (often called a “learning coach”) actively supports explicit reflection in order to help people learn more explicitly from their experiences. Cunningham (2003, p. 6), in a tribute to Revans, recalled “one conversation with Reg” about the legitimacy of intervening in this way “to assist and not to dictate.” Reg countered, “You are like the dog chasing a motorbike and believing you are making it go.” Reg’s comments prompted Cunningham to pursue “a Ph.D. to explore Reg’s challenge” in which his “research conclusions were an explicit rebuttal of Reg’s stance.” Be that as it may, many followers of Revans conclude that Reg’s views are substantiated by their experience. We have experienced highly self-directing groups in which learning coaches play little, if any, role in valuable reflective learning from experience and innovative, and fresh questioning. But we have also experienced the contrary; that is, groups — perhaps influenced by mis-educative early life experiences — that found it difficult to learn or to reflect in and on action (to use concepts introduced by Schön (1983)) despite the willingness of the team (set) advisor to step aside and play a nondirective role in order to encourage people in the group to take charge of their own learning.