Management Bibliographies & Reviews, Vol. 20 Nos. 6/7, 1994,

pp. 2-16. © MCB University Press, 0309-0582

A Review of Action Learning Literature

Alan Mumford

Introduction

A previous review of Action Learning Literature appeared in Management Bibliographies & Reviews, Vol. 11 No. 2, 1985. This second review covers articles and books published since that date and does not revisit previous literature.

The previous review covered a field essentially opened up by Reg Revans' book Developing Effective Managers published in 1971. The additional volume of literature in the nine years since 1985 compared with the previous 14 years testifies to the growing impact of action learning at least as far as written comment is concerned. As the articles referred to below show, there is now more information on activities outside Belgium and the UK which provided almost entirely the experiences available in 1985. There has been an extension too beyond some of the original ideas of Revans, although at the time of writing he is still not only alive but also presenting the message about action learning.

Collected Contributions

Until 1992, no single author had the experience, or temerity perhaps, to offer a major book on action learning. Revans himself has not in this period written another major work, but his views can still be most conveniently accessed in his ABC[1] or in more varied but exciting form in The Origins and Growth of Action Learning[2]. It seems appropriate to break my rule about not referring to literature before 1985 in one case for the founder.

There are two significant collections of articles. A special issue of the Journal of Management Development was published in honour of Reg Revans[3].

It contains three articles by Casey, Caie and Boisot discussed in further detail below, still of unique significance (on the Set Adviser, the action learning member, and China).

A second collection is the second edition of Action Learning in Practice[4]. This was historically significant in that interest in action learning justified a second edition. It provides almost everything that someone interested in action learning as a principle or as a process could wish. Again specific chapters are referred to under particular headings below. The case studies are as usual of great interest, not least because they come from countries such as Australia, China and the USA. The "almost" qualification made above relates to two weaknesses. There was no contribution by participants, rather than by those providing action learning. Nor were there any significant references to the way in which people actually learn through action learning. This latter is indeed from this reviewer's perspective a major absence from much of the material on action learning.

In 1992 not one but two authors joined to produce the first work since Revans offering an author's view across a wide range of action learning issues[5]. McGill and Beaty describe how action learning works, different types of Sets and the differences between Sets wholly sponsored by organizations contrasted with independently formed Sets. Most significantly they describe differences between sets focused on the organization and its needs and those focused primarily on personal development. Their emphasis is on action learning as a vehicle for personal growth and relationships. Valuable though this focus can be (discussed further below), it is rather too exclusive a value as a prime cause of action learning. No doubt in consequence they give great emphasis to the discussion of the importance of group process. Unfortunately their enthusiasm for this aspect means they give extraordinarily little attention to the learning process.

What Is Action Learning?

The introductory chapters to the books by Pedler[4] and McGill and Beaty[5] give summaries of what action learning is about. More extended efforts to describe the process are offered by two of the UK's longest standing practitioners, Jean Lawrence and John Morris[6-8]. Jean Lawrence's piece is particularly appropriate because it is written as a dialogue between questions from people wanting to know about action learning and answers offered from her own experience. Since the whole basis of action learning is the issue of Q - the questioning approach - Lawrence's chapter is fundamental at several levels of understanding. The chapter by John Morris[7] is particularly helpful in reviewing three major pitfalls, which he describes as the tendency of action and task to become over-dominant, the potential to retreat into discussion groups, and the possibility of generating projects which are essentially internal consultancy rather than directly managerial in form. The second chapter by Morris[8] surveys the general significance of the balance of P and Q.

The first major challenge to the practice if not the concepts of action learning was provided by Smith[9], who in 1988 criticized what he described as the "purist" action learning approach and said that it was dangerously limited. His main concern was to emphasize the need for "P" and to argue that this should have a place within the action learning Set. In essence he was saying that Q, which is what action learning is usually described as being about, could not stand on its own. A response by Sutton[10] argued that some of Smith's statements were both extreme and invalid. Like Smith, Sutton took the view that Revans' original equation L = P + Q was too restrictive. The equation, however, is constantly repeated in articles about action learning. Only Mumford[11] has offered a major restatement of the equation. He argues that it should read Q + P + Q = L, on the grounds that action learning must start with questions, which then generate appropriate P, i.e. inputs and programmed knowledge relevant to resolving the problem, which in turn leads to further more extensive or deeper questions. Mumford's view that this is both conceptually more appropriate as a view of action learning, and also practically more effective as a means of generating action learning, has not apparently yet been taken aboard by practitioners outside his own institution.

In his article Mumford also offers the view that action learning has so far paid too little attention to its context, i.e. the behaviours of managers around the learner at work. In one sense this is part of the larger issue about the learning organization referred to below, but is also a comment about reinforcing the centre of action learning as being at work, rather than in the gathering together of experience, important though it is, in the Set.

Wallace[12] has provided the most substantial review of the action learning approach. While he does not himself fully answer his own questions about the coherence of its principles, the absence of evaluation, or evidence from elsewhere about how professionals learn to improve their job's performance, his article is essential reading. Two especially important issues raised by him are whether a defined project, as distinct from an ongoing problem, is a necessary feature of action learning. He is especially concerned with the unreality of projects in unfamiliar settings - a point on which he differs from some other authors, not least Revans with the original Belgian experience.

Action Learning and Management Education

Academics have increasingly become first interested in, and then involved in, action learning. Thorpe[13] criticizes some traditional management education processes, especially the lack of reality. He supports the more holistic approach offered by action learning compared with discrete competences, and argues that action learning's most important contribution is "as a means by which managers learn how to learn at the highest level of learning skills". A major article by McLaughlin and Thorpe[14] extends the idea in even more academic language, to claim that action learning represents a new paradigm. This latter article is perhaps more relevant to educators looking for philosophical contributions to dissertations than to practitioners, but is no doubt an encouraging discovery at a philosophical level.

Willmott[15] is not convinced about the need to associate action learning with traditional teaching in, for example, organizational behaviour or problem solving. He argues, however, for an association with what he calls critical management theory dealing with the contradictory forces playing on managerial work, and facilitating social as well as personal transformation.

A disappointing article by Gosling and Ashton[16] does not address the substantial issues proposed in its title, since it does not describe either the action learning elements in their programme nor the processes of academic assessment for these. Raelin[17] contrasts professional education and action learning and actually says more about the issues of assessment, though it is not clear if he is speaking from experience.

The National Staff Development Committee of the Technical and Further Education System in Australia is taking a major interest in action learning. They have published a booklet on the theoretical background for action learning[18] which gives an extensive survey of many of the basic issues about action learning, and a useful bibliography.

Types of Programmes

Sutton provides a brisk survey of different kinds of programme in Pedler's book[4]. They range from programmes more clearly related to Revans' original idea of an individual working on a project, to programmes built with some combination of P and Q and directed at an academic qualification. While there are many particular examples within this range, some of them referred to later in this review, collections may conveniently be found in Pedler[4], and Peters[19] as well as in Mumford[3] and Lawler[20].

An unusual addition to the range of programmes is described by Preston and Biddle[21], who show how issues about individual management of careers were raised in an initial workshop and then carried through by an action learning Set process.

The Processes Involved

Setting up Action Learning Programmes

Pearce's chapter in Pedler[4] remains essential reading, though still, extraordinarily, relegated to an appendix in the second edition. This is the neatest and most comprehensive summary, although of course other chapters in Pedler and the whole book by McGill and Beaty[5] provide useful guidance on a variety of issues.

Projects and Problems

The literature remains massively dedicated to the concept of using defined projects with a beginning and end. Wallace[12] has challenged this as an invariable requirement. Mumford[3] says that he has changed his mind similarly about an exclusive requirement for projects, compared with working on ongoing problems which may have no clearly defined beginning or terms of reference.

Prideaux[22] provides a very important review of individual project statements, what rose from them and how difficulties were overcome. The article also by implication raises the issue of the extent to which these projects were more geared to action research than to action learning, a phenomenon always likely to be encouraged within programmes directed as these were towards an academic qualification.

Q or P + Q?

Revans poured more scorn than providing a claim for the value of P, not the least paradoxical feature in a man so clearly providing an innovation in P through his presentation of action learning. Smith's criticisms[9] already referred to relate to his concept of "pure" action learning, which he presumes is offered without any, Casey's work with chief executives referred to in the previous literature review which was conducted without any P is, however, difficult to find replicated in more recent literature. That is not to say that it does not exist in the practice of trainers and consultants, merely that they seem not to have written about it. Sutton[23] argued that P was an appropriate part of an action learning programme, since it provided both the knowledge and theory to help an action learning Set understand what was happening within the Set - in other words to understand the action learning process. Even more fundamentally he made the case for providing P to give the background necessary before work can begin on a project, and to provide necessary information or knowledge which could be drawn on when tackling the project. All programmes directed at an academic qualification seem to provide P, though there are substantial differences in the quantity, in how it is delivered and when it is delivered[19,24,25].

Where P is to be delivered the crucial issue is what and when. An article by Harrison et al.[26] raises the issue in particularly appropriate form. The article shows that P was delivered at a time which turned out to be neither valid nor relevant in terms of the real concerns of participants on the programme, who did a large chunk of P before being engaged in their projects (Q). The mistakes honestly revealed in this article are the more ironic in that this kind of error could have been avoided by reading the literature! Since most of the literature is concerned with successes, the honesty of these authors in contributing to our P understanding of how to deliver P and Q is especially to be commended - and especially to be used by anyone who wants to design programmes including both P and Q.

Interestingly, the literature on American experiences is almost entirely on non-qualification programmes, and is driven by a growing aversion to traditional P. One exception in America is work on a Master's in Human Resources Programme at George Washington University on which detail is not available in the literature.

Action learning has infiltrated some parts of the Australian further and higher education systems. A particularly interesting experience is reviewed by Kable who ran a programme for senior administrators in two universities[27]. The article implies that the university setting made the acceptance of action learning more problematical.

Starting up

The question of P input is especially significant in relation to how a programme is started. Guidance on this is available in Pedler[4] and McGill[5]. There are two associated but separate issues. There is a natural and proper assumption that you have to say something about the nature of action learning. McGill[5] provides advice on this as does Sutton[23]. The literature so far does not fully discuss the complexities and difficulties involved, since on the one hand participants need to know, as early as possible, but on the other hand cannot really understand until they have experienced. A second issue is whether you provide processes which are designed to support rather than to explain action learning in a process sense. So some programmes provide so-called team- building exercises early on, and others provide outdoor experiences. This seems particularly to be the case in some of the American programmes[28] but the outdoor element particularly has been criticized in[29]. The issues here seem partly to be about the relevance of creating special events to "explain" action learning processes, rather than using action learning experiences themselves. There are of course also more generalized issues about the effectiveness of team-building events or outdoor experiences as development in their own right - or wrong.

Participant Learners

Since action learning has as one of its crucial elements "fellows in adversity" as Revans called them (or fellows in opportunity as Mumford prefers to call them [11]), the ways in which they help one another other to resolve problems and especially to learn from one another in resolving problems is a major issue. Unfortunately the literature on this is amazingly thin. The focus in most books and articles is on projects, processes, programmes and the procedures and policies necessary to implement action learning. All P! Very little has been written on what the other P - the participants - actually should do, especially in their Sets. McGill and Beaty do provide a chapter in their book[5], and have supplemented this to some extent in a subsequent article[30]. They list helpful behaviours by Set members, of which understandably the importance of being able to put and respond to good questions is highlighted. Unfortunately they do not include anything on the learning process as such or on the individual styles and skills of learning used by different individuals. Mumford[31] has provided both views about general behaviours in learning groups and the specifics about learning styles and learning skills.

Lewis and Weinstein[32,33] in this volume provide some views on this subject. Weinstein reviews not only what individuals have learned, but to some extent how they have learned it. Lewis gives some views on how individuals responded to the action learning process.

Another view of the different characteristics of Set members is given by Bunning[34], who makes some interesting comments about the creativity involved in Sets and Set members, and the ability to grow by reducing defensive self-esteem.

The power of the Set as an enclosed learning vehicle can, like other management processes, produce negative consequences by its exclusion of other managers. The disturbance created by a group positively pursuing significant projects affects not only more senior executives in the organization, but also those colleagues not participating on the programme. Reid[35] shows how other managers can be brought in for particular stages of Set discussions, thereby reducing both feelings of exclusion and the likelihood of wider commitment to implementation.

The volume of contributions in articles and books by those initiating action learning has not been accompanied by any significant output by participants themselves describing their experiences. After the Casey and Pearce book on experiences in General Electric Company, in which participants did contribute (referred to in my 1985 review), I can find only three participant articles. The first by Caie[36] not only described what it was like to be a Set member, but also related those experiences to the "learning cycle" and the Honey and Mumford "learning styles". Mercer[37] provides a fascinating account of a relatively elderly small firm managing director working on his problems through a Master's Programme in Action Learning. Mead[38], like the other two, describing qualification-based though different programmes, reviewed the experiences of himself and colleagues in enabling one another to learn and specifically in drawing a colleague back from the brink of departing from the Set.

Froiland[29] gives some examples of the extension of action learning Sets beyond the managerial population most frequently described. His article shows both some of the advantages and some of the defensiveness that might be created in jobs below managerial level.

Set Advisers

The paucity of information direct from participants contrasts in one sense extremely unfavourably with the volume of material on the role of Set Advisers. Cynics might claim this is a demonstration of Revans' dictum of "the inveterate hankering of the tutor to be the centre of attention". In a more general sense it represents the fact that most articles and books are written for people who want to run action learning programmes and to be Set Advisers. There is nothing wrong with the amount of information available in itself, it is just out of proportion - but what we need, as expressed in a previous section, is greater attention to participants, not a crude lessening of attention to Set Advisers. However, one must question whether the four separate chapters on Set Advisers in Pedler's book[4] is really essential, although each has something of value to say. My recommendation would be to read the two chapters by Casey in that book, supplemented by Bennett[39] and Kozubska[40]. Casey has added to his previous advice in[41] which includes the single most helpful piece of advice about when a facilitator should intervene, which should be guided by remembering that the purpose is always for participants to learn. "So you often bite your lip." A good overall summary of many of these contributions is available in Donaghue[42], which would serve as an excellent starting-point, though not a sufficient finish for this subject.

Implementation

A great deal of development is possible from taking advantage of opportunities to review other people's problems and to make recommendations on them. In one sense this is a major feature of an action learning Set. However, if an action learning process stops there, so that all any of the members of the Sets do is provide recommendations to other people, either within the Set or outside it, then a major feature of action learning is in my view lost[11]. Understandably not all designers of action learning programmes agree with this. They regard responsibility for implementation and therefore accountability as being an option rather than a required feature. Smith sets out very well the alternative case describing setting up a consultancy exercise which uses all the other action learning principles[43]. American literature on action learning has made a great deal of the action learning-based programmes as they are described to be run in General Electric[44]. Admirable as their efforts may have been in developing managerial skills and providing greater global vision, the fact that project teams compete with one another for solutions for which neither had accountability will be seen by some to reduce their claim to full action learning status.

Organizational or Personal Objectives?

The attractiveness of action learning to many management development practitioners and management educators is that it is a good development process for individuals and indeed for groups. The attractiveness for many organizations is that they secure answers to significant problems, some of which they have not in fact recognized before they start the action learning process. Is action learning the best way of learning to be a manager, or is it the best way of contributing to business performance - or is it the best route to personal growth? Most proponents look for some combination of these, but the largest weight of evidence offered about utility seems to be in the area of organizational improvement. This is, for example, explicit to the case in the collection by Peters[19]. Casey, probably one of the most stimulating authors on action learning across a wide range of interest, describes some of the issues of personal development among chief executives in his book[45]. Perhaps not surprisingly Braddick, also using experiences from Ashridge Management College, discusses the contribution of senior level action learning programmes to personal development[46]. Contributions which some might see as more extreme in the areas of personal analysis offered are provided by Cederholm who uses Gestalt and Buddhist concepts together with Ericsson and Jung as support for his work on his programmes[47]. Vince and Martin[48] discuss a number of issues about personal growth. They start with the issues about emotional resistance or avoidance of learning, the role of action learning in breaking dependence on a teacher and placing emphasis on responsibility for the learner. Finally they comment on the political, i.e. power issues, which are likely to arise in action learning groups.

The issue of power returns us to the role of the Set Adviser. However much the Set Adviser tries to reduce it, that role is one of power - even if only to declare that it is the group that has the power and not the Set Adviser. So the propositions made by McGill et al., in which they develop earlier views about non-facilitated action learning Sets[5], are noteworthy. On the face of it non-facilitated Sets place the responsibility and therefore the power for personal growth on Set members. Revans has himself occasionally been quoted as being against the employment of Set Advisers, though it is not clear exactly when in the process he would do away with them. The difficulty with the proposition advanced by McGill and his colleagues is that they are writing purely from their own experience, and offer no evidence of others using their ideas and practices.

Learning

The seductiveness of action learning lies in part in the attractiveness of completing significant required tasks - attractive both to individuals and to organizations. Because of the power of the management process with its great weight of psychological and practical rewards attached to effective completion of tasks, the action can all too easily overwhelm the learning process. It is altogether too clear from the books and articles reviewed here that very few authors have thought it necessary to discuss the learning process as distinct from task achievement on projects, or process issues (see[5]), or statements about what individuals or groups have learned. There are occasional references to the Kolb Learning Cycle, which in some form or other ought absolutely to be a constant element in all action learning programmes. As Mumford has argued[11], as much explicit attention needs to be paid to the learning process and to individual preferences about how people learn, as to the construction of relevant and effective projects.

Coates[49] did show how he builds the learning cycle and learning styles into one of his programmes. Two other significant contributions are made by Marsick et al.[50], whose emphasis on the requirement for effective reflection explains the amended title which she and her colleagues use - "action reflection learning". Her experience, and that of her colleagues, is in Sweden and the USA; Prideaux from Australia offers fascinating ideas about creating a learning community to provide real meaning for a learning Set[51]. In addition he offers helpful ideas about the use of learning diaries and, possibly uniquely in action learning literature, the use of learning contracts. This could well be selected as one of ten "must read" articles.

Cultural Issues

Action learning is surely unique as a management development process but is it uniquely appropriate in all circumstances?

If we look first at issues of organizational culture, we note the wide variety of organizations in which it is claimed action learning has been successfully employed. Not just in manufacturing, commerce, finance or indeed even in central and local government, but also in health management, education and not-for-profit organizations. All these are tested in the literature reviewed so far. What we do not have are any articles describing failure (with the honourable and partial exception of[26]). Even in that illustration it seems to have been the P element that failed rather than Q. So, although we have statements about the nature of organizations which are likely to facilitate the effective introduction of action learning, and indeed the specific circumstances necessary for this (see for instance[6]), no case studies have been published on failed action learning interventions, so we have no rigorous case-supported evidence on which to assess the likelihood of the success of an action learning approach.

Nor do we have evidence justifying any national cultural assertions about the acceptability of action learning. We know that it has been successfully introduced in a number of countries. Initially an almost purely UK phenomenon, with for many years no success of substance in the USA, even that massively business school-driven culture is beginning to succumb. In addition to two articles substantially based on General Electric experience ([28] and [44]), articles quoting more widespread use in the USA have begun to appear[52-55].

But the USA was preceded by Australia, and individual authors there have, as already indicated in this review, made significant contributions [15,22,27,35,51]. Prideaux and Ford in two articles bring together the components of action learning with associated work on competences, teams and careers[56,57]. Enderby and Phelan not only describe an Australian project but also give one of the few illustrations of evaluation[58].

Chapters in Pedler's book[4] review other experiences in Australia, the USA and China, the latter actually written by a Chinese national. Also about Chinese experience but by a European, Boisot has written two articles[59,60]. The particular features of ancient Chinese culture with modern Chinese authority might be thought particularly antipathetic to the non-authoritarian and questioning approach of action learning, but the articles suggest not.

Articles on Hong Kong by Pun[25] and Sri Lanka by Jones[61] explicitly discuss the issue of the extent to which learners expect authoritative teacher-led training, yet responded well to action learning.

Apart from the original Belgian experience there seems to have been no literature covering experience in other European countries except Sweden[62] and Finland[63].

Are Comparisons Odious?

An even more general question than whether action learning may be specifically valuable to particular kinds of organization, or more acceptable in some countries than others, is whether action learning as a process is more suited to the achievement of some objectives but not others as a method of development. Comments on appropriateness for individuals are contained in the earlier section on learning. In terms of general comparison of method very little is available. The perhaps surprisingly late distaste for lectures as a process of management education has already been referred to[29,44,52]. But is action learning more effective, and if so for what purposes and in what context, than well prepared and conducted case studies, or the stimulating experiences available on outdoor/adventure training? Is it more effective as a group process than T-Groups or other explicitly unstructured experiential learning groups? The literature does not tell us. Indeed some confusion has occasionally been caused by people calling experiences like outdoor adventures action learning. While that difference can be explained in terms of the difference between simulation and work projects, the difference between action learning and action research causes more difficulty and explanation. Largely this is because the processes have substantial elements in common. The differences are, however, well explained in Zuber-Skerritt[64], and by implication in the article by Prideaux[22]. Dixon[65] embraces a slightly wider field by discussing similarities and differences between action science and action learning. Codori[66] in her description of a particular project within a Master's Programme illustrates an action research rather than an action learning project, because although students carried out a real piece of work it was not one selected by them nor was it one for which they held any management responsibility, nor were they involved in implementation.

Some programmes described under the currently hot title of organizational learning might equally well have been described as action learning. Mumford[11] makes the case for action learning as a vehicle for organizational learning. Wills[67] makes a large-scale proposal for organizations to become their own business school. Dixon[68] gives an excellent review of combining task and learning, associating the principles of action learning with a thorough analysis of organization learning.

Evaluation

Effective comparison would depend on evaluation. The papers in this journal by Lewis and Weinstein[32,33] make a contribution in different ways. Easterby-Smith and Burgoyne in Pedler[4] provide an excellent academic review, demonstrating the difficulties of evaluation as much as they do the potential. Prideaux and Ford[56,57] similarly from an academic background review a lengthy programme. Enderby and Phelan[58] provide the most startlingly concrete illustration and the only one which begins to meet the question in the previous section about comparisons. Their evaluation took groups who had participated in action learning and groups who had not and showed that perceptions of service by customers in bank branches affected by action learning were better than those in branches not affected by action learning. Of course a tough bank manager might still argue that perceptions of service did not necessarily mean more profitable business, but we should be grateful for at least this level of evaluation. Noel and Charan in their two articles[28,44] provide the sort of feedback that course runners want and are delighted by - but that comment would apply to nearly all the programmes and projects covered in this review.

A Special Case

Since I am an ex-full-time Faculty Member of International Management Centres, and this journal is published by MCB University Press, academic detachment is stretched to its limit for this final section. IMC is the only institution, a privately funded Business School, which has dedicated itself wholly to action learning as distinct from using action learning as a support for some programmes or as an alternative method for more traditional processes. Peters has reviewed a number of its experiences[19]. This section deals with a different issue - the experience of two organizations deeply attached to action learning as a process to sell to customers, but also employing action learning within their own institutions.

The group processes of exchange of problems, information and ideas which is so fundamental to action learning has been extended on an institutional basis by IMC. Wills[69] describes among other things the process of exchange within the Faculty which he calls networking. He also describes the IMC process of five-year continuing review, through which IMC encourages its graduands and Faculty to review the learning they have achieved over the five years since they graduated or joined the Faculty.

In a second article Wills[70], this time writing as director of MCB University Press, describes how action learning was applied to growing managers in that organization. This has special significance not just because of the particular features of transferring management from owners to younger managers, but because again an organization which promulgated the virtues of action learning took on the disciplines and costs involved for itself.

Other Literary Sources

Management Bibliographies & Reviews

In addition to the Literature Review published in 1985, MBR has published selected MBA dissertations from IMC in 1989 (Vol. 15 Nos 3 and 4) and 1991

(Vol. 17 Nos 3 and 4). Further dissertations appear of course in this volume.

Action Learning Resource

IMC through its publishers at MCB University Press has provided a resource for participants on its programmes and for a wider public. The resource contains a video of Reg Revans, a copy of the Journal of Management Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, and a collection of articles about action learning. Uniquely it also contains a number of IMC's working documents and guidance notes on how to carry out action learning. It includes, for example, its own Set Adviser's guide, notes on completing learning logs, and various action learning instruments designed to facilitate diagnosis and action within organizations.

Action Learning News

The International Foundation for Action Learning provides for its members round the world a newsletter which provides information about action learning activities, short papers and articles and reviews of articles and books associated with action learning. (Membership available from IFAL, 46 Carlton Road, London SW14 7RJ.)

Forthcoming Books

Two books are due to be published in 1994, but have not appeared at the time of writing this review:

* (1) Frost, P. and Bourner, T., A Guide for Users and Participants

, McGraw-Hill.

* (2) Inglis, S., Making the Most of Action Learning, Gower.

References

1. Revans, R.W., Action Learning, Blond & Briggs, London, 1980.

2. Revans, R.W., The Origins and Growth of Action Learning, Chartwell Bratt, Bromley, 1982.

3. Mumford, A. (Ed.), "Action Learning Special Issue", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, 1987.

4. Pedler, M. (Ed.), Action Learning in Practice, 2nd ed., Gower, Aldershot, 1991.

5. McGill, I. and Beaty, L., Action Learning: A Practitioner's Guide, Kogan Page, London, 1992.

6. Lawrence, J., "Action Learning: A Questioning Approach" in Mumford, A. (Ed.), Handbook of Management Development, 3rd ed., Gower, Aldershot, 1991.

7. Morris, J., "Action Learning: The Long Haul", in Prior, J. (Ed.), Gower Handbook of Training and Development, Gower, Aldershot, 1991.

8. Morris, J., "Minding Our Ps and Qs", in Pedler, M. (Ed.), Action Learning in Practice, 2nd ed., Gower, Aldershot, 1991.

9. Smith, P., "Second Thoughts on Action Learning", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 12 No. 6, 1988.

10. Sutton, D., "Further Thoughts on Action Learning", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 13 No. 3, 1989.

11. Mumford, A., "Learning in Action", Personnel Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, July 1991.

12. Wallace, M., "Can Action Learning Live up to Its Reputation?", Management Education and Development, Vol. 21 No. 2, 1990.

13. Thorpe, R., "Alternative Theory of Management Education", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 14 No. 2, 1990.

14. McLaughlin, H. and Thorpe, R., "Action Learning: A Paradigm in Emergence", British Journal of Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, 1993.

15. Willmott, H. "Management Education: Provocations to a Debate", Management Learning, Vol. 25 No. 1, 1994.

16. Gosling, J. and Ashton, D., "Academic Learning and Academic Qualifications", Management Learning, Vol. 25 No. 2, 1994.

17. Raelin, J., "Whither Management Education?", Management Learning, Vol. 25 No. 2, 1994.

18. Ballantyne, R., Bruce, C. and Packer, J., "Action Learning in Vocational Education and Training", Theoretical Background, Vol. 1, TAFE National Staff Development Committee, December 1993.

19. Peters, J. (Ed.), "Customer First - the Independent Answer", Business Education, Vol. 9

No. 3/4, 1988.

20. Lawler, A., Productivity Improvement Manual, Gower, Aldershot, 1985.

21. Preston, A. P. and Biddle, G., "To Be or Not to Be?", International Journal of Career Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, 1994.

22. Prideaux, G., "Action Research, Organisation Change and Management Development", Australian Health Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, 1990.

23. Sutton, D., "Action Learning in Search of P", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 22 No. 1, 1990.

24. Thorpe, R., "An MSc by Action Learning: A Management Development Initiative by Higher Degree", Management Education and Development, Vol. 19 No. 1, 1988.

25. Pun, A., "Action Learning for Trainers' Development", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 14 No. 9, 1990.

26. Harrison, R., Miller, S. and Gibson, A., "Doctors in Management", Executive Development, Vol. 6 Nos 2 and 3, 1993.

27. Kable, J., "Management Development through Action Learning", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 8 No. 2, 1989.

28. Noel, J. L. and Charan, R., "Leadership and Development at GEs Crotonville", Human Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, 1988.

29. Froiland, P., "Action Learning: Taming Problems in Real Time", Training (USA), January 1994.

30. Beaty, L., Bourner, T. and Frost, P., "Action Learning: Reflections on Becoming a Set Member", Management Education and Development, Vol. 14 Part 4, 1993.

31. Mumford, A., How Managers Can Develop Managers, Gower, Aldershot, 1993.

32. Lewis, A., "Action Learning in Prudential Assurance", Management Bibliographies & Reviews, Vol. 20 Nos 6/7, 1994.

33. Weinstein, K., "Experiences of Action Learning: A Dialogue with Participants", Management Bibliographies & Reviews, Vol. 20 Nos 6/7, 1994.

34. Bunning, C., "Turning Experiences into Learning", Journal of Industrial Training, Vol. 16 No. 6, 1992.

35. Reid, M., "Action Learning: A Set within a Set", Training & Management Development Methods, Vol. 8, 1994.

36. Caie, B., "Learning in Style", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, 1987.

37. Mercer, J.R., "Action Learning: A Student's Perspective", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 22 No. 2, 1990.

38. Mead, M., "From Colleagues in Crisis to the Synergy of the Set", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 22 No. 1, 1990.

39. Bennett, R., "Effective Set Advising in Action Learning", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 14 No. 7, 1990.

40. Kozubska, J., "Role of the Set Adviser", Action Learning Resource, MCB University Press, Bradford, 1989.

41. Casey, D., "The Role of the Set Adviser and Breaking the Shell of Your Understanding", in Pedler, M. (Ed.), Action Learning in Practice, 2nd ed., Gower, Aldershot, 1991.

42. Donaghue, C., "Towards a Model Set Effectiveness", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 16 No. 1, 1992.

43. Smith, D.J., "Company-based Projects: Using Action Learning to Develop Consultancy Skills", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 11 No. 1, 1992.

44. Noel, J. and Charan, R., "GE Brings Global Thinking to Light", Training and Development (USA), July 1992.

45. Casey, D., Managing Learning in Organizations, Open University Press, Buckingham, 1993.

46. Braddick, W., "Learning Together: Practical Lessons in Partnership in Management Development", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 9 No. 4, 1990.

47. Cederholm, L., "Personal Development", Action Learning News, May 1993.

48. Vince, R. and Martin, L., "Inside Action Learning: An Exploration of the Psychology and Politics of the Action Learning Model", Management Education and Development, Vol. 24 No. 3, 1993.

49. Coates, J., "How People Learn on Management Courses", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 21 No. 2, 1989.

50. Marsick, V., Cederholm, L., Turner, E. and Pearson, T., "Action Reflection Learning", Training and Development (USA), August 1992.

51. Prideaux, G., "Making Action Learning More Effective", Training & Management Development Methods, Vol. 6, 1992.

52. Downham, T.A., Nowell, J. and Prendegast, A.E., "Executive Development", Human Resource Management, Vol. 31 Nos 1 and 2, 1992.

53. Lawrie, J., "Take Action to Change Performance", Personnel Journal, January 1984.

54. Adams, D. and Dixon, N.M., "Action Learning at Digital Equipment", in Pedler, M. (Ed.), Action Learning in Practice, 2nd ed., Gower, Aldershot, 1991.

55. Dixon, N.M., "Helping US Human Resource Professionals into Action Learning", in Pedler, M. (Ed.), Action Learning in Practice, 2nd ed., Gower, Aldershot, 1991.

56. Prideaux, G. and Ford, J.E., "Management Development: Competences, Contracts, Teams", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 7 No. 1, 1988.

57. Prideaux, G. and Ford, J.E., "Work-based Learning", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 7 No. 3, 1988.

58. Enderby, J.E. and Phelan, D.R., "Action Learning as the Foundation for Cultural Change", The Quality Magazine, February 1994.

59. Boisot, M., "Chinese Boxes and Learning Cubes: Action Learning in a Cross-cultural Context", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, 1987.

60. Boisot, M., "Action Learning with Chinese Characteristics: China - EEC Management Programme", Management Education and Development, Vol. 17 Part 2, 1986.

61. Jones, M.L., "Action Learning as a New Idea", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 9 No. 5, 1990.

62. Marsick, V., "Experience-based Learning: Executive Learning outside the Classroom", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 9 No. 4, 1990.

63. Valpolla, A., "Management Training at Wartsila", Executive Development, Vol. 2 No. 1, 1989.

64. Zuber-Skerritt, O., Professional Development in Higher Education: A Theoretical Framework for Action Research, Kogan Page, London, 1993.

65. Dixon, N., "Action Science and Learning New Skills", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 22 No. 4, 1990.

66. Codori, C., "Three Experiences with Action Learning: Audit Training Meets the Real World", Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, 1989.

67. Wills, G., Your Enterprise School of Management, MCB University Press, Bradford, 1993.

68. Dixon, N., The Organizational Learning Cycle, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, 1994.

69. Wills, G., "Managing Networking: The Design and Dynamics of IMC", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 15 No. 2, 1991.

70. Wills, G., "Enabling Managerial Growth and Succession", Management Decision, Vol. 30 No. 1, 1992.