The Untapped Power of Action Learning

Through action learning, federal leaders can achieve both meaningful mindset change and goal accomplishment.

Federal agency productivity and employee satisfaction are demanding goals even in the best of times. And one would not have to look far to come to the conclusion that the U.S. government is not in the best of times.

The Internal Revenue Service is accused of targeting conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, the National Security Agency has been charged with monitoring social media outlets, and the U.S. Department of Defense is yet again under fire for sexual misconduct of uniformed services members. Combine these with unfavorable federal employee surveys, a limping economy, a government still in sequester, and a pay freeze with no end in sight, and one begins to wonder how the work of running a democracy is being accomplished even at the most rudimentary level.

When federal organizations fall prey to public and political ire, the first casualty often is dollars—not only salaries, but training dollars as well. We know this to be a fact yet many scratch their heads in bewilderment. Why, at a time when we need the most innovative problem-solving and inspirational leadership that we can muster, would we eliminate the primary vehicle we have to attaining these skills? Nonetheless conferences are canceled, travel is delayed, and the intellectual development of the mind of the federal leader comes to a grinding halt.

Horizontal and Vertical Solutions

For those few federal agencies able to support some modicum of professional development, the decisions made are seldom optimal. Chief learning officers and chief human capital officers in these agencies quickly are lured by what organizational psychologists call "horizontal" approaches to training.

Such approaches typically are less expensive and provide a platform for training that is more comfortable for agencies and learners. Simply put, a horizontal strategy results in the growth of new technical skills such as acquiring a detailed understanding of new legislative guidelines, gaining clarity on new acquisition rules, or earning a new project management certification.

The downside of the horizontal approach is the failure of the organization and the individual to prepare federal leaders for what Ron Heifetz of Harvard University calls the "adaptive challenges of the workplace." These include the broader organizational problems, motivation, authenticity, real communication, and transformation.

Adaptive solutions are not simple to achieve because they challenge the very heart and soul of the leader, calling into question our values and self. Challenges such as these are best addressed through "vertical" approaches to training—pedagogy that changes our mindsets and ultimately transforms our behavior.

Indeed, what federal agencies require are not the traditional addition of a line-item on one's résumé or another online certification. They require

• new thinking, new mindsets, and new perspectives on challenging difficult organizational problems
• an unrelenting questioning culture that not only welcomes, but also embraces unlearning, relearning, and not knowing
• an open mind.

Of most importance is that federal agencies achieve these goals while meeting the incredible responsibility thrust upon them by a demanding public and finicky political landscape.

The Action Learning Approach

One of the most beneficial tools available for federal leaders is action learning, a process formulated by Reginald Revans, a physicist at the University of Cambridge. Revans found success in encouraging his fellow physicists to work and learn together. He was especially adept at creating a questioning environment, one where participants freely admit they are in a state of not knowing.

The applicability of his approach soon became clear: Why not create mutual learning environments where leaders question one another in a constructive dialogue, share their successes and failures, and strive for an agreed-upon solution? After years of success in various organizations in Europe and abroad, the action learning approach ultimately was introduced to the federal government by then American University professor Robert Kramer.

Still, action learning has been slow to gain acceptance from government leaders. According to the Office of Personnel Management's 2012 Best Practices Guide, only one in five senior executive service leaders has been engaged in an action learning initiative. The report goes on to say that "Unlike private-sector employers, very few federal agencies offer action learning and leader-led development activities."

Action learning is deceptively simple in its conceptual and practical framework. The Best Practices Guide quotes the work of several authors in defining action learning as follows:

"Action learning is a set of organization development practices in which supported groups tackle important real-work projects with three kinds of objectives: delivering measurable results in service of the organization's work, learning and communicating lessons specific to a particular context, and developing individual and collective capabilities for learning and leadership more generally."

Organizationally, action learning brings many benefits to an agency. In fact, the term "action learning" is meant to indicate the two key events that occur during the use of the tool. "Action" refers to the steps that are taken within the agency as a result of the team's efforts. "Learning" refers to the individual and organizational development that results from the process used by the team.

Specific benefits include helping agencies refine and solve ill-structured, broad organizational problems; building high-performing teams; enhancing the learning culture of the agency; tackling the challenge of meaningful change; and involving agency members at all levels.

Most importantly, from an adult learning perspective, action learning provides a practical alternative to traditional classroom delivery. Because adults learn better through application, action learning uses an experiential approach that is action-oriented. Therefore, application to existing agency problems not only has a practical value, but also an adult development value as well. Adult participants build their own leadership abilities (reflection, questioning, dialogue, and authenticity) while solving existing organization problems in real time.

Action Learning Ingredients

There are six distinct components of the action learning process. Each has a unique set of requirements.

Problem. It often is the inclination of an agency to identify the quick win—a problem that can be formulated precisely and to include likely solutions. This is not the best option for an action learning problem. Action learning problems are ill-structured, wicked souls with no clear solution on the horizon. They typically have no identifiable cause, and little agreement on the boundaries.

The New York City Transit Authority tackled three problems with three action learning teams—increased ridership, unintelligible announcements, and lack of teamwork.

Team. All team members should have a stake in the problem, though there is some benefit from having a member on the team who has little knowledge of the problem and its context. Diverse backgrounds are important, along with selection from various levels within or outside the organization. The ideal team size is five to seven. Team members must be committed to personal and organizational development, and be willing to devote the time necessary to meet regularly throughout the course of the project.

Selection of the team may be done by the "problem presenter," who often is the one who identifies the need to address an organizational problem. Selection of team members (and the problem presenter) also can come from senior leadership who may wish to have action learning teams working on various initiatives for the agency.

Questioning. Because the best solutions result from answering the best questions, this is the most important component of the action learning process. Teams must create an environment where reflective, nonjudgmental questioning and insightful listening occurs in each session—leadership skills that can be nurtured and applied outside the team setting.

Often this results in continual refinement of the problem statement until it is in a form that everyone agrees captures the essence of why the team is there. Subsequent discussion of action steps occurs in the same fashion with a working process of insightful questioning and reflective listening.

Learning. Those who study action learning as a tool often will say that the learning component of the process brings more long-term value to the organization than the solution to the problem at hand. That is because although the problem being solved is indeed important, it often is more short term in nature. Also, the benefits of individual team member learning are long term and plant the seeds for positive organizational change far into the future.

Action. Action beyond speaking is a requirement for the action learning process to work. Revans notes that "There can be no action without learning, and no learning without action."

This strikes at the heart of the need for adult learners to have practical application of their ideas and hypotheses. The good news is that size and complexity of the actions are irrelevant. The important thing is that action takes place in real time and in the context of the organizational realities that exist.

One of the more critical roles is worth mentioning here—the executive sponsor. This person does not serve as a team member and does not attend team meetings, but rather is a senior leader or executive outside the team who is well-positioned to lend support through organizational resources.

Executive sponsors work closely with the action learning coach to monitor the progress of the team. They are not there to provide answers or direction; they are there for organizational clout. Although some agencies will have one executive sponsor for each team, other organizations may have one executive sponsor that oversees multiple action learning efforts across the agency.

Coach. Action learning coaches have the important task of monitoring the team mechanics and ensuring a mutual learning environment that benefits both the individual and the agency. Action learning teams are apt to quickly jump to solutions and skip steps in the problem refinement process.

Coaches do not participate in the context of the discussion. Instead they are keen observers that challenge the team by helping them reflect on personal and organizational matters, how they are learning, how they're listening and providing feedback, and what they're finding difficult in the process.

They also serve as the primary bridge between the learning component and the action component by clarifying statements and ensuring that each team member has the same understanding of what is occurring in the meeting. Finally, they serve as the liaison with the executive sponsor to maintain agency support for the action learning initiative.

Cost-Effective Solution

Action learning is a remarkably powerful tool that costs essentially nothing. Most teams meet monthly, though some may meet more often. When they do gather, they create an environment where not knowing, reflective questioning, and the luxury of thought and discernment are valued. When this is exported into the workplace, the benefits are endless. Action learning teams harness the one tool we all bring to the workplace daily—our intellect.

It is a bit ironic that Revans, in addition to originating the action learning model, was a world-class long jumper who represented Great Britain in the 1928 Summer Olympics. Indeed, federal leaders may appear a very long jump away from successfully solving the vexing problems that their agencies face. But just like in athletic competition, success comes only after dedicated commitment and preparation.

By instilling the core concepts of action learning into their agencies, federal leaders will find themselves well-positioned for success when the games begin.