Carter,
I really appreciate your response to my request. I know time is often at a
premium. I was wondering if you had any recommendations for additional
training or education around action learning other than the literature.
Again, thanks for the help.
-----Original Message-----
From: Carter McNamara [mailto:
mcnam007@TC.UMN.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 1999 10:05 AM
To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: action learning
Robinson, Gregory wrote:
> Does any one out there have any experience either as a participant or as a
> learning advisor in an action learning set? If so, I would like to invite
> your input. I have a client group that would like to know what is the
> difference in dynamics of a group that has 3 set members and one that has
4
> set members? The best practice literature on action learning suggests a
> minimum of 4 members. If you were limited to only three members, how what
> would you do to address the limitation of size? Thanks for the help.
There is a definite difference in dynamics between a set with 3 members
versus having 4 members. I've facilitated about 15 sets over the past
three years, and I direct an action learning program that has been
associated with about 50 sets over that time. In my experience (and I
hear from my facilitators) that sets need at least 4 members to be
effective -- ideally 6 members. I've seen cases where 2 of the members
to become close and detach from the 3rd member. Even with 4 members, the
range and depth of questions is much less robust then a set with 6
members. If a member of a 3-set group doesn't attend for whatever
reason, the meeting time can be completely wasted. I think the biggest
detriment of a 3-member set is that it becomes quite cozy, and does not
include the extent of probing questioning and supportive challenges to
support strong actions and growth. Obviously, the facilitator can try
overcome these detractions in a 3-member set, but it's a major,
continuing challenge.
Bottom line: If you're faced with having either a 3-member set or not
set at all, I'd have the 3-member set. But I'd:
a) take a strong facilitator role to have the group reflect on its
effective, including at the end of each meeting
b) consider anonymous evaluation input to you, e.g., have each member
provide you a one-page reflection on the quality of the group's process
(action learning purists and many others would react strongly against
this suggestion, I realize)
c) look for more members to integrate into the set
d) ensure each member regularly reports on what they want from the set
in each meeting, what they're going to do to get it
e) at the end of their time slot, do a quite roundtable where each
person reflects on the quality of the process during that time slot
I still think the action learning method is the most powerful,
straightforward technique I've seen for management development.
Unfortunately, it's so basic, straightforward and learner-driven that
many trainers and developers don't adopt the method.
--
======================================================================
Consultants -- Provide state-of-the-art problem solving
Associations -- Provide powerful local networks for immediate results
Trainers and Distance Learning Programs -- Enrich your courses and
workshops
Organization Members -- Get ongoing, highly focused advice anywhere in
the country
Low-risk solution: Leaders Circles --
http://www.mapnp.org/library/circles/ldrscrcl.htm
======================================================================
Free Nonprofit Managers' Library at
http://www.mapnp.org/library for
extensive, comprehensive and practical materials
======================================================================
Free, self-directed, results-oriented, 12-course management training
program at
http://www.mapnp.org/library/mgmnt/mba_prog.htm
======================================================================