The thinking behind the action (learning): Reflections on the design and delivery of an executive management program

Introduction

This study reports on an action learning (AL) approach to curriculum design and delivery of a two-year part-time executive masters program. AL has been distinguished from other learning “in that its primary objective is to learn how to ask appropriate questions in conditions of risk, rather than to find the answers to questions that have already been precisely defined by others” (Revans, 1982), thereby offering “context surrounding the link between knowledge and action” (Huff and Huff, 2001, p. 52). The documented program ethos is based on actionable skill development (Freire, 1973; Starkey and Tempest, 2005), focused on developing participants’ professional competences in their role as business manager. However, for the maximum benefit to be gained from the AL approach, its application needs to be more carefully considered, particularly in relation to the provision of some wider external frameworks for the manager to use as “tools for thinking” (McLaughlin and Thorpe, 1993). This purpose was pursued within the program design through embedding a combination of: reflective practices that develop awareness, systems thinking, integration, and understanding of how to work effectively in today’s globalized world and application of these attributes to understanding and implementing the broad responsibilities, purposes, and ethical values associated with businesses and other organizations (Waddock and Lozano, 2013).

Having contemplated these insights, the program development board agreed that the AL principles would permeate each aspect of the program design and delivery. The board acknowledged that this approach would result in a move toward a more andragogical frame in management education (Cunningham, 1999; Fornaciari and Lund Dean, 2014; Knowles, 1980), where the academic acts as learning facilitator and knowledge generation is more participative (Bilimoria, 1998; Francis and Cowan, 2008; Olsson et al., 2008). Thus, it was considered prudent to initiate a tutor partnership program to run alongside the inaugural program delivery. This paper documents the program progression through a number of learning iterations as its first cohort of students and tutors developed in tandem, and offers insight into all perspectives (tutors, participants, course managers and faculty) in the latter stages of the paper.

AL in executive management programs

AL is well established as a tool of management education (McLaughlin and Thorpe, 1993; O’Hara et al., 1996) and has become a widely accepted methodology for the development of managers and managerial competence. It seeks to facilitate skill development based on the integration of knowledge gained from experience and that gained from scholarship (Augier and March, 2007; Starkey and Tempest, 2005). While experience provides an important basis for education (Simmonds et al., 2001; Tranfield et al., 2004), it is the critical reflection among executives engaged in AL that builds competence (Helyer, 2015). In response to these perspectives, educators have attempted to combine theory and practice in executive development programs by linking participants’ practical experience more closely to a program’s learning objectives (Cunliffe, 2004; Mergerison, 1978; Stewart et al., 2008).

The question remains as to how to incorporate an AL philosophy in executive education. Zuber-Skerritt (1995), Monks and Walsh (2001) and Howell (1994) each offer guidance in this regard, by contrasting themes underpinning AL principles and the more standard teaching and learning approach to executive programs (Table I).

These studies suggest that executive development needs are better served using a learner-centered approach to management education, wherein problem-oriented work-based assessment affords the theory/practice balance recommended in the literature (Augier and March, 2007; Kolb and Kolb, 2005; Starkey and Tempest, 2005). Noting the cautionary view that the application of generalized problem solving techniques to any situation fails to consider that many of the problems tackled by practitioners are ill-defined, unique, emotive, and complex (Cunliffe and Easterby-Smith, 2016), the board believed the students needed to experience action and learning in their own environment. Thus, it was agreed in principle that a work-based research project would form a key aspect of program delivery. In evaluating three professional education courses based on the AL ethos, Fletcher and Zuber-Skerritt (2008) identified six determinants that related to the quality of these courses, namely, the capabilities of the presenter/facilitator, a flexible and emergent approach to design, ongoing evaluation, critical learning incidents, operationalization of the learning (“application”) and self-improvement (“self-efficacy”). These principles underpin the program design documented in this paper.

Designing a work-based AL initiative

In the first meetings regarding the program design, the board considered the likely profile of prospective participants; individuals with significant prior management experience, seeking to develop their management competence through higher education. The board sought to adopt the critical aspects of effective executive education: that it be intimately tied to anticipating and causing industry change, that it focuses on the centrality of active distributive leadership and that it engages participants in activities that translate into action plans linked to actual organizational outcomes desired by their institution (Myrsiades, 2001). The syllabi needed to act as a teaching and learning support in this regard (Fornaciari and Lund Dean, 2014), returning the development team to the drawing board in relation to module design. Program development meetings highlighted the evolution of learning through applied inter-related modules, and subsequent application of learning in a live environment. In many ways, the development of this program marked a significant shift from traditional class-centered models of executive education to one that drew on developments in AL (Table I).

At this stage in their career, the development of reflective practice was a central learning outcome for these students. Prior research found that the key elements for the development of reflective practice in executive masters programs are: adult learning principles, the role of the instructor, instructional strategies, collective learning and curriculum design (De Dea Roglio and Light, 2009). Thus, the board agreed that practice-oriented research would better serve the participants learning and development needs. At masters level, a work-based project can often make an impact on the work context and also have a developmental effect on the program participant who becomes a practitioner-researcher to undertake the project (Costley and Abukari, 2015). It was therefore agreed that the program should incorporate an action-oriented change project, wherein students would initiate and address issues connected with change, complexity, and innovation in their own work environment. This would allow them to engage in solving highly contextualized problems, leading to the development of reflective practice at work, supported by high-level university learning and teaching (Costley and Abukari, 2015).

Adopting Fletcher and Zuber-Skerritt’s (2008) six determinants of quality programs detailed in the literature review (facilitator capabilities, flexible design, ongoing evaluation, learning incidents, applied learning approach, and self-improvement outcomes), the goal was to provide these executives with the knowledge and confidence to influence change, and facilitate professional development through the application of the program curriculum in practice. Therefore, the board turned its attention to the program configuration. It was agreed that the first year of the program would focus on three inter-connected “cornerstone” modules, encompassing strategic change management and renewal, organizational development and behavior, and economic and social change. When amalgamated, these modules offered students insight into the principles of a dynamic organizational landscape (Waddock and Lozano, 2013), and were prompted to promote cross-disciplinary perspectives when addressing issues related to change, complexity and innovation in their work. When combined with the proposed workplace project, this afforded the program team scope to facilitate mutual competence development, as exhibited in Figure 1.

The program’s integrated approach to reflective practice (Cunliffe, 2004; Cunliffe and Easterby-Smith, 2016) sought to embed theory in practice, such that class-based learning could be translated into actions, which have organizational consequences (Myrsiades, 2001). An AL research module developed in conjunction with the program tutor team preceded the workplace research project, within which students would prepare and present an organizational problem-based research proposal. The proposal would include a theoretical perspective on the subject matter of focus and a theory-informed intervention plan to be implemented in their own organization. Throughout the implementation of this plan, the participant would work alongside their appointed tutor existing in a collegial practice–theory partnership that would facilitate cyclical competence development in both parties, as exhibited in Figure 1.

Tutor engagement with the work-based AL initiative

In recognition of the move away from the traditional tutor/student model of engagement in this executive masters program, a number of student and tutor support structures were added. Many of these additions emerged through tutor shared learning and reflections as the program progressed in pursuit of successful skills transfer (Fletcher and Zuber-Skerritt, 2008). An AL Tutor Program evolved from this collegial approach to program delivery, whereby a series of tutor workshops were run alongside the program (Table II).

Faculty were invited to take part in the AL tutor program on a voluntary basis, and a series of workshops evolved from this request, held over the two-year duration of the inaugural program. The first workshop sought to establish common interest in this education and workplace learning approach, and to identify key criteria relating to AL tutorship. From here, the self-selected tutor team reconvened for a workshop, which sought to inform the AL assessment criteria and approach. Agreement was reached in relation to the anticipated role of both student and tutor, and also key points of delivery in the AL cycle were identified. Notably, the board was in general agreement that students may find the research:

[…] isolating […] particularly considering they are executives and used to being in teams […] we need to find a way to give them encouragement as a group as well as individually.

(Tutor 2, Workshop 2 notes)

This feedback influenced the ultimate delivery mode in relation to this aspect of the program. The research cycle was revisited in light of this feedback, and alternatives for peer interaction throughout the AL cycle were drawn up. Workshop 3 had a dual purpose: communicate what was being delivered to the students in the AL module[1] (discussed below), and discuss the peer-interaction proposals. Workshop 4 amounted to a “Part B” of the program planning cycle, wherein the remaining AL lecture notes were distributed and finer points of the student/tutor engagement and peer interventions were discussed. Pre- and post-tutor sessions (Table I) followed specified interventions (the Data Collection Residential 4 months into the research cycle, and the Initial Findings Network Evening 8 months into the 12-month workplace research project cycle).

AL-led workplace research project

Building on AL principles, it was proposed that each student would apply the AR methodology to pursue a longitudinal work-based change initiative with a heavy emphasis on the action/reflection cycle. Specifically, as reflection is pivotal in this approach, the early and sustained executive logging of critical reflections by each participant would be encouraged. This would involve looking both backwards and forwards (and sometimes sideways) to make connections with current undertakings (Helyer, 2015). While reflective practice can be a solitary pastime, there is a benefit in articulating the journey to an outside source. It was therefore agreed that the participant’s tutor would examine this journal at regular intervals throughout the research process to help develop the process of knowing how to learn (Helyer, 2015). This approach seeks to entwine theory and practice in the mind of the student from the outset, ultimately resulting in learning (Kolb and Kolb, 2005), through a “journey of self-discovery” (Olsson et al., 2008, p. 433). Thus, the epistemological assumptions underlying the program approach to learning means that the reflective journal is qualitative in nature, and would not pre-specify activities, events, attitudes or feelings, but allow the writer to record subjective perceptions of the incident observed (adapted from Symon, 1998).

Applying these principles in practice, students then embarked on a yearlong workplace research project, chronicling the pre-intervention environment, the intervention itself and the post-intervention impact on the organization, a reflecting on each stage of the AL process. The program leaders, in liaison with the tutor team, developed the student support plan, mapped closely to the AL tutor program detailed in Table II.

The tutor team agreed a series of tutor team interventions over year 2 of the program, which would facilitate the collegial needs of the program participants, as well as those of the tutor (see Figure 2). This approach echoes Knowles’ (1980) and Cunningham’s (1999) advice in relation to participative knowledge generation. On completion of the taught aspect of program (Figure 1), it was agreed that each student would present his or her research proposal to a panel of tutors, followed by a panel discussion on the proposal. All students were in attendance for each of these presentations, allowing for cross-project insights throughout the AL process. This process had dual benefits: the student received multiple perspectives as to the quality of the proposal compared to those of their class colleagues, as well as advice relating to the pending implementation in the work environment. Furthermore, the tutors had the opportunity to assess the compatibility of interests in light of the research topic and express a preference for a particular project(s) before the tutors were assigned. Subsequently, students received written feedback from the panel, and were assigned a tutor for the duration of the project.

The work-based research project is broken into distinct stages: pre-intervention planning – the outcome of which is a data collection protocol (DCP); intervention – the outcome of which is initial findings; and post-intervention analysis – the outcome of which is discussion and recommendations, with the dissertation as a final deliverable. While these could each be delivered using a traditional tutor/student approach, the collegial value of intermittent reconvening of the participants (and tutors) is acknowledged in this aspect of the program design (Augier and March, 2007).

Reflections on an AL executive development program

Separate student and tutor review sessions were carried out following program completion, as documented in Table AI and referred to throughout the paper. These focus groups allowed the program leaders to discuss the AL project cycle, individual research experiences (from either a student or tutor perspective), and to elicit reflections and insights that could contribute to the program enhancement in subsequent cycles of the program. Students perceived that the culmination of the program with the dissertation facilitated understanding of the “action,” the “learning” and the “research”:

When I (sic) doing the dissertation […] a lot of things only clicked in place for me then.

Student 7 (Focus Group)

I think I deal a lot better with people around me and bring solutions to problems. I look around much quicker in a much more constructive manner rather than basically reacting.

Student 11 (Focus Group)

The value of reflective practice was highlighted in both student and tutor feedback, as it was felt that the program “was a very thoughtful program, very strong reflection […] [students] gained enormously from that […]” (Tutor 2) while students also felt that the reflective process “[…] was very, very, useful” (Student 10).

The program ethos sought to ensure that students and tutors “learn” from both the program and the AL process (Stewart et al., 2008), as exhibited in the cyclical nature of Figure 1. Thus, when the student interacts with the business as an action-researcher, it is important that they not only record their findings, but follow up on the experience by researching the underlying ideas and management philosophies, and the change impact through class/peer discussion, tutor interaction, and literary immersion, thereby enacting critical reflection. Taking these perspectives into account, the studied executive program was built on the principles of theory–practice balance (Freire, 1973; Starkey and Tempest, 2005), and on AL program quality (Fletcher and Zuber-Skerritt, 2008), a challenge revisited at the end of the first program cycle.

In hindsight, the time and effort in delivering the program has been far greater than a traditional approach, not only because tutor and academic board interventions are non-standard, but also because the program model requires greater support in terms of student/tutor relationship development (Figure 1). As articulated in the tutor feedback:

[…] voluntary contribution is all our own time effectively I suppose.

(Tutor 2)

[…] I mean we’re interested and all of us at the table have done that […] have given a lot of ourselves [but] there has to be some consideration [of time impact on individual lecturer contribution].

(Tutor 3).

Furthermore, there was a sense that not everyone was suited to tutoring these types of students and projects. As articulated by Tutor 1:

There are some types of people I like supervising and there are some types I don’t like supervising them and there are some types of projects I don’t like supervising. They don’t fit my view of the world as it were.

Notably, the additional time and effort involved in moving toward an AL frame was anticipated by Jennings (2002, p. 663), who observes that, “action-learning projects can be time consuming to establish and monitor. They may require a more prolonged duration than anticipated to allow the development of understanding, proposed solutions, and reflective learning.”

While the feedback provided evidence of student – and staff – learning and positive affirmation of the first cycle of the program, there was feedback that suggested future modifications that could enhance the program. Tutors suggested “more interventions along the way” (Tutor 5), and that the tutor “[…] be in the picture a lot earlier than we were” (Tutor 3), although these views created a lively debate as to optimization of these criteria (see Table AI: reflections on faculty experience), particularly in light of finite resource, including faculty’s time. Separately, students suggested bringing certain program features forward in the program timescale such as the reflective journal, the plenary speaker at the DCP, explanations about how interim milestones translate into final dissertation chapters, and one even requested “more deadlines” (Student 7).

Closing thoughts

Based on the stakeholder feedback documented in this paper, the collegial theory-led practical approach adopted in the program allows for flexible, learner-centered activities, which are key aspects of the action-based ethos outlined in Table I and the literature review. This approach allows for an interactive perspective, reinforcing the “meta-action” perspective offered by Fletcher and Zuber-Skerritt (2008). Communication between the authors and program stakeholders suggest that the residential provided a “kick start” (Student 9, e-mail correspondence) to progress to the next stage of the AL cycle. Furthermore, the initial findings network event offered insight into conceptualization of the data at a pivot point in the AR cycle. These findings suggest that an action-based model of knowledge transfer and development offers significant learning benefits to those partaking in an executive development program, resulting in the following insights:

• executive needs better served using a learner-centric approach;

• problem-oriented work-based assessment affords theory–practice balance;

• there is evidence of action-reflection “contagion” among all contributors; and

• the presented AL cycle has potential value in the conceptualization of reflective action.

Research is ongoing, and the authors intend to document further iterations of the participative model of program delivery in subsequent cycles of the program.